Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

China and our children. AIBU to be deeply concerned?

420 replies

Concerningalgorithms · 02/04/2024 07:39

I read this article and am so concerned. So many of our kids are on TT.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/25/china-is-hurting-us-kids-with-tiktok-but-protecting-its-own/amp/

Basically, TT and other SM have the same effect on our brain as addictive substances such as heroine. Developers know this and create highly addictive (make use of our knowledge of the reward centre in our brain), apps/platforms/games that leave us with dopamine crashes when we can’t have it. So that tantrum or meltdown when we say ‘turn screens off now’ is partly, if not mostly, to do with that, is one example.

The article above says that China use different algorithms there for TT so it is helpful for children’s development. They are peddling addictive, concentration lowering crap to children around the world, but protecting their own children.

Why are we allowing this? Why are we not protecting our children too? The science is there.

And AIBU to think that we are at risk, as a country, of raising a generation that will be less well adapted and more vulnerable in the future to a hostile take over?

China is hurting our kids with TikTok but protecting its own youth with Douyin

TikTok is burrowing into the devices — and the brains — of teens and tweens around the world. But, as the app’s Beijing-based parent company Bytedance is aggressively exporting the social media equ…

https://nypost.com/2023/02/25/china-is-hurting-us-kids-with-tiktok-but-protecting-its-own/amp/

OP posts:
Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 16:03

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 15:21

I’m not suggesting it will ‘solve’ it. You can’t eliminate harm and risk but you can minimise it and ensure companies are more responsible. Cigarettes have gone from being recommended by doctors to hidden away with graphic warnings of the risks on the packet, for example. It took a long time because of vested interests in making profit denying and minimising the science. We are at that stage now with tech, I think.

Edited
Show quote history

They had to do that with citgarettes precisely because there were decades of recommendations. The narrative had to be reversed. But as discussed earlier the legalisation around cigarettes is as strict as the legislation around phones. In addition the health risks associated with cigarettes are well evidenced and researched. That isn’t true for smart phones or social media. Also cigarettes, alcohol, all those things come with zero benefits. That isn’t true for social media or smart phones. So even though it as strict legislation wise there is only so far they can go.

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 16:01

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 15:16

An example of using the neuroscience for helpful purposes rather than purely for profit. An example of thinking about the best thing for the end user as well as profit. I know someone who is part of the tech side for them. It’s what originally made me think that the neuroscience knowledge could be used much more for good than it currently is.

Show quote history

Sorry I’ve not understood. What is monzo doing that relates to the thread?

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 15:21

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 13:43

Other than the entire history of the human race involves engaging in harmful activities. Legislating doesn’t solve it.

Show quote history

I’m not suggesting it will ‘solve’ it. You can’t eliminate harm and risk but you can minimise it and ensure companies are more responsible. Cigarettes have gone from being recommended by doctors to hidden away with graphic warnings of the risks on the packet, for example. It took a long time because of vested interests in making profit denying and minimising the science. We are at that stage now with tech, I think.

OP posts:
Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 15:18

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 13:43

Other than the entire history of the human race involves engaging in harmful activities. Legislating doesn’t solve it.

Show quote history

See. You are not interested in a debate. You just want a ding dong.

Are you saying that legislation around cigarette advertising has had no impact?

OP posts:
Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 15:16

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 13:59

Monzo?

Show quote history

An example of using the neuroscience for helpful purposes rather than purely for profit. An example of thinking about the best thing for the end user as well as profit. I know someone who is part of the tech side for them. It’s what originally made me think that the neuroscience knowledge could be used much more for good than it currently is.

OP posts:
Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 13:59

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 13:15

As I have said. I don’t know. I’m not the expert. I just think we are not doing enough. I see the evidence.

My view is we should use neuroscience to improve our health and well-being and the development of our children to guide regulation of harmful industries, as much as they use it ensure we stay engaged and become, to varying degrees, addicted.

Monzo and Pinterest are pretty good examples.

Most won’t unless directed. It then comes down to politics.

Edited
Show quote history

Monzo?

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 13:43

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 13:15

As I have said. I don’t know. I’m not the expert. I just think we are not doing enough. I see the evidence.

My view is we should use neuroscience to improve our health and well-being and the development of our children to guide regulation of harmful industries, as much as they use it ensure we stay engaged and become, to varying degrees, addicted.

Monzo and Pinterest are pretty good examples.

Most won’t unless directed. It then comes down to politics.

Edited
Show quote history

Other than the entire history of the human race involves engaging in harmful activities. Legislating doesn’t solve it.

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 13:15

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 13:08

But what more? I’m not being disingenuous here. What more could they do?

Show quote history

As I have said. I don’t know. I’m not the expert. I just think we are not doing enough. I see the evidence.

My view is we should use neuroscience to improve our health and well-being and the development of our children to guide regulation of harmful industries, as much as they use it ensure we stay engaged and become, to varying degrees, addicted.

Monzo and Pinterest are pretty good examples.

Most won’t unless directed. It then comes down to politics.

OP posts:
Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 13:08

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 12:51

So you are so interested in my view, even though on numerous occasions I’ve said that I don’t have the solutions, that you won’t let it lie. That’s more than just interest. I’m just a random on the internet. So why is it so important to you that you have tried so hard to make me say more in it?

I don’t believe we are doing as well as we can with this, you don’t think there is more we can do, it’s been done.

Let’s just agree to disagree. Free the bee.

Show quote history

But what more? I’m not being disingenuous here. What more could they do?

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 12:54

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines. at the request of it's author.

True, but the parents I work with don’t understand the risks. It’s not well known. Largely because it’s a new area of science (relatively speaking). Any legislation in my mind would be around more regulation of the apps/games/SM themselves. It’s the old individual versus corporate responsibility. There are parallel issues with UPF and vaping. I don’t know the answers. I just feel we need to do more from the damage I see in clinic.

OP posts:
Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 12:51

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 12:36

Agrees with what? I haven’t said anything that you can disagree with? I’m asking what more you would do because I’m interested. It’s very easy to criticise an approach, less easy to come up with actual solutions. I think what you’re possibly missing is that there isn’t a solution. Because the onus is on parents.

Show quote history

So you are so interested in my view, even though on numerous occasions I’ve said that I don’t have the solutions, that you won’t let it lie. That’s more than just interest. I’m just a random on the internet. So why is it so important to you that you have tried so hard to make me say more in it?

I don’t believe we are doing as well as we can with this, you don’t think there is more we can do, it’s been done.

Let’s just agree to disagree. Free the bee.

OP posts:
Longma · 06/04/2024 12:48

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines. at the request of it's author.

Longma · 06/04/2024 12:39

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines. at the request of it's author.

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 12:36

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 12:32

Why does it matter to you? You still haven’t answered. I’m not going to get into a debate around legislation as it’s not my area of expertise but we do have legislation around the health and well-being and development of the nation. We have incredibly complex legislation around data protection.

But, why does it matter to you so much whether a random person on the internet agrees with you or not?

Show quote history

Agrees with what? I haven’t said anything that you can disagree with? I’m asking what more you would do because I’m interested. It’s very easy to criticise an approach, less easy to come up with actual solutions. I think what you’re possibly missing is that there isn’t a solution. Because the onus is on parents.

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 12:32

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 12:23

Because you said they should legislate like they do with gambling etc. I’ve explained that they do. So are you happy now or do you think that actually your original proposal isn’t enough? And if more, what?

Show quote history

Why does it matter to you? You still haven’t answered. I’m not going to get into a debate around legislation as it’s not my area of expertise but we do have legislation around the health and well-being and development of the nation. We have incredibly complex legislation around data protection.

But, why does it matter to you so much whether a random person on the internet agrees with you or not?

OP posts:
Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 12:23

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 12:21

I’m not asking why you asked the question. I understand that. I’m asking why it matters so much to you that I answer it. Especially when I’ve been clear that I don’t have the answers. Just concern and questions.

Show quote history

Because you said they should legislate like they do with gambling etc. I’ve explained that they do. So are you happy now or do you think that actually your original proposal isn’t enough? And if more, what?

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 12:21

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 12:02

One of the things you suggested was the government should do more to legislate like we do in other areas. But the rules around this are as strict - or stricter - than the areas you used as examples. The logical follow up question is going to be what should they do when they’re already stricter. What more can they do?

Show quote history

I’m not asking why you asked the question. I understand that. I’m asking why it matters so much to you that I answer it. Especially when I’ve been clear that I don’t have the answers. Just concern and questions.

OP posts:
Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 12:02

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 11:52

Why do you need me to answer? Why so important to you? It’s not my job to solve the issue. I’m just raising my concern from MY perspective.

Show quote history

One of the things you suggested was the government should do more to legislate like we do in other areas. But the rules around this are as strict - or stricter - than the areas you used as examples. The logical follow up question is going to be what should they do when they’re already stricter. What more can they do?

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 11:56

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 11:51

It is a pointless conversation if you can’t understand why a contract to gamble is not the same as a social media account. That’s not rude. That is a statement of fact. The petal remark was rude and entirely unnecessary.

Show quote history

You were patronising so I pointed this out and added in my own patronising statement. You fired the first shot. Or do you think this is a good way to persuade someone to your way of thinking. You were rude and patronising. I’ve matched you.

OP posts:
Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 11:52

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 11:50

You haven’t answered. Anywhere. I’ve checked repeatedly. You have said we should legislate like we do other areas. I’ve clearly explained that we do legislate. In fact the legislation around phones is arguably stricter. So I’ve asked you what extra you would do. At no point have you answered that very clear question.

Please do show me if you have and despite revisiting pages of posts I’ve managed to miss it several times, I’m happy to be shown otherwise.

Show quote history

Why do you need me to answer? Why so important to you? It’s not my job to solve the issue. I’m just raising my concern from MY perspective.

OP posts:
Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 11:51

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 11:34

The first shots were indeed slung by you. You reap what you sow. The Colin link was someone else’s and I’ve capitalised on it, but if the cap fits…

Show quote history

It is a pointless conversation if you can’t understand why a contract to gamble is not the same as a social media account. That’s not rude. That is a statement of fact. The petal remark was rude and entirely unnecessary.

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 11:51

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 11:48

And this is where the rudeness started “good job petal”. You. Not me.

Show quote history

“If you don’t have a basic understanding of why they are different this is a pointless conversation.”
😊

OP posts:
Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 11:50

Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 11:48

I’ve just shown the quotes that prove that you were indeed rude first.

The question you have asked me, I have answered. I have also said it’s not my area of expertise and not my job to find the solutions.

If you genuinely wanted a discussion, you went about it in a very odd way.

You seem really angry about it all but may be that’s just me assuming from the way you write.

I’ve said that we can just agree to disagree. I’m happy enough with that. You don’t think improvements can be made in the legislative and policy arena on this matter, I do think we can and should do better. That’s OK. We don’t have to agree.

Show quote history

You haven’t answered. Anywhere. I’ve checked repeatedly. You have said we should legislate like we do other areas. I’ve clearly explained that we do legislate. In fact the legislation around phones is arguably stricter. So I’ve asked you what extra you would do. At no point have you answered that very clear question.

Please do show me if you have and despite revisiting pages of posts I’ve managed to miss it several times, I’m happy to be shown otherwise.

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 11:48

Concerningalgorithms · 02/04/2024 22:39

There is no need to be patronising. I don’t see what your point is. It makes no difference to my point which is;

SM is addictive.
I see kids as part of work who are addicted and falling behind.
I’m concerned about the impact on children’s development
I notice China have changed TT algorithms and structure to protect children.
I doubt that’s a child centred decision and more likely to be strategic.
I have read about China’s military posturing, data mining and espionage over the last few years and their explicit plan for domination.
I am concerned for our kids development for them and for our ability to hold our own in the global economy.
I am surprised we aren’t more worried as a nation.
I am not sure what the answer is but legislation similar to the limits put on cigarettes and gambling seem sensible.
I like that China has a TT app that is for under 14s that limits time, nudges towards helpful content and switches off at night. I can’t see why we can’t have legislation that goes further towards protecting children’s development for their sake and for the sake of our future.

What, please tell me, has to do with contract law - something I’m unfamiliar with and quite frankly don’t care about. But well done you for knowing all about it. Good job petal!

Show quote history

And this is where the rudeness started “good job petal”. You. Not me.

Original poster
Concerningalgorithms · 06/04/2024 11:48

Otherstories2002 · 06/04/2024 11:40

They absolutely were not. I was not rude to you and I’m not being drawn into a personal tit for tat.

I have remained on topic throughout. The reality is you cannot respond on topic because you’ve been challenged. Throughout the thread you’ve repeated the same trope and as soon as you’re challenged you shut down.

Show quote history

I’ve just shown the quotes that prove that you were indeed rude first.

The question you have asked me, I have answered. I have also said it’s not my area of expertise and not my job to find the solutions.

If you genuinely wanted a discussion, you went about it in a very odd way.

You seem really angry about it all but may be that’s just me assuming from the way you write.

I’ve said that we can just agree to disagree. I’m happy enough with that. You don’t think improvements can be made in the legislative and policy arena on this matter, I do think we can and should do better. That’s OK. We don’t have to agree.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread