China and our children. AIBU to be deeply concerned?

[Concerningalgorithms]

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?

Wow. I’ve been out for the night and just got back and logged in. Can’t believe you are still at it.

Wow. I’ve been to bed and just got up. And can’t believe you’re still at it.

This.

It's the failure of the UK/US to take this seriously far beyond Tik Tok.

Honestly, this evil-Chinese-agenda slant is problematic, OP. It's akin to calling Covid the Chinese virus. Look closer to home first and get angry at legislators here for not doing enough.

If you drive past a car crash on the other side of the motorway, most people look. It’s human nature.

No it really isn’t, I don’t. I get the curiosity but I don’t want to risk seeing something that I would regret. Not looking is my responsibility to myself.

You’re wrong there - instinct is too look because your brain knows there’s a threat and it’s your way of assessing the threat level to you. It’s not about looking at the crash specifically.

I agree on the China point but I’m curious - what do you think legislators should be doing?

Well, we agree on this Otherstories. 👍

I’ve answered already. I’ve given a couple of ideas here and there, and also said that the policy and legislation side are not my area of expertise.

I have explained to you why I don’t want to debate this with you further. I am not going to be drawn in.

Yes. I agree with your point about China and Covid. And the failure to take it seriously. I am not blaming China.

I was using the language of the original article in an hyperbolic way. It was done in an unthinking way and I’ve apologised for that up thread.

If you read what I have written though, you will see that I’m not blaming China. I’m critical of the Chinese government on lots of things. I don’t like that they have explicitly said they want world domination, that they have on numerous occasions flexed their military muscles in a provocative way and their human rights abuses are very clear. I don’t blame them for that. History shows us doing that for years. I don’t like it though and think we should be doing more (not militaristically) to improve our economic and political standing but that’s another thread. I also am critical of our Government.

My point about China is that they are protecting their children better than us (although as has been pointed out may be not necessarily as their more protective algorithms are for a younger version that we don’t have). I saw the article and it got me thinking.

Its a two pronged concern I have;

• the effect of addictive SM, games and apps on us all, but particularly on the developing brains of children and that we don’t seem to be doing enough and you can’t rely on parents wholly.
• the fact that if our kids grow up less motivated, less able and skilled than other countries whose explicit aim is domination, we are asleep at the wheel. We need our kids to be developing to their full potential not just for them, but for the future.

The article just got me thinking about the two things together. Even if China are deliberately dumbing down the worlds children whilst boosting theirs, the UK can’t complain really as we have our own history with similar (opium wars). We could chose to do more though to boost our own population. Not in the same way as China of course but in other ways.

This has lead on to an interesting side question about social control. I agree with freedom of choice and wouldn’t want a totalitarian state but I also see legislation in other areas that help to protect our wellbeing so I think it’s possible to go further without restricting freedom. I am not a policy maker or legislator though so not my area of expertise.

I don’t have the answers. Just concern and questions.

I wasn’t asking you. Hence I quoted @KeepYaHeadUp and asked them. I’m aware you don’t have any suggestions.

“I also see legislation in other areas that help to protect our wellbeing so I think it’s possible to go further without restricting freedom”.

what legislation?

I have said I don’t want to engage with you and stated the reasons why.

Oooops. My bad. Apologies. You can see why I might have slipped up here given your dogged pursuit of a ding dong with me.

Yet you continued to engage with me! And don’t say you didn’t. You did. Advising you agreed with me. Responding to a comment not addressed to you etc.

You don’t want to engage because you cannot answer. It’s really that simple. You keep saying we should legislate phones like other things but we do as I’ve clearly explained.

Yet you keep engaging, just refusing to actually engage in the discussion.

You keep saying legislate like we do with other things, which I’ve explained we already do. It’s a perfectly reasonable and logical question I’m asking here, you want to legislate so I’m asking how. What enhanced legislation do you want to see?

And before you replying saying you don’t want to engage, that is engaging. It’s just refusing to actually discuss the thing that matters in the context of this thread.

Hardly. You’re the one who’s been personal and dished out insults. I’ve stayed on topic.

Apologies for replying to a post you aimed at someone else. It’s pretty obvious why I might have made that mistake. It means nothing though Colin. We are over! Move on with your life.

You were incredibly rude to me first.

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…

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.