Who knew: watching your child doing meth will still get them hooked on doing meta. (Not sure why autocorrect changes it to meta but I’m leaving it)
“Don’t do meta, kids.”
It’s teaching them what’s good to consume or not and how to tell the difference by themselves that’s important. Teching them how to think basically. So parenting. Not watching them, not spying on them asking “why that site”. Parental control filters only work for so long, but they help. My experience using parental control however to limit screen time only is that it only taught our kid to absolutely completely use whatever screentime she had. So kind of addicted. But, now she’s a teenager very good at telling what’s toxic. For the little story for the past 9 years i’ve been a remote cybersecurity engineer. She practically grew up with me in the next room working on 5 screens at once, there was no escaping it. But, I was always around so we always talked. It helps!
“Well if you are going to do drugs, I’d rather you do them in my house,” says the cool mom who only wants her kid to drink (Meta use) at home.
In related news, children of smokers more likely to smoke.
That analogy makes no sense for this situation.
It sure does
I don’t understand how it correlates. The article isn’t saying that children of parents who use social media are more likely to be addicted to social media, it’s saying that parental controls aren’t helping stop social media addiction in children. So how does that smoker analogy make sense?
I can’t imagine how “parental supervision” could exist without understanding how to use what they are supervising.
You don’t need to know how to use social media to set up the Apple parental controls that put time restrictions on certain apps.
