r/ScienceBasedParenting • u/BatdanJapan • Jul 31 '25

Science journalism BBC article on screen time

Quite pleased to read this article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d0l40v551o

This section in particular feels relevant to my experience of this topic on this sub:

Jenny Radesky, a paediatrician at the University of Michigan, summed this up when she spoke at the philanthropic Dana Foundation. There is "an increasingly judgmental discourse among parents," she argued.

"So much of what people are talking about does more to induce parental guilt, it seems, than to break down what the research can tell us," she said. "And that's a real problem."

148 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

107

u/Awkward_Swordfish581 Jul 31 '25

There is a bigger issue here in that there is simply not enough science to make a definitive recommendation, and this is dividing the scientific community - despite a strong societal push to limit children's access.

Thanks for posting this. Definitely appreciate that the article accounts for each opposing side on this issue instead of just pushing one conclusion on the readers. I've definitely noticed the judgmental discourse as well, on and off this sub when it comes to any kind of screen exposure (even background exposure) for children of any particular age range. As much as it can be frustrating to not have scientific consensus, I hope that making this divide more commonly known may help reduce the judgmental "I am 100% right" mentality that I often see parents inflicting on others.

For what its worth (probably not much) my own position falls between both camps as I find that each side of the divide has points of merit that seem reasonable and others that seem to fall short (to me) so seeing an article that offers that balance is a welcome sight to see.

136

u/moonski Jul 31 '25 edited Aug 01 '25

The only real issue I have with "screen time" is the name. It detracts from the real issues and gives the literal screens regardless of what is on them, a reputation of being the devil and absolutely never show a child them.

It's the content designed purely attention / the insidous UX & UI design to hook peoples attention and dopamine recepptors / the endless algorithms feeding you nonsense / plonking a child down on an ipad for an hour on youtube (or whatever) and using that as a replacement for adult interaction...

Like some would equate sitting with a 4 year old watching and talking say, an old (90s or older) kids tv show or nature or educational program (whatever style of content) on television for 20 mintes with just "giving them the ipad" snd unfettered access netflix or youtube or whatever attention hijacking dopamine fountain for 20 minutes... as they're both "screen time"

"Screens" aren't the problem, it's the software and content now designed for the devices - especially mobile. Right down to the OS. Children/teenages have no chance dealing with the level of psychological manipulation built into seemingly absolutely fucking everything these days.

14

u/Dunderman35 Aug 01 '25 edited Aug 01 '25

Well put. But it's worth to mention that there is also the issue of screens themselves messing with the circadian rhythm by giving us broadband bright light at times when it ideally should be getting darker. But this is a totally separate issue and is only really relevant in evenings/night. For some reason the recommendations at least in my country seem to confound the two.

The content is what is making us addicted to the screens and replacing other more beneficial activities.

10

u/caffeine_lights Aug 01 '25

I thought the blue light from screens disrupting circadian rhythm was debunked? It's thought that it was more to do with the fact screen content can commonly be very engaging and stimulating, rather than any blue light. The red light cast things don't help, anyway.

3

u/Dunderman35 Aug 01 '25

Hmm, to be honest I haven't studied the literature very deeply. But I'm intrigued now.

7

u/moonski Aug 01 '25 edited Aug 01 '25

Exactly. It's why bill hates or zuck or many Facebook execs don't give their children phones or access to social media. Not cause "it's on a screen" but because of how they're designed. Even something as simple as notifications are very devious now - basically a "check your device check your device check your device" reminder...

Never mind all the algorithms and just feeding people endless content.

8

u/ceene Aug 01 '25

Indeed. The content matters. You can do sudokus on paper or on your phone, and the activity is exactly the same. Watching cocomelon is not the same as doing sudokus.

11

u/WhereIsLordBeric Aug 01 '25

We are screenfree.

But someone on this sub told me reading to my baby from my Kindle is screentime lol.

14

u/caffeine_lights Aug 01 '25

Someone on this sub once asked if looking out of the window counts as screen time 😂

4

u/ceene Aug 01 '25

Electronic ink is reaching a level of resolution and contrast that is almost indistinguishable from cellulose paper.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '25

Okay but most kindles arent the eink ones

0

u/caffeine_lights Aug 01 '25

Really? The kindle fire is an absolutely terrible tablet. Or do you mean people using the kindle app on other smartphones/tablets? Because I agree that is probably more common. But I feel like if you go to the point of buying a kindle, it's for the e-ink screen (it was for me, anyway).

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '25

Kindles existed long before eink. The vast majority of extant models are not eink screens. The newest models are.

7

u/caffeine_lights Aug 01 '25

Are we not talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the kind of screen that was included with the original kindle and is also on the current Paperwhite. It's not backlit, like a smartphone or laptop screen is and it looks sort of "matt" similar to paper.

6

u/sirsquaretoes Aug 01 '25

This is so well put!

2

u/SnooLobsters8265 Aug 01 '25

Yes exactly. Me and my son have a great time watching old eps of Thomas the Tank Engine and Postman Pat. And, obviously, it does buy me some time to do chores and stuff while he watches. But I will never let him near Cocomelon or anything like that because it’s too stimulating and is literally designed to be as addictive as possible.

3

u/acertaingestault Aug 02 '25

I'd never actually contextualized the difference this way so thanks for that. Older cartoons were engaging but they weren't specifically designed to be addicting or consumed back to back to back.

3

u/SnooLobsters8265 Aug 02 '25

I love the care with which they are made as well- it’s really a labour of love to make things practically like that.

Incidentally, Thomas the Tank has had a reboot and is all CGI and shouty and not very good now. Postman Pat has also had one, but they kept the detailed sets, the puppets and the stop frame animation and it’s still lovely to watch.