Was it worth it ?

Gothic Image said

ANDY00 said

This is the crux of it. Subconsciousness is not written randomly like in the 70s and 80s. It's written deliberately with malice and kids are forced into groups by glorifying each group. It's heart breaking as a parent to watch those things happening to my kids and their friends all the time, from school to internet.

The random interaction without physical clues is another problem for the kids. They just can't use intuition or 6th sense to smell danger. 

Which is the reason for the question, because I’m certainly, to be honest, seeing more positives to being without it and definitely more safety. The Amish communities have no internet or electricity and are much more community-based. They have 65% fewer assaults than the whole of the U.S., 90% fewer murders, 80% less theft, and drug and alcohol use is under 1%. As a close-knit community, depression is far lower than in the rest of the country, almost nonexistent. Studies have also shown they have much lower rates of cancer, likely due to the fact they aren’t eating fast food, smoking, or drinking. Without the internet, their children don’t even think about it. if i was young and raising kids again i would be very worried for what they are axposed to on the internet now.

I have to disagree with you about the value of the WWW and the Internet in general, I think they have been overwhelmingly positive.  On the other hand, social media has an awful lot to answer for and I don't think that we fully appreciate its effect even now.

I remember a time when you could stand in a phone box and call a friend with 2 pences, nowadays you have your own mobile phonebox and sms, email, whatsapp a typed message to save you time chatting. I've seen couples out for a meal on their phones all night rather than chatting to each other. The internet, www and social media is just another adiction, we listen to music, play films, order grocery, furniture, holidays, clothes etc etc without even leaving our homes. We use social media to see how friends and family are, god forbid we ring them or call around to see how they are. The world is becoming reclusive, people will be unable to socialise without their keyboards in the future, maybe 50, 100 or 200 years, if !!!!

WHat will be left in 10 -20 years time? No print publications newspapers,magazines, TV programmes as they currently are may cease to be. Only shops left will be supermarkets possibly?

JMPIX said

WHat will be left in 10 -20 years time? No print publications newspapers,magazines, TV programmes as they currently are may cease to be. Only shops left will be supermarkets possibly?

I very much doubt supermarkets will be a thing, to be honest. For one, we are on our way to becoming a third-world economy, but perhaps more importantly, supermarkets are already losing massive profits to people ordering online. Services like HelloFresh and various local net-to-door options are on the rise. Local shops now offer cheap deliveries as well, giving people even more reasons not to leave the house or have to talk to anyone.

But not before supermarket chains have completely decimated farmers, as they have been doing for the last two decades. Another example of how the internet has affected even the countryside: we import things we can easily grow here while actually paying farmers not to grow anything, because the government has made deals with other countries to buy from them. It's madness.

This post has been filtered based on your content filter settings because it is NSFW. View reply

It's just a tool and used carefully it's OK. I choose not to have a smartphone so that when I'm out of the house, I'm also away from the internet. I don't feel I'm missing out on anything important.

I try to limit my phone usage it's hard!

I used to tag myself everywhere when i was in my early 20s now i can't be bothered to or i forget. A bit of privacy isn't a bad thing.

I've become lazy on my personal social but on the model one obviously i need to keep posting images.

On a day out if im quite busy, i can quite happily go without looking at my phone for most of the day.

Edited by Zara_Lee

priceb61 said

It's just a tool and used carefully it's OK. I choose not to have a smartphone so that when I'm out of the house, I'm also away from the internet. I don't feel I'm missing out on anything important.

Same here. 

I'm fortunate in that I don't need to be online 24/7 for work purposes. So I'm happy with my ancient 2G non-smartphone. When 2G ceases next year I'll need to change my phone, but I plan to stick with non-smart. When I'm out and about I want to enjoy being out and about, rather than doing similar stuff to what I do on the desk machine at home.

Full marks to you Mr.Price.  

Gothic Image said

Gwenny said

This is such a complex topic, and I can see both sides. On one hand, the internet has undeniably changed the world in ways that were unimaginable even a few decades ago. The ability to access knowledge, create communities, and innovate at such a scale has been a monumental advancement for society. It has given rise to countless opportunities that simply didn’t exist before—whether in business, education, healthcare, or even in fostering global social movements. In that sense, Bowie was right—it was revolutionary.

But then, Bowie’s other perspective, calling it a "monster," also rings true. The internet has accelerated the pace of life, disrupted traditional industries, and fundamentally altered how we interact with each other. The sense of social disconnection in a hyper-connected world is real. The internet encourages surface-level engagement, and the anonymity it offers can bring out the worst in human behavior. The toll on mental health, especially among younger generations, is deeply concerning.

In the end, it's a double-edged sword. The internet has brought both immense good and significant harm, and whether it's worth the trade-offs might depend on how we, as individuals and society, choose to use and regulate it. I think the answer isn’t clear-cut—it’s more about finding balance, acknowledging the risks while maximizing the benefits.

I agree, there's a lot of "we do this, we do that" in this thread, but the Internet and WWW are only tools for us to make use of as we think fit. If you want to wander around glued to your 'phone and ignore normal social interaction, that's a personal choice.  If you feel the need to perpetually check your likes or ratings, that's another personal choice. No-one is making you do it.

Gothic Image said

Gwenny said

This is such a complex topic, and I can see both sides. On one hand, the internet has undeniably changed the world in ways that were unimaginable even a few decades ago. The ability to access knowledge, create communities, and innovate at such a scale has been a monumental advancement for society. It has given rise to countless opportunities that simply didn’t exist before—whether in business, education, healthcare, or even in fostering global social movements. In that sense, Bowie was right—it was revolutionary.

But then, Bowie’s other perspective, calling it a "monster," also rings true. The internet has accelerated the pace of life, disrupted traditional industries, and fundamentally altered how we interact with each other. The sense of social disconnection in a hyper-connected world is real. The internet encourages surface-level engagement, and the anonymity it offers can bring out the worst in human behavior. The toll on mental health, especially among younger generations, is deeply concerning.

In the end, it's a double-edged sword. The internet has brought both immense good and significant harm, and whether it's worth the trade-offs might depend on how we, as individuals and society, choose to use and regulate it. I think the answer isn’t clear-cut—it’s more about finding balance, acknowledging the risks while maximizing the benefits.

I agree, there's a lot of "we do this, we do that" in this thread, but the Internet and WWW are only tools for us to make use of as we think fit. If you want to wander around glued to your 'phone and ignore normal social interaction, that's a personal choice.  If you feel the need to perpetually check your likes or ratings, that's another personal choice. No-one is making you do it.

Indeed, "we" actually means "some people". It's a phrase often used in the media to try to make people interested in something that previously they couldn't care less about.

ANDY00 said

Theta Aeterna said

ANDY00 said

Stu H said

Many of us that grew up in the 70s and 80s weren't at home simply to get away from our parents.

Many of us - if faced with the same choices as a kid then, that kids have now - would absolutely be locked in our bedroom on the PC, games console, phone etc. We just didn't have the same distractions.

We used to play in the streets - football, kerby, kick the post, bulldog, hopscotch, skipping etc - but that's because we *could*.

Private cars were an expensive luxury and in the 70s / early 80s, alternatively travel was available.

LDNs have been created to enable safe environments to get kids back in the streets - and what's happened? People still drive their cars through them; they set fire to planters, rip out bollards, pull down cameras ... just so they can drive their car. So what if a group of kids want to play without getting interrupted every few seconds.

Faced with that kind of choice ... most kids are going to go the path of least resistance and stay indoors.

As for communication between kids... I can't remember a deep meaningful conversation with my best friend ... certainly not about the abuse I was getting at home [not that it was considered abuse in the 70s], or that I thought I was gay [which I did for a while], or even that I felt that something was wrong, and that I was different [it was, and I was. I had undiagnosed PTSD from an early age, that led to a full scale nervous breakdown and an evening with a bottle of vodka, Pink Floyd's The Wall, and a very sharp knife]

The Internet is just a complex part in the jigsaw puzzle that is moden life... and like it or not, it's *our* fault that kids want to escape.

You were confused, sure, like all kids are at some point. But now, with social media and the internet, kids who feel unsure about who they are get pushed into these categories so quickly. They might end up on hormone replacement therapy, or worse, go through a full transition and regret it later in life. It’s like they’re being pressured into making huge, life-changing decisions when they’re still figuring things out.

On top of that, apps like Snapchat and Facebook Messenger are breeding grounds for people to coerce kids into sending images or talking to strangers they wouldn’t normally approach in real life. We allow the internet to track our phones, and with the way kids upload constant updates and images, it’s way too easy for anyone to know exactly where they are almost all of the time.

When we were kids, we spent most of our time outside, and everyone in the neighborhood knew who we were, both kids and adults. If a strange car or person was talking to you, the whole neighborhood would be aware of it. But now, if you see a kid talking to someone in the street, whether on foot or in a car, chances are you won’t recognize the kid, the car, or give it a second thought.

This is the crux of it. Subconsciousness is not written randomly like in the 70s and 80s. It's written deliberately with malice and kids are forced into groups by glorifying each group. It's heart breaking as a parent to watch those things happening to my kids and their friends all the time, from school to internet.

The random interaction without physical clues is another problem for the kids. They just can't use intuition or 6th sense to smell danger. 

Which is the reason for the question, because I’m certainly, to be honest, seeing more positives to being without it and definitely more safety. The Amish communities have no internet or electricity and are much more community-based. They have 65% fewer assaults than the whole of the U.S., 90% fewer murders, 80% less theft, and drug and alcohol use is under 1%. As a close-knit community, depression is far lower than in the rest of the country, almost nonexistent. Studies have also shown they have much lower rates of cancer, likely due to the fact they aren’t eating fast food, smoking, or drinking. Without the internet, their children don’t even think about it. if i was young and raising kids again i would be very worried for what they are axposed to on the internet now.

Google is an excellent tool.

https://salomafurlong.com/aboutamish/2022/10/how-prevalent-is-sexual-abuse-among-the-amish/

https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/01/14/amish-sexual-abuse-assault/

Huw said Google is an excellent tool.

https://salomafurlong.com/aboutamish/2022/10/how-prevalent-is-sexual-abuse-among-the-amish/

https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/01/14/amish-sexual-abuse-assault/

Indeed, that's where I got the percentages, although I don't believe I mentioned family abuse for the very reason stated in what you found. Because they keep to themselves, it's almost impossible to know how much or what happens inside each family unit. I merely picked the Amish as a sample because they, as a community, do not use modern technology like the internet and are still thriving. There are other small groups out there, like a small tribe in India, but even less is known about them.

Of course, you’ve got to remember the Amish are a small group compared to the whole of the USA, and sure, you see a lot more violence in the rest of the country. But hey, given the choice between living with an Amish family or in a Bronx ghetto, I think it’s pretty clear which one’s safer — and I don’t even live there. Google is your friend though :-P

Communities like the Amish, who live without the internet or modern technology, are better off in so many ways. They’ve got strong social connections, because they focus on real, face-to-face interaction instead of being glued to screens. They’ve managed to keep their traditions alive, which gives them a solid sense of identity and purpose. Without the endless distractions and pressures from the online world, they have far fewer issues like anxiety or depression tied to social media. Their focus on farming and craftsmanship makes them self-sufficient, thriving within their own economy without relying on the outside world. It’s no wonder they’re more stable and resilient overall.

Let’s be honest, how many times do you see your friends and family in a week? All of them? I know for me personally, it’s a lot less than it should be. The only times I see all of my family are for weddings or funerals, which makes me sad—usually at the funerals. The Amish have that part right; their families are together every day.

Edited by ANDY00

priceb61 said

Gothic Image said

Gwenny said

This is such a complex topic, and I can see both sides. On one hand, the internet has undeniably changed the world in ways that were unimaginable even a few decades ago. The ability to access knowledge, create communities, and innovate at such a scale has been a monumental advancement for society. It has given rise to countless opportunities that simply didn’t exist before—whether in business, education, healthcare, or even in fostering global social movements. In that sense, Bowie was right—it was revolutionary.

But then, Bowie’s other perspective, calling it a "monster," also rings true. The internet has accelerated the pace of life, disrupted traditional industries, and fundamentally altered how we interact with each other. The sense of social disconnection in a hyper-connected world is real. The internet encourages surface-level engagement, and the anonymity it offers can bring out the worst in human behavior. The toll on mental health, especially among younger generations, is deeply concerning.

In the end, it's a double-edged sword. The internet has brought both immense good and significant harm, and whether it's worth the trade-offs might depend on how we, as individuals and society, choose to use and regulate it. I think the answer isn’t clear-cut—it’s more about finding balance, acknowledging the risks while maximizing the benefits.

I agree, there's a lot of "we do this, we do that" in this thread, but the Internet and WWW are only tools for us to make use of as we think fit. If you want to wander around glued to your 'phone and ignore normal social interaction, that's a personal choice.  If you feel the need to perpetually check your likes or ratings, that's another personal choice. No-one is making you do it.

Gothic Image said

Gwenny said

This is such a complex topic, and I can see both sides. On one hand, the internet has undeniably changed the world in ways that were unimaginable even a few decades ago. The ability to access knowledge, create communities, and innovate at such a scale has been a monumental advancement for society. It has given rise to countless opportunities that simply didn’t exist before—whether in business, education, healthcare, or even in fostering global social movements. In that sense, Bowie was right—it was revolutionary.

But then, Bowie’s other perspective, calling it a "monster," also rings true. The internet has accelerated the pace of life, disrupted traditional industries, and fundamentally altered how we interact with each other. The sense of social disconnection in a hyper-connected world is real. The internet encourages surface-level engagement, and the anonymity it offers can bring out the worst in human behavior. The toll on mental health, especially among younger generations, is deeply concerning.

In the end, it's a double-edged sword. The internet has brought both immense good and significant harm, and whether it's worth the trade-offs might depend on how we, as individuals and society, choose to use and regulate it. I think the answer isn’t clear-cut—it’s more about finding balance, acknowledging the risks while maximizing the benefits.

I agree, there's a lot of "we do this, we do that" in this thread, but the Internet and WWW are only tools for us to make use of as we think fit. If you want to wander around glued to your 'phone and ignore normal social interaction, that's a personal choice.  If you feel the need to perpetually check your likes or ratings, that's another personal choice. No-one is making you do it.

Indeed, "we" actually means "some people". It's a phrase often used in the media to try to make people interested in something that previously they couldn't care less about.

Hmm, one of the most highlighted aspects in this thread is the youth of society, but people keep saying it’s a choice, and the word ‘we’ keeps cropping up. How many teenagers do you know that don’t have a smartphone? A Facebook account? Instagram, Snapchat, etc., etc.

I think it’s commendable that you don’t have one and only use the internet indoors, but I assure you, you’re in the minority these days. The majority of people do have a smartphone and internet access, and they connect with family and friends through messages rather than face-to-face contact most of the time. That’s just modern life.

As of 2024, around 4.88 billion people worldwide own a smartphone, which is about 60% of the global population. This number is expected to continue growing, reaching 6 billion users by 2027.

Countries with the highest penetration rates include the United States and the UK, where smartphone ownership is around 85% and 82% of the population, respectively. Most people use their smartphones to stay connected with family and friends, as well as for accessing the internet, which has become a daily habit for many. "Google" "https://prioridata.com/data/smartphone-stats/" "https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-world" "https://backlinko.com/smartphone-usage-statistics" 

In modern society, adults tend to work 5-6 days a week, paying for mortgages, car leases, school bills, etc. They actually have a much lower rate of interaction with their children than any civilization in past history. Many only see their kids for a few hours before bedtime, if they’re lucky, as they work long hours, and school, along with kids' schedules, means the family unit is always so busy.

Huw said

ANDY00 said

Theta Aeterna said

ANDY00 said

Stu H said

Many of us that grew up in the 70s and 80s weren't at home simply to get away from our parents.

Many of us - if faced with the same choices as a kid then, that kids have now - would absolutely be locked in our bedroom on the PC, games console, phone etc. We just didn't have the same distractions.

We used to play in the streets - football, kerby, kick the post, bulldog, hopscotch, skipping etc - but that's because we *could*.

Private cars were an expensive luxury and in the 70s / early 80s, alternatively travel was available.

LDNs have been created to enable safe environments to get kids back in the streets - and what's happened? People still drive their cars through them; they set fire to planters, rip out bollards, pull down cameras ... just so they can drive their car. So what if a group of kids want to play without getting interrupted every few seconds.

Faced with that kind of choice ... most kids are going to go the path of least resistance and stay indoors.

As for communication between kids... I can't remember a deep meaningful conversation with my best friend ... certainly not about the abuse I was getting at home [not that it was considered abuse in the 70s], or that I thought I was gay [which I did for a while], or even that I felt that something was wrong, and that I was different [it was, and I was. I had undiagnosed PTSD from an early age, that led to a full scale nervous breakdown and an evening with a bottle of vodka, Pink Floyd's The Wall, and a very sharp knife]

The Internet is just a complex part in the jigsaw puzzle that is moden life... and like it or not, it's *our* fault that kids want to escape.

You were confused, sure, like all kids are at some point. But now, with social media and the internet, kids who feel unsure about who they are get pushed into these categories so quickly. They might end up on hormone replacement therapy, or worse, go through a full transition and regret it later in life. It’s like they’re being pressured into making huge, life-changing decisions when they’re still figuring things out.

On top of that, apps like Snapchat and Facebook Messenger are breeding grounds for people to coerce kids into sending images or talking to strangers they wouldn’t normally approach in real life. We allow the internet to track our phones, and with the way kids upload constant updates and images, it’s way too easy for anyone to know exactly where they are almost all of the time.

When we were kids, we spent most of our time outside, and everyone in the neighborhood knew who we were, both kids and adults. If a strange car or person was talking to you, the whole neighborhood would be aware of it. But now, if you see a kid talking to someone in the street, whether on foot or in a car, chances are you won’t recognize the kid, the car, or give it a second thought.

This is the crux of it. Subconsciousness is not written randomly like in the 70s and 80s. It's written deliberately with malice and kids are forced into groups by glorifying each group. It's heart breaking as a parent to watch those things happening to my kids and their friends all the time, from school to internet.

The random interaction without physical clues is another problem for the kids. They just can't use intuition or 6th sense to smell danger. 

Which is the reason for the question, because I’m certainly, to be honest, seeing more positives to being without it and definitely more safety. The Amish communities have no internet or electricity and are much more community-based. They have 65% fewer assaults than the whole of the U.S., 90% fewer murders, 80% less theft, and drug and alcohol use is under 1%. As a close-knit community, depression is far lower than in the rest of the country, almost nonexistent. Studies have also shown they have much lower rates of cancer, likely due to the fact they aren’t eating fast food, smoking, or drinking. Without the internet, their children don’t even think about it. if i was young and raising kids again i would be very worried for what they are axposed to on the internet now.

Google is an excellent tool.

https://salomafurlong.com/aboutamish/2022/10/how-prevalent-is-sexual-abuse-among-the-amish/

https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/01/14/amish-sexual-abuse-assault/

Good post.

Secretive groups of god-botherers pose a significantly greater risk than the internet, IMHO. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has been indulging in physical and sexual abuse on an industrial scale for centuries. And it's not just the Holy Romans. Try popping the words "youth pastor abuse" in a search engine of your choice. Advent of the internet, and particularly the worldwide web has actually enabled victims to expose some of this systemic abuse. 

As the late Frank Zappa famously quipped: My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.

Edited by waist.it

waist.it said

Huw said

ANDY00 said

Theta Aeterna said

ANDY00 said

Stu H said

Many of us that grew up in the 70s and 80s weren't at home simply to get away from our parents.

Many of us - if faced with the same choices as a kid then, that kids have now - would absolutely be locked in our bedroom on the PC, games console, phone etc. We just didn't have the same distractions.

We used to play in the streets - football, kerby, kick the post, bulldog, hopscotch, skipping etc - but that's because we *could*.

Private cars were an expensive luxury and in the 70s / early 80s, alternatively travel was available.

LDNs have been created to enable safe environments to get kids back in the streets - and what's happened? People still drive their cars through them; they set fire to planters, rip out bollards, pull down cameras ... just so they can drive their car. So what if a group of kids want to play without getting interrupted every few seconds.

Faced with that kind of choice ... most kids are going to go the path of least resistance and stay indoors.

As for communication between kids... I can't remember a deep meaningful conversation with my best friend ... certainly not about the abuse I was getting at home [not that it was considered abuse in the 70s], or that I thought I was gay [which I did for a while], or even that I felt that something was wrong, and that I was different [it was, and I was. I had undiagnosed PTSD from an early age, that led to a full scale nervous breakdown and an evening with a bottle of vodka, Pink Floyd's The Wall, and a very sharp knife]

The Internet is just a complex part in the jigsaw puzzle that is moden life... and like it or not, it's *our* fault that kids want to escape.

You were confused, sure, like all kids are at some point. But now, with social media and the internet, kids who feel unsure about who they are get pushed into these categories so quickly. They might end up on hormone replacement therapy, or worse, go through a full transition and regret it later in life. It’s like they’re being pressured into making huge, life-changing decisions when they’re still figuring things out.

On top of that, apps like Snapchat and Facebook Messenger are breeding grounds for people to coerce kids into sending images or talking to strangers they wouldn’t normally approach in real life. We allow the internet to track our phones, and with the way kids upload constant updates and images, it’s way too easy for anyone to know exactly where they are almost all of the time.

When we were kids, we spent most of our time outside, and everyone in the neighborhood knew who we were, both kids and adults. If a strange car or person was talking to you, the whole neighborhood would be aware of it. But now, if you see a kid talking to someone in the street, whether on foot or in a car, chances are you won’t recognize the kid, the car, or give it a second thought.

This is the crux of it. Subconsciousness is not written randomly like in the 70s and 80s. It's written deliberately with malice and kids are forced into groups by glorifying each group. It's heart breaking as a parent to watch those things happening to my kids and their friends all the time, from school to internet.

The random interaction without physical clues is another problem for the kids. They just can't use intuition or 6th sense to smell danger. 

Which is the reason for the question, because I’m certainly, to be honest, seeing more positives to being without it and definitely more safety. The Amish communities have no internet or electricity and are much more community-based. They have 65% fewer assaults than the whole of the U.S., 90% fewer murders, 80% less theft, and drug and alcohol use is under 1%. As a close-knit community, depression is far lower than in the rest of the country, almost nonexistent. Studies have also shown they have much lower rates of cancer, likely due to the fact they aren’t eating fast food, smoking, or drinking. Without the internet, their children don’t even think about it. if i was young and raising kids again i would be very worried for what they are axposed to on the internet now.

Google is an excellent tool.

https://salomafurlong.com/aboutamish/2022/10/how-prevalent-is-sexual-abuse-among-the-amish/

https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/01/14/amish-sexual-abuse-assault/

Good post.

Secretive groups of god-botherers pose a significantly greater risk than the internet, IMHO. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has been indulging in physical and sexual abuse on an industrial scale for centuries. And it's not just the Holy Romans. Try popping the words "youth pastor abuse" in a search engine of your choice. Advent of the internet, and particularly the worldwide web has actually enabled victims to expose some of this systemic abuse. 

As the late Frank Zappa famously quipped: My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.

Edited by waist.it

I wouldn’t really classify the Roman Catholic movement as 'secretive' by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, since the dawn of time, religion has been used as a tool to wage wars and control populations, but for a large portion of the planet, it’s also well known for giving people purpose and a sense of right and wrong, among other things. Like a gun, it’s not the weapon itself, but who is pointing it that makes it dangerous. I’m not endorsing religion at all, but I do appreciate the part that encourages a sense of family and local community values, which have been lost in much of the modern Western population.

But this post is about modern technology and the internet in family life, not the politics of religious groups

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00 said

waist.it said

Huw said

ANDY00 said

Theta Aeterna said

ANDY00 said

Stu H said

Many of us that grew up in the 70s and 80s weren't at home simply to get away from our parents.

Many of us - if faced with the same choices as a kid then, that kids have now - would absolutely be locked in our bedroom on the PC, games console, phone etc. We just didn't have the same distractions.

We used to play in the streets - football, kerby, kick the post, bulldog, hopscotch, skipping etc - but that's because we *could*.

Private cars were an expensive luxury and in the 70s / early 80s, alternatively travel was available.

LDNs have been created to enable safe environments to get kids back in the streets - and what's happened? People still drive their cars through them; they set fire to planters, rip out bollards, pull down cameras ... just so they can drive their car. So what if a group of kids want to play without getting interrupted every few seconds.

Faced with that kind of choice ... most kids are going to go the path of least resistance and stay indoors.

As for communication between kids... I can't remember a deep meaningful conversation with my best friend ... certainly not about the abuse I was getting at home [not that it was considered abuse in the 70s], or that I thought I was gay [which I did for a while], or even that I felt that something was wrong, and that I was different [it was, and I was. I had undiagnosed PTSD from an early age, that led to a full scale nervous breakdown and an evening with a bottle of vodka, Pink Floyd's The Wall, and a very sharp knife]

The Internet is just a complex part in the jigsaw puzzle that is moden life... and like it or not, it's *our* fault that kids want to escape.

You were confused, sure, like all kids are at some point. But now, with social media and the internet, kids who feel unsure about who they are get pushed into these categories so quickly. They might end up on hormone replacement therapy, or worse, go through a full transition and regret it later in life. It’s like they’re being pressured into making huge, life-changing decisions when they’re still figuring things out.

On top of that, apps like Snapchat and Facebook Messenger are breeding grounds for people to coerce kids into sending images or talking to strangers they wouldn’t normally approach in real life. We allow the internet to track our phones, and with the way kids upload constant updates and images, it’s way too easy for anyone to know exactly where they are almost all of the time.

When we were kids, we spent most of our time outside, and everyone in the neighborhood knew who we were, both kids and adults. If a strange car or person was talking to you, the whole neighborhood would be aware of it. But now, if you see a kid talking to someone in the street, whether on foot or in a car, chances are you won’t recognize the kid, the car, or give it a second thought.

This is the crux of it. Subconsciousness is not written randomly like in the 70s and 80s. It's written deliberately with malice and kids are forced into groups by glorifying each group. It's heart breaking as a parent to watch those things happening to my kids and their friends all the time, from school to internet.

The random interaction without physical clues is another problem for the kids. They just can't use intuition or 6th sense to smell danger. 

Which is the reason for the question, because I’m certainly, to be honest, seeing more positives to being without it and definitely more safety. The Amish communities have no internet or electricity and are much more community-based. They have 65% fewer assaults than the whole of the U.S., 90% fewer murders, 80% less theft, and drug and alcohol use is under 1%. As a close-knit community, depression is far lower than in the rest of the country, almost nonexistent. Studies have also shown they have much lower rates of cancer, likely due to the fact they aren’t eating fast food, smoking, or drinking. Without the internet, their children don’t even think about it. if i was young and raising kids again i would be very worried for what they are axposed to on the internet now.

Google is an excellent tool.

https://salomafurlong.com/aboutamish/2022/10/how-prevalent-is-sexual-abuse-among-the-amish/

https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/01/14/amish-sexual-abuse-assault/

Good post.

Secretive groups of god-botherers pose a significantly greater risk than the internet, IMHO. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has been indulging in physical and sexual abuse on an industrial scale for centuries. And it's not just the Holy Romans. Try popping the words "youth pastor abuse" in a search engine of your choice. Advent of the internet, and particularly the worldwide web has actually enabled victims to expose some of this systemic abuse. 

As the late Frank Zappa famously quipped: My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.

Edited by waist.it

I wouldn’t really classify the Roman Catholic movement as 'secretive' by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, since the dawn of time, religion has been used as a tool to wage wars and control populations, but for a large portion of the planet, it’s also well known for giving people purpose and a sense of right and wrong, among other things. Like a gun, it’s not the weapon itself, but who is pointing it that makes it dangerous. I’m not endorsing religion at all, but I do appreciate the part that encourages a sense of family and local community values, which have been lost in much of the modern Western population.

But this post is about modern technology and the internet in family life, not the politics of religious groups

Edited by ANDY00

Roman Catholic Church not secretive? lol Try sticking the words "apostolic archives" in a search engine of your choice... ;-) Or perhaps search for the countless cases where abusive priests have been quietly shuffled off to other parishes, rather than frogmarched to the nearest police station. Or the inordinate amount of money some US dioceses have spent covering-up for its operatives. "Secretive" barely covers it.

The point being that modern technology is finally enabling victims to expose the abuse they have suffered. And that I consider to be a very positive outcome.

Edited by waist.it

I've 4 kids.

Eldest is 21, then 19, 16 and 14.

They all may have smartphones, but none of them have social media accounts.

They all took the line of 'can't be bullied on SM if you don't have an account'; it also meant that they realised you don't *need* a SM account to be happy.

I seem to recall a song that said "television drug of a nation"

SM and WWU have replaced the television... especially as a childminder.