Social websites harm children's brains

**0iD** · 26-02-2009, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by The Mail Online

Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned.

Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred.

The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...scientist.html

Interesting article...came accross it after reading David Mayer's blog on ZDNet UK

Both cast some very interesting opinions.

See also: How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer

Fraz · 26-02-2009, 11:27 AM

Reading the Daily Fail gives you brain cancer. I'm a scientist - it must be true.

transylvanic · 26-02-2009, 11:32 AM

Seriously lame.

matty-hodgson · 26-02-2009, 11:35 AM

i can understand how it might shorten attention spans and make people self centred, but does it really?
people are still going outside, aren't they?
people still actually meet f2f, don't they?

i know i do.. and i'm only 16, so i can safely class myself as the age group he's referring to.

is my attention span short?

but yeah, Fraz.. your point is spot on. just cos a scientist reckons so, doesn't mean it has any sort of truth behind it.

**0iD** · 26-02-2009, 11:40 AM

On one hand I can see the same old scaremongering that happens year in, year out, about computers rotting or brains. It was the same 20 - 25 years ago when computers were still emerging into our mainstream lives. All the articles about how we would all become isolated & obese thro over use of computers.

But, Daily Mail slagging aside, Baroness Greenfield is at the top of her game, (which I know means jack sh*t), but David Mayer's article, which lead me to the Mail article, makes some valid couter arguments and is worth a read.

Whiternoise · 26-02-2009, 11:53 AM

I if i was a parent i'd actively stop my kids from using it anyway.. once again, it's parents not either forcing or encouraging kids to spend time away from the box. I think you've got to realise that this is KIDS they're talking about. There is an argument that social networking enhances sociability but when you're talking about people who're at primary school it's just stupid for them to be using it. And of course there are clauses that say you have to be over X to use the sites, but how many kids REALLY follow that?

I know of 6 year olds with mobile phones, 6 year olds who pester for mobile phones. My 10 year old cousin spends lots of time on Bebo writing illegible text speak on her garishly designed friend's webpages. Is that good for her? I doubt it.

I do agree that spending all your time on these sites is probably bad for you - especially when the majority of the folks that people talk on facebook to are people they will no doubt see the next day, text, visit and phone up.

Fraz · 26-02-2009, 12:10 PM

I totally agree with you Whiternoise - I was being somewhat facetious in my first reply.

To much of anything is bad for you. Kids need exercise and variety, so does everyone else. If parents are happy because their kids are being quiet whilst stuck in front of the computer all day, then they are idiots.

Children don't know how to look after themselves, that's why they're called children. Parents need to ensure their lives have variety, not just be happy that they aren't causing them any hassle.

TheAnimus · 26-02-2009, 12:12 PM

Like many things in moderation, no problem.

If you have it too much, problem.

matty-hodgson · 26-02-2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

If you have it too much, problem.

protected sex?

Tarffie · 26-02-2009, 12:40 PM

Oh.

The weekly popular things are bad because they're popular study. Cracking.

Technogeek · 26-02-2009, 12:51 PM

I have three kids and they are all under 12 years old. I too have to agree with Whiternoise. My 11year old boy is just starting to use MSN now that he has moved up to the Academy, but I still will not let him go to websites that i do not approve of. He is OK with this and so are his sisters. protecting your kids from too much trash in the Internet is a difficult thing but moderation and sensible usage is better than nothing at all. My kids also spend time doing other things in their lives and are intelligent and outgoing, i will do everything to make sure they stay that way.

Hicks12 · 26-02-2009, 01:15 PM

Well bebo is for pedos(

), dont see the point in these social websites most of the time and its not healthy. Everything in moderation is fine(normally), the papers are just scaring the normal public AGAIN.

You know people say being on the computer etc will give you square eyes? Well its just been proven that its harmless. If games promote violence then why is 50cent(who is supposed to be against this hence why he raps) making violent games? He is loved by the *chavs* so its even worse to follow onto a violent game. These papers just pick on anything and then miss the crucial points.

It CAN be bad that they spend to much time on the networks etc but moderation is key. I admit im on the pc quite a bit but its a big mix of work,games and browsing. This is countered by me taking some breaks and going rowing quite a bit in the day(in between) so i take my exercise and enjoy my time. Thats how it should be.

Whiternoise · 26-02-2009, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by matty-hodgson

protected sex?

Ask any woman who has ever had cystitis and you'll find your answer

It's a difficult issue though, a simple solution would be just to whack on OpenDNS and block what you feel is appropriate . However, if and when i have kids of my own, i don't want to have to censor their browsing (with the exception of a built in "NSFW" filter).

transylvanic · 26-02-2009, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by matty-hodgson

protected sex?

If I say 'wear and tear', you should be able to fill in the gaps...

Originally Posted by Whiternoise

However, if and when i have kids of my own, i don't want to have to censor their browsing (with the exception of a built in "NSFW" filter).

Really? Because I find that pretty hypocritical. The first page I ever loaded up on the internet was Kate's Playground. I've been looking at NSFW stuff since before the abbreviation was invented. And then to turn around and tell junior, no you can't do that? How could I possibly raise a child that doesn't look at porn? I would have no way of understanding his world, it would be like raising an alien.

As has been said above, too much of anything is bad for you, that's why it's too much. Parents should bear responsibility for their own damn kids and stop these stupid moral panics.