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)
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
159 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
81653 readers
3955 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Don't do meta, kids."
Lol what terrible research. "No! The parents have no control over their children. None! Please ignore all of human history."
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 maximize whatever screentime she had. So kind of addicted. But, now she's a teenager very good at telling what's toxic.
"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.
"Compulsive" desire to socialize in just about the only place left for teens to do so (for now)
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.
The average age of a first time parent in the US is around 27 right now. The iPhone is nearly 19 years old this year, and Facebook opened its gates to anyone over 13 right at 20 years ago. That means these first time parents were below 10 when these came out, and they likely grew up in a world where social media consumption on handheld devices was very common. So, when they are supervising their children, they aren't doing it from the perspective that these things are bad, they are doing as though they are normal, because for them they are. This is what I mean with children of smokers become smokers. If its normalized around the house, it doesn't matter how much policing is done, it's just a part of your life.
Alright I understand your perspective now and agree.
That's not really parental supervision though. Knowing what kind of content that exists and that a child can interact with should be one of the most important considerations when allowing kids to access something. Not just the amount of time in a period they are allowed to do so.
I agree. I don't think screen time limits are adequate.