When I see statements like "teenagers are spending 4-6 hours online, instead of going outside and meeting people" as a justification for further web regulation, I wonder to myself:
- if it had been 4-6 hours reading books, practising musical instruments, creating art, or similar, would they be demanding that books, instruments etc. have a watershed? If not, why not?
- what is the "acceptable" amount of time for a teenager to spend online each day? What makes it so?
- "going outside and meeting people" suggests a particular worldview of what is "good", which will appeal to - indeed, be possible for - some people far more than others. I was never massively sociable, and that's no crime. A day at school, and now work, would involve plenty enough peopling time for me. I am far more sociable online then offline. Where are the local free places where teenagers can get to and hang out, safely, in the warm? (They might exist in some places?)
It is also interesting to ponder what is meant by "spending time online", and how that is calculated.
Is it the same as "screen time"? And, if so, does that include time spent reading books on a device with a screen, of which I do a lot as I love my eReader?
I presume that my time reading and writing fedi posts is "online" time?
Time spent reading/replying to email? But not if I had printed the email to read on paper?
Time on calls with people? But not if I had the same meeting in a room with the same people?
Time collaborating on a document in etherpad? But not doing the same work in vim running locally?
Time watching a film from my media server (or Netflix, for the sake of argument)? But not if it were non-IP broadcast TV?
#EUKIDSAct