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?)
@neil I spent loads of time as a kid, when I might have been going outside, doing ham radio. That was a sort of social network before the social networks of today existed. But it was indoors.
I never really understood why "outdoors" had such prestige in some peoples' minds.
Why did we have sports days, and not physics days?