nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will/would you let your children use social media ?

The flying mouse

Brendan o Connor says he will not,

The current generation of digital natives who grew up on social media are very much guinea pigs,

But we are starting to wake up to the fact that tech companies are not just tech companies.

Similarly, the likes of Facebook and Snapchat touch on all kinds of areas in the real world, areas that we have traditionally regulated very carefully as societies and as families and as people.

Ultimately I don't believe that Zuckerberg's primary interest is in giving away services for free and making the world a better place.

I am aware too that technology has changed my children's lives for the better. My eight-year-old speaks better Italian than me because of an app. My six-year-old, who has an intellectual disability, is a different person than she would have been in a world before iPads.

We will be stunned at the notion that the whole developed world willingly handed over all their most intimate details to large companies so they could be sold stuff they didn't want more effectively. From todays Sunday Independent,cant do link.

Tldr..
Brendan O Connor says he will not allow his children to be guinea pigs in Zuckerberg and Co's big experiment.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The flying mouse

Maybe he should start with banning them from reading the Sunday Independent first :-)

I don't know myself, My generation wasn't brought up around as much technology as today,To much of anything is bad for you !,All this instant that and instant this can be a bit overwhelming, for me anyway.

What the more experienced here opinions ?

brevity

Yes but it will be monitored.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

When they're old enough

tomwaterford

No....I'll lock them in a cellar with no internet access

What a stupid idea....

Like saying you won't let them do drugs....if they want to do them/social media no parent can stop them.....just educate then on the dangers

osarusan

Good luck trying to stop them.

[Deleted User]

Brendan O'Connor, he who infamously wrote in July 2007 that "all the smart, ballsy guys are buying property", is a snivelling "on message" sycophant of the Harris-Fanning cult that controlled the Sunday Independent for decades. From demonising Dublin workers in the 1913 Lockout to their demonisation campaign against John Hume and the peace process in the early 1990s it is the mouthpiece rag of the rich and powerful to beat all rags in the history of the Irish media. Anybody in its employment is fully signed-up to the agenda (for how long more can we make excuses for Gene Kerrigan?) Week in, week out they've got a target and O'Connor is the on-message bootboy. Contemptible little toad.

The sole reason RTÉ have him doing a show is they want positive coverage from Not-so- Independent Newspapers. That they pay €157,000 per year (was well over €200k) for this decidedly untalented ceolán is par for the rightwing course in RTÉ, which has a record of sending their journalists out to twist and distort the truth in their coverage of pay disputes by poorer sections of our society.

mosstin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brendan O'Connor, he who infamously wrote in July 2007 that "all the smart, ballsy guys are buying property", is a snivelling "on message" sycophant of the Harris-Fanning cult that controlled the Sunday Independent for decades. From demonising Dublin workers in the 1913 Lockout to their demonisation campaign against John Hume and the peace process in the early 1990s it is the mouthpiece rag of the rich and powerful to beat all rags in the history of the Irish media. Week in, week out they've got a target and O'Connor is the on-message bootboy. Contemptible little toad.

The sole reason RTÉ have him doing a show is they want positive coverage from Not-so- Independent Newspapers. That they pay €157,000 per year (was well over €200k) for this decidedly untalented ceolán is par for the rightwing course in RTÉ, which has a record of sending their journalists out to twist and distort the truth in their coverage of pay disputes by poorer sections of our society.

But apart from that, you think he's OK?

The flying mouse

Deleted User wrote: »

Brendan O'Connor, he who infamously wrote in July 2007 that "all the smart, ballsy guys are buying property", is a snivelling "on message" sycophant of the Harris-Fanning cult that controlled the Sunday Independent for decades. From demonising Dublin workers in the 1913 Lockout to their demonisation campaign against John Hume and the peace process in the early 1990s it is the mouthpiece rag of the rich and powerful to beat all rags in the history of the Irish media. Week in, week out they've got a target and O'Connor is the on-message bootboy. Contemptible little toad.

The sole reason RTÉ have him doing a show is they want positive coverage from Not-so- Independent Newspapers. That they pay €157,000 per year (was well over €200k) for this decidedly untalented ceolán is par for the rightwing course in RTÉ, which has a record of sending their journalists out to twist and distort the truth in their coverage of pay disputes by poorer sections of our society.

So Fuaranach will you let your children use social media ?

[Deleted User]

The flying mouse wrote: »

So Fuaranach will you let your children use social media ?

I would gladly not have a tv or newspaper in the house and would hope that between music lessons, language lessons, GAA, walks and cultural exchanges they wouldn't have time for the plebian concerns of that underemployed overpaid whinging cultureless waffling bollocks from the arsehole of nowhere.

Aside from that, the only reason el gobshíte is against social media is because it's taking the rug from underneath the eatablishment media that he feeds off. Anything that helps destroy the Sunday Independent is a step forward for humanity so, in terms of options for plebs, long live social media.

eviltwin

You'd be very naive to think you could stop your kids having access to social media so I'm not even going to try and prevent it. I know it's the norm to have access to your kids accounts but most have two now, one sanitized version the parents see and their real one. My six yr old doesn't have much online access but I'm already talking to him about internet safety so I'm just going to continue with that and hope it rubs off and continue to educate myself.

the evasion_kid

Preferably not, I d try steer them away from this sh!thead generation that goes hand in hand with social media

_Brian

Everything in moderation including social media.
Social media is already a key
cornerstone in how teenagers network among themselves. There is no real way you can keep them out of this without excluding them from their peers in such a way that excludes them.

Teaching responsible usage is far more healthy than just banning something outright - think prohibition in America.

wakka12

If I become a parent I will try as hard as I can to keep my childrens exposure to social media and recreational tech devices to the very minimum feasibly possible. They do nothing but induce anxiety, self consciousness,vanity, and some horrible combination of self loathing and self obsession

They will enjoy cartoons and electric cars and outdoor games and farm animals like I did as a very young child. And Im saying this a millenial, I grew up half of my childhood pre iPhone internet era and then the second half of my childhood 11-16 in the iPhone,xbox, playstation, macbook era. The second half was less fulfilling overall almost solly due to the technology exposure. The more I limit it from my life the happier I am now

wakka12

_Brian wrote: »

Everything in moderation including social media.
Social media is already a key
cornerstone in how teenagers network among themselves. There is no real way you can keep them out of this without excluding them from their peers in such a way that excludes them.

Teaching responsible usage is far more healthy than just banning something outright - think prohibition in America.

I honestly don't believe this at all. Id bet my life savings that anybody who deletes their social media will not feel socially isolated. If you have good friends, they'll contact and meet you just as much even if the social media account don't exist.

Grandeeod

Social Media = Instant gratification and constant connectivity. Not good for you at all.

We should start teaching it at some level. I am.

Senna

Every generation seems to have something that they think will corrupt the next generation, radio, TV, rock and roll, now it's social media.
Just like all the rest, it can't be totally controlled, putting limits on it is usually recommended, but that can be said about anything kids wants.

Grandeeod

Senna wrote: »

Every generation seems to have something that they think will corrupt the next generation, radio, TV, rock and roll, now it's social media.
Just like all the rest, it can't be totally controlled, putting limits on it is usually recommended, but that can be said about anything kids wants.

There is no comparison between social media and radio, TV and Rock and roll.

wakka12

Senna wrote: »

Every generation seems to have something that they think will corrupt the next generation, radio, TV, rock and roll, now it's social media.
Just like all the rest, it can't be totally controlled, putting limits on it is usually recommended, but that can be said about anything kids wants.

Sometimes its true. I don't agree with rock and roll and radio but I still believe that tv and social media do corrupt youth to a certain extent. Tv has increased laziness and lack of motivation for exercise and going outside, almost without a doubt. I think we are right in this instance..Do you honestly believe social media has made anyone much happier than they would have been without it?

Senna

Grandeeod wrote: »

There is no comparison between social media and radio, TV and Rock and roll.

The fact that you think social media is different just proves my point.

Grandeeod

Thats in your head. Try thinking about what you have said again.

No comparison.

wakka12

Senna wrote: »

The fact that you think social media is different just proves my point.

You made a very good point. But you have to admit that social media is worse in some regards than those other 3. Children being exposed to sexual content, being pressured sexually with ndues and stuff, teenagers feeling inadequate with regards popularity and looks, fear of missing out on social events, children being bullied not only in school but bullies now have the ability to bully them at home via social media,spending increased amounts of time alone and indoors, laziness, massive distraction from study incomparable to any other distraction due to its pervasive nature.

And as I said, Tv has most definitely corrupted several generatios in many different ways.I don't see how radio has, or could have. And I can understand the rock and roll, due to it being associated with more anti social behaviour

Grandeeod

wakka12 wrote: »

You made a very good point. But you have to admit that social media is worse in some regards than those other 3. Children being exposed to sexual content, being pressured sexually with ndues and stuff, teenagers feeling inadequate with regards popularity and looks, fear of missing out on social events, spending increased amounts of time alone and indoors, laziness, massive distraction from study incomparable to any other distraction due to its pervasive nature.

And as I said, Tv has most definitely corrupted several generatios in many different ways.I don't see how radio has, or could have. And I can understand the rock and roll, due to it being associated with more anti social behaviour

TV, radio and Rock and Roll are not in the same league as Social media. Any attempt to compare them in historical terms is bonkers and merely a poor attempt to try use them as an excuse. The gap between them is absolutely massive. Your own post highlights many of the very different issues.

_Brian

wakka12 wrote: »

I honestly don't believe this at all. Id bet my life savings that anybody who deletes their social media will not feel socially isolated. If you have good friends, they'll contact and meet you just as much even if the social media account don't exist.

I suppose we all have our positions,
We live in a rural environment, my 14yo daughter similar to her friends are busy with their different sporting activities, they just don't meet outside school, they use social media to keep in touch. She has just started using snapchat and viber.

She's in touch with various friends from round the country that we meet maybe 2-3 times a year.

I see it as a positive because it's not being abused or over used. She knows what we expect from a usage perspective and exactly we're the boundaries are.

I think parents who think they will cut this out of a teenagers life are just burying their heads in the sand. have the conversations around its usage, set rules, enforce them.

wakka12

Grandeeod wrote: »

TV, radio and Rock and Roll are not in the same league as Social media. Any attempt to compare them in historical terms is bonkers and merely a poor attempt to try use them as an excuse. The gap between them is absolutely massive. Your own post highlights many of the very different issues.

Thats true actually. The amount of time that teenagers spend using social media, (pretty much constantly due to having a phone on their person at all times) is completely unparallelled with any other recerational type in history. Even at TV, radio and rock and rolls peak popularity the most avid users never spent even a fraction as much time using them