alt.hn

6/1/2026 at 11:48:25 PM

Toy Story 5 shows 'terror' of children's screen addiction, says Tom Hanks

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5222wn410o

by defrost

6/2/2026 at 4:53:45 AM

Disney, here to save kids from screens.

Reminds me of when I saw a bunch of tshirts with the word "PUNK" written on them displayed in a window in a mall.

by hexasquid

6/2/2026 at 8:23:35 AM

Che Guevaras Image used to be the most widely sold T-shirt print (or maybe still is?)

by somewhatgoated

6/2/2026 at 10:08:27 AM

Hot Topic's "You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because you're all the same" shirt sold in every mall across America in the late 90s has always been my favorite.

by soderfoo

6/2/2026 at 2:58:36 PM

> Disney

in this context, 'Disney' represents a plurality, and it's likely that there's people at Disney that want their kids off screens

by sometimelurker

6/2/2026 at 7:03:53 AM

Why would I extend the creative energy to figure out how to look punk when I can get the shirt for just $49.99

by steve_adams_86

6/2/2026 at 10:50:39 AM

Only $49.99?! I missed the sale!

by mysterydip

6/2/2026 at 9:50:38 AM

> One may dye their hair green and wear their grandma's coat all they want. Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique capital end up reinforcing it instead...

Joyce Messier in Disco Elysium.

by thrance

6/2/2026 at 9:14:45 AM

Or how the Ramones sold more t-shirts than albums.

by TurdF3rguson

6/2/2026 at 7:53:07 AM

I remember when Pixar created a virtual skinner box.

by hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

6/2/2026 at 10:25:46 AM

which one?

by sersi

6/2/2026 at 9:57:24 AM

Rage Against the Machine was signed to Sony. Did it make their song “Killing in the Name Of” less valid or consequential? Sometimes usurping dominant mindsets can benefit from using the very channels in which they are delivered.

Then again this may be over your head as a concept.

by 6stringmerc

6/2/2026 at 4:51:32 PM

I think it would have been slightly more valid if they were independent, yes.

by Cytobit

6/2/2026 at 1:22:09 PM

That last sentence was unnecessary.

by phs318u

6/2/2026 at 2:24:01 AM

A silver lining to this is new parents are very aware of the dangers of screen time. In my little community, I haven't seen parents of kids under the age of 3 give their kid any type of screen especially when they're out. It's a real generational divide, since I used to see kids with tablets in restaurants everywhere back 5 or 6 years ago. The new thing is screen free electronics, like a device kids can stick cards in and it repeats words in English or Spanish.

by jdlyga

6/2/2026 at 8:21:35 AM

The awareness is nice, but the friction is still there. So much energy goes into discussions about screen use, it's a real drain on the relation with my kids I feel.

It's important to be clear and set boundaries, but there is always that one friend where they go to and just watch YT shorts until deep in the night falling asleep like a zombie. Moreover, my kid is often the only one with a locked phone (gets 2 hr a day which is also the time he is on the bus). I think it is already insanely much. But he still wants to plays Minecraft as soon as he comes home, this is also quite obsessively (he's in a lot of SMPs). Again it's nice he has a passion but too bad it's for a screen. My daughter in contrast can just play in the garden for hours.

Of course he's not allowed most of the time, but the pressure is always on.

by teekert

6/2/2026 at 9:16:34 AM

> Of course he's not allowed most of the time, but the pressure is always on.

Definitely. We have similar, although have never given the kids portable screen devices (well, they had a tablet in the house and it was still too much, so we took it away). There are our phones, which they can rarely use and only for specific tasks like "play music on the speaker" or "do fantasy football", and there's a game console with a PIN, and there's a TV with a PIN. So everything requires us to do something, and uninstall games is on the table as a severe consequence. The only autonomous device is a Yoto, which is a card-based story playing device.

It's not perfect, but they definitely want screens less than they used to.

by philipallstar

6/2/2026 at 9:41:02 AM

There is definitely the trend of "allow more, they whine about it more".

At some point they're very absorbed indeed. Being stricter is harder at first but certainly becomes easier than them feeling they always have the option to maybe get screen-time (when it's maybe they strongly feel that whining may win them something, of course that has been the struggle of raining kids since forever), imho.

by teekert

6/2/2026 at 6:58:56 AM

I think it’s a class divided too- (financially) poor parents give their kids their phone but richer/more educated parents don’t.

by ido

6/2/2026 at 7:22:01 AM

I recognize this too. There must be a correlation between the parents' level of education and the screen time the children have. Would be an interesting study.

by crassus_ed

6/2/2026 at 7:47:30 AM

I‘d wager that the correlation is with how exhausting the parent‘s job is. Screens are excellent for keeping children occupied, keeping them happy in healthier ways requires a lot of energy. After working a hard job, running a household and worrying about whether you run out of money before the next paycheck I can imagine that many parents just don’t have the mental resources.

by adrianN

6/2/2026 at 9:17:44 AM

> Screens are excellent for keeping children occupied, keeping them happy in healthier ways requires a lot of energy.

It could also be that the parent wants to be on their screen at the same time, or wants to be on Instagram later into the night. There will be some correlation with work, but I doubt that explains most of it.

by philipallstar

6/2/2026 at 8:16:47 AM

If that was true you would see unemployed parents being best at keeping their children from the screens. It is awareness, i am pretty sure about this.

by jansan

6/2/2026 at 8:31:08 AM

From a parents perspective, I feel you are incorrect.

Almost every other parent I speak to are well aware of how detrimental screen time is to their kids, and yet often still use devices when they're too tired for much else.

by King-Aaron

6/2/2026 at 8:58:35 AM

This is consistent with the very old topic of television as babysitter

by peterbecich

6/2/2026 at 8:52:05 AM

I don't know what you think unemployment looks like, but for most people it's incredibly stressful and not a time when you can just sit on your ass and watch TV all day. The benefits, if you manage to secure them - are barely enough to get by.

by gambiting

6/2/2026 at 8:42:50 AM

Someone who is unemployed, especially if they’re poor, doesn’t suddenly have a lot of free time and headspace. On the contrary, they just got more stressed and pay even less attention since now they have yet another urgent issue weighting on their mind.

by latexr

6/2/2026 at 8:22:53 AM

We got my daughter a Yoto and it's a great device. She sticks a card in and it plays music or an audiobook. There's a "screen" but it's a low resolution pixel grid that shows pixel art of the current track.

by tapoxi

6/2/2026 at 10:35:37 AM

We use luuni which is similar (except that it also enable choose your own story with audiobooks). Even then, we limit it because otherwise he would want to listen to it every time before sleeping (and it prevents him from sleeping)

by gommm

6/2/2026 at 8:23:53 AM

3 years old is very, very young as a "no-phone barrier".

by bestouff

6/2/2026 at 10:31:45 AM

True for children under 3, however I see plenty of 8-9 years old glued to their tablet in restaurants.

by gommm

6/2/2026 at 8:48:07 AM

I see small children in strollers (prams?) with devices in front of them every day on public transport, sometimes as little as a few months old. Breaks my heart.

Not to mention that basically everybody around them disappears into screens on trains/buses. It’s emotional abandonment. We are not here any more.

When I make eye contact, the children light up. But the parents often don’t seem to like random strangers to make contact with their child like that. That I have to avoid or break up contact that the child themselves obviously enjoys, while their caretakers disappear into screens, then breaks my heart a second time.

We have over 100 years of developmental psychology research to know that this is bad. Worse than bad.

Typing this on public transport.

by 47282847

6/2/2026 at 8:46:25 AM

> "She actually looked at a motion picture and went, 'I get it! He's going to be the villain and they're going to do this'," he recalled.

Is there something teachable in making a kid sit through the thing even though they instantly understood front to back?

I get it if your goal is learning. Doing the questions in the math book makes the lesson stick. But - when it comes to entertainment - why put a kid through the frustration?

by cadamsdotcom

6/2/2026 at 12:47:05 PM

Kids like repetition in their media. They often ask to watch the same movie for days/weeks on end, or read the same story every night, or the same story. And if you don't tell it the same way they remind you...

Suffice it to say, repetition isn't the same frustration that it can be for adults

by littlecorner

6/2/2026 at 9:54:49 AM

Answer:

During development, children are in a condition where their fears are predominant. The world is big and scary and they need conditions and support to begin to process their emotions, all of them, into what I consider a “rainbow.” Each should be adjacent to another, as life is best lived with access to and the benefit of each when appropriate circumstances call them from their “library” so to speak.

It’s not “forcing” a child to sit through it, as much as it is “presenting” them with an outside work of art which REFLECTS BACK TO THEM a validation of their experience along different stages of development.

One of the best examples of what I’m talking about is the book “Where the Wild Things Are” by Maurice Sendak. It is canon. Perhaps you had shitty parents who didn’t “make you” engage with literature.

An interviewer once asked him “Don’t you think the book is too scary for kids?” His reply lambasted the question with “What is wrong with you? Were you never a child? EVERYTHING IS SCARY TO A CHILD.”

So, there it is buckaroo. You may not like the tone of my response, but I think your question was phrased in a flippant and pedantic manner to begin with. Fire, meet fire, and you’re welcome.

by 6stringmerc

6/2/2026 at 9:10:41 AM

Funnily enough, even with such emphasis on children, the problem is touching adults as well. And that's completely ignored. Movies in recent years have changed dramatically in subtle ways to work with impatient audience.

by spaqin

6/2/2026 at 10:47:44 AM

I think that it's been happening for a while. Movies in the 70s and 60s tended to have more pause in the dialogue, more silence than movies in early 2000s.

Take a movie like the Godfather, it had a 8.4 seconds average shot length compared to the Departed 3 second average shot length.

I've noticed my parents no longer having the patience for movies with longer average shot length despite having been young during the era when movies were less fast paced.

[1] https://cinemetrics.uchicago.edu/movie/2732f3f8-f0d4-43f7-a0...

[2] https://cinemetrics.uchicago.edu/movie/9d17ce68-0d48-45cc-89...

by gommm

6/2/2026 at 4:41:33 PM

From Disney? Retirement time Tommy.

by ChoGGi

6/2/2026 at 8:35:37 AM

I’ve noticed a lot of fear mongering with screens and kids. So called “experts” have taken a few correlational studies and concluded that screen time is the devil. Instagram is full of these podcast clips of experts warning parents of the terrible effects of screen time. However, if you actually read any of these papers, they make it quite clear that is impossible to fully separate screen effects from family environment, and effect sizes are often modest.

Giving your 2 year old an iPad with YouTube everyday for 2 hours is obviously going to be bad for them. That’s a terrible extreme. But 20 minutes of Bluey here and there throughout the week is not gonna mess anybody up.

So while I’m glad people are more aware of the negative effects of screen time, I also hate how extreme it has become. Parents, specially new parents are so susceptible to this kind of fear mongering.

by delbronski

6/2/2026 at 8:53:12 AM

Obviously, it is common sense.

But here is the thing: lots of parents (or people in general) are not able to use common sense and they need to be told absolute statements, because they will break them anyway, just like speed limits. So if you told them "absolutely 0 screen time" they will give them anyway some here and there screen time - which is fine. If the "expert" writing books, speaking on podcast or showing up in reels tells you "ah it's fine, here and there is fine, just use common sense" you will have an army of parents thinking that 2 hours YT for a toddler is "here and there" because "hey, it's not 6 hours a day like my neighbor!"

by darkwater

6/2/2026 at 8:45:28 AM

I don't think when people say "terror of screen time" they mean 20 minutes of Bluey here and there.

by postexitus

6/2/2026 at 8:51:13 AM

20 minutes of screen time daily is extreme parenting effort. That’s olympic level. I would say the new normal is 20 minutes after each meal.

by lnsru

6/2/2026 at 8:51:11 AM

Yeah I think even 2 hours is an underestimate these days.

by demaga

6/2/2026 at 8:48:50 AM

According to a few viral Instagram posts it is.

by delbronski

6/2/2026 at 8:50:35 AM

2 hours? you don't know how bad it is out there my friend.

by zeafoamrun

6/2/2026 at 9:04:39 AM

Lots of kids aren't spending 2 hours a day on a tablet/phone, they spend every waking minute on a tablet/phone. When you see someone walking and scrolling on their phone, you can already tell that they do not turn it off, ever.

by lionkor

6/2/2026 at 8:45:13 AM

Screen Time isn't the Devil - but it represents the hellish front-line in the algorithmically driven war for your attention.

by piltdownman

6/2/2026 at 8:56:43 AM

better be safe than sorry

I don't think screen free kids won't miss anything by not watching Bluey for 20 mins, OTOH not so great parents will keep pushing those 20 mins further and further with worse and worse content, so I guess it's just easier to say any screen time is bad since the border between reasonable/good screen time and bad screen time is very small.

by Markoff

6/2/2026 at 8:36:18 AM

Whoever thinks Disney/Hollywood cares even a little bit about children is delusional.

Obligatory link to Ricky Gervais roast at the Golden Globes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgson2Q3nog

by throwfaraway135

6/2/2026 at 8:59:01 AM

I'm not a parent, but I have siblings. Screen addiction is a failure of parenting above all else, so is drug abuse and other kind of issues that are rooted in addiction, barring mental illness and bad luck of course.

EDIT: Of course parenting is very difficult, and I don't believe that any of it is easy. I wouldn't blame parents for bad parenting, I would blame a system that creates parents that have no time or energy left to spare.

I don't know what the solution is, but it probably doesn't help when kids are uneducated, being failed by a system that is supposed to educate them, that maybe the parents trust SHOULD educate them. Ultimately those kids grow up to have kids. Aaaand that's the plot of Idiocracy.

by lionkor

6/2/2026 at 12:46:09 PM

I'd be cautious to dismiss addiction as bad parenting. In many cases its a disease, and not as simple as just coaching or disciplining it away.

by slumberlust

6/2/2026 at 5:21:53 AM

Even worse is what the screen is showing...Every new animation on youtube appear to involve some toilet reference, like if I look up dinosaur cartoons, most of the hits will be showing farting dinosaurs or potty training dinosaurs with animated shit (literally). Disgusting...

WTAF?

Thankfully there is also a wealth of 90s and older cartoons to be had if you care enough to search for them...

by qsera

6/2/2026 at 7:00:38 AM

Don’t give kids YouTube access. More curated platforms like Netflix or Amazon Prime at least filter out the worst dreck.

I find German public tv (I live in Germany) actually has relatively high quality programming for kids. I rather have my kids watch TV than streaming (when they’re allowed screen time), we bought a TV after almost 20 years of not having one.

by ido

6/2/2026 at 7:27:42 AM

> I find German public tv (I live in Germany) actually has relatively high quality programming for kids.

Die Sendung mit der Maus! I haven't watched it much, but as an Australian trying to learn German, I remember finding it a useful show. That, and I appreciate it being referenced in the Eisbrecher industrial metal song "This Is Deutsch".

by SyneRyder

6/2/2026 at 8:59:37 AM

Can you name something worthy from German public TV? Imho it’s too political with greenwashing and other shit I don’t want at home. We had a discussion at home for whole week after Checker Tobi complaining about deforestation in Brazil. Germans want to know it better for the whole world while their home country is not performing well at all. The quality is good, but the content should be curated better.

by lnsru

6/2/2026 at 9:09:53 AM

KiKA is the program for children, it only runs (at least as far as I recall) during hours which kids should be awake anyway, and ends in the evening with some silly programming.

Germany is very political, and very "green" in its programming, everywhere. People have an acute awareness of the impact their actions have on the planet, and the ability to vote and cause change.

This might be quite foreign to foreigners (lol) especially from countries where voting makes no actual difference, but since we have so many political parties, so much choice, and your various elections actually make a meaningful difference, its good for kids to get involved and be aware early on.

If your kids' show talks about deforestation in Brazil, I don't see the issue with that. You can give your kids a balanced viewpoint by discussing other arguments, and teach them that way. It's not a bad thing to teach kids that things said on TV might not always tell the full story, and this seems like a harmless way to do that.

Only without intervention does TV indoctrinate. With intervention, such as discussions at dinner about current political topics, at least in families that aren't extreme/radical, discussions should yield pretty reasonable, varied results.

by lionkor

6/2/2026 at 9:33:01 AM

That is not greenwashing. Germany and Norway are the largest supporters of anti-deforestation programs in Brazil, because there is not much they can do domestically, and it aligns with conservation goals. It is a real issue when you’re losing thousands of square km of forest every year to cattle farming and soy exports.

Nothing wrong in making kids aware that we have a duty as a species to preserve nature, and that this type of collaboration can happen across borders.

by ricardobeat

6/2/2026 at 9:43:16 AM

Phoenix often has kid-appropriate documentaries, and sometimes ARD and ZDF. Phoenix is the channel they watch the most, by far.

by ido

6/2/2026 at 8:21:30 AM

I find the opposite to be true. It’s easier to curate YouTube than it is to vet Prime or Netflix because YouTube’s algorithm keeps recommendations pretty tight to what is currently being watched. If you seed it with benign enough content, it’s hard for your kid to get to the good stuff without effort that they may not know to apply.

by jimbob45

6/2/2026 at 9:12:38 AM

Maybe screen time should be limited to such a degree that a parent picks what to watch, not a recommendation engine.

by lionkor

6/2/2026 at 5:57:18 AM

So called "potty humour" aka "poop," has never been funny. What they want is for us to see excrement and giggle. That’s the rule, that’s the goal now.

by kelseyfrog

6/2/2026 at 6:48:27 AM

Who is "they"? Rabelais? Mozart? Alas many of us humans DO find poop to be funny, forgive us fallen shit stained beings.

by bshepard

6/2/2026 at 8:04:32 AM

I'm more of a comedic vomiting guy myself, e.g. "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs"

by Cthulhu_

6/2/2026 at 7:44:42 AM

I mean, really, what’s funnier than a monkey flinging poop?

by sonofhans

6/2/2026 at 8:03:41 AM

A devil with a giant bare ass flinging pork butts and taters with a catapult to an anthromorphised cow and a chicken, whose parents are only pairs of legs.

by Cthulhu_

6/2/2026 at 7:49:10 AM

For my son poop is literally the funniest thing ever and he never watched YouTube.

by adrianN

6/2/2026 at 8:16:37 AM

[flagged]

by manish_r_shetty