There's a new law in Taiwan that bans children under the age of two from using any gadgets including iPads, iPhones, etc. Also, anyone under the age of eighteen is not allowed to use digital media--Internet and television in general--for more than a reasonable amount of time: most likely no longer than an hour or two.

"Parents who fail to comply with the new 'Child and Youth Welfare Protection Act' -- or rather, fail to enforce it upon their children -- may be fined 50,000 Taiwan dollars (1,567 US Dollars)" (James Wallis Simons, for CNN).

What are your thoughts on this? This has gotten international attention for different reasons.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/intl_opinion/taiwan-ipads-kids/index.html

How do you enforce this? Is this going to be a kind of system where neighbors have to rat each other out? The kids are definitely not going to turn in their parents for letting them do what they want.

>>2 Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The Taiwanese government would have to do something drastic to enforce this.

Wow...an entire law ┐(￣ヮ￣)┌
I agree with limiting the use of electronic devices to children but a law is a littel out of mind... How a law like this can be observed?

What utter bullshit. For real. I mean we are developing these tools to be used. I don't get what their problem is. Also, how is the kid supposed to be able to interact with them later on if he doesn't get the practice to use them. One doesn't develop knowledge about this shit overnight, more so people who aren't around technology tend to learn harder too naturally because they had no previous experience with them in the first place. Like think of trying to teach your granddad how to use a computer. They are able to use it, but they don't learn and understand it as well as a kid growing up with a computer. Development is going backwards seriously.

I only agree with the law that bans children under the age of two of using any gadgets. No, not agree. Understand.

I can understand the reason pretty good, but its a bit too much. At least there should be a restriction on the use for younger children, but for children in school the use of the internet can be important for many things.

This sounds incredibly stupid, the Internet is meant to be a resource, this will ruin the interconnectivity of the world

I'm actually really happy about this. Even though technology has helped me personally, I've seen how damaging modern tech (especially mobile devices) can be to the development of the kids I grew up with. You shouldn't buy a tablet for your kid just to be their virtual babysitter - it should be bought as a teaching device for YOU to use to help the development of your children. There's no reason youths need to be on it all day unless they are doing something distinctly productive.

I think this could be a good thing, social media and technology is really poisoning people. So i support it!

I believe that technology can only help people, it has given me ways to connect to people just like this site, are you really going to deny teenagers stuff like crunchyroll and youtube and this site?

Now those kids will grow up to be amazing people. But as a person who attends a classroom that's dependent on tech devices and social media, I would be against it if it were to become international. But a small country such as Taiwan would probably be able to make it work.

Generally, I think this is a good idea, even for teens. 1-2 hours should give us enough time to catch up on things happening around the world. For younger children it teaches them to be resourceful using various other methods to collect information and have fun. My laptop and practically all form of technology stopped working for 3 months in which time I learnt how to crochet, knit and read a lot of books. After leaving tech for a while my mind automatically set to discovery mode, perfect for younger kids.

Deon't get me wrong, I think technology is awesome and the internet is amazing. I've learnt a lot through here as well.

1-2 Hours is generally enough, for the average user. Gamers that spend a lot of time online however...

I can see the benefit of getting kids more personal interaction, especially with all social media addicts lately. I have a friend that sits on his tablet on facebook and ifunny etc while hanging out and it's infuriating. But at the same time, what about the kids that want to become programmers, animators, photographers, film makers, and other proffessions that require using computers and the internet.

For children under 2-maybe even 5 its a good idea. Kids at that young of an age are impressionable. Can't remember what the study was called but kids that watched a video of some guy beating up a bobo doll actually began to beat it up too (even though they werent before?). So you have to be careful with what a kid sees at that age, because they'll act out what they see.

I'd be willing to have the kid only get one or two hours a day until they are five

>>17

That's a good reference Orion, I think it was just called the Bobo doll experiment. It's very eye opening.

Mmmm I find the under 2 years old kinda reasonable. But the problem doesn't lie in the technology itself but the way it's used, so it's not that I agree or disagree with this measurement, I just take another PoV

Hurray for authoritarianism! /s

yeah, I think everyone agrees that the *law* is stupid.

but what is their goal?
are they trying to limit Internet abuse? or are they trying to get their youth to be more active?

Well, in...Kennesaw, Georgia, I believe? It's illegal to NOT own a handgun or some kind of firing weapon within the home.

It's never enforced. It's just "there".

More research should be done about technology and how it affects development in children. Taiwan cares about their youth a lot.

well this law is probably too strict...At least 4 me

>>24>>17>>15>>13>>11>>10
I just don't get you people. Supporting or agreeing to an ideal is one thing, but it's a law for fuck's sake. It's not a good advice or a good hearted samaritan initiative, it's mandatory, and thus characterizes a nation's ideology on how to raise their youth. Not every kid is raised so stupid that he/she requires mandatory regulation of his/her technology use, nor regulation of their source of information. Get real, most of you guys here aren't even adults either. Smells like bullshit from a mile away.

>>21 Gotta agree with that.

Ah Yes! I saw this article, and I was shocked when I saw that people under 18 could only use 30 mins at a time. For me (I cannot live without devices lol), I have to use it at school too for schoolwork XD

>>26 I guess you have to start somewhere. Right now it's probably true a lot of children's development are being hindered by technology use, because it's not being used properly by the parents. so obviously the parents should be better parents and teach their kids how to use the technology properly, but they aren't right now. So we can just keep saying they should, or we can push them in the right direction.

I don't know if that's actually why they made the law, or if it was just to look cool, but that's how I see it. People aren't just going to become better parents from a couple of presentations or good advice (evidently), you might need something a bit more concrete to move them along.

>>28 I wouldn't call regulation of technology use by law "pushing them in the right direction". If something doesn't work, making it a law won't really solve the problem. Why do people have to associate everything with extremes? It's not black and white, and the countermeasure certainly overscales the problem itself. Here's an example: I'm certain you'd revolt if there was a law of the same type for gun use in the US, where you couldn't own a gun unless your occupation requires you to, and where the same reasoning would state that "gun use leads to the decrease of the population's quality of life".

Also well educated (not exclusively meaning school education) people don't have that problem for some magical reason. Making it punishable by law certainly won't make them smarter in the way of raising children properly, not to speak of, not letting your child use technology isn't proper in the first place. It's just a push in another direction of an extreme. Two wrongs don't make a right....

.

I kinda agree for banning gadgets on babies, but how about the students who needs to research things for hours.If they are not allowing anyone under 18 to use the internet for hours then they should also ban homework and things in school that you should research.I was so surprised because of the amount of money you should pay if you break this law.So basically there's many flaws on this law, but at the same time there's good things too.

>>32 It says a reasonable amount of time. Within one or two hours on the web, I'm sure a kid can find their homework questions. There's no reason to be on the internet for more than that amount of time. One of the most influential programmers in the world, Richard Stallman, only uses the internet 5 minutes a day.

The Internet is supposed to be a resource to be used so let it be used, I don't like how they are trying to limit information

>>34 It says a reasonable amount of time.

>>35 What is reasonable?

More research needs to be done to see exactly how crippling extended computer and technology use is. In theory, if it wasn't degrading physically, using a computer would be ideal for a lot of time. We should find a balance first before making it a law, you know what I mean?

>>36 It doesn't say using a computer. It says using the internet. But I think a reasonable amount of time is two hours for kids.

Logic

Two thoughts:
1) What about kids with disabilities? Using technology might be their only outlet.
2) How are they going to enforce this? Are they going to interview kids about how much internet they use? This law seems like a political move, rather than a practical one.

I think this is a reasonable law, we wouldn't want anyone "sacrificing" their life to the internet, per say.

To me, it´s a good and a bad idea.
I explain:
Nowadays, children are more than they should on iPhone, iPad and all Those electroning stuff even when they're really young. I myself begin to use a computer when I was about 10 or 11 years old... I think it's an acceptable âge, even if it seem young still, it´s an âge when u know almost every thing u have to avoid on the internet and u understand why (maybe not all the children but i did so i guess anyone could be the same). But when I see children who're like 6 or 7 years old children playing on a phone or a tablette while they could be Outside or playing with dolls, and all that (and if they dont play these kid games they'll regret it for sure) it shock me.
The bad face is the fact to forbidden ... I dont think it´s a solution...

its a terrible idea! the internet is a way for some people to cope with stress, and great loss! People need it! it's also preventing students from accessing many many resources! do you know why the human race is so intelligent today? because we have the internet! if you have a question about anything all you have to do is look it up and you'll find the answer! little kids at the age of 1 or 2 often use the internet for learning purposes, they often use it for learning games that help with early learning skills that they will need when they enter school. the internet has helped people all over the world gain knowledge, access sites that will prove beneficial to living a peaceful and healthy lifestyle. i think that the law is stressing the fact that people need to stop using electronics as much, sure it isn't good to use them for a long period of time, but putting a restriction to how long children are allowed to use the internet should be up to the parents.

This will curve a problem that is becoming a societal issue in places like Japan and China. This is a good idea.

>>42 Intelligence is on the decline, but collective wisdom is not. The internet should not be an escape for people with issues in 'the real world'.

>>44 This thread is really full of morons. I don't get why it's your business how other people use their network access. What they use it for is their private matter.
And for fuck's sake, if someone uses the internet to escape "the real world", then the problem is not with the provided access, but with the individual's personal social life. It will not be solved by taking away a resource. It's like saying you want to prevent food poisoning with making a law that people can't eat food. How stupid do you people really get?
It's people like you who we can thank if the government can _again_ take away one of our personal freedoms _seemingly_ solving something, which was never the real cause of the problem, because people like you support and vote for this shit.
You know what the biggest problem is? You use the internet to post shit like this instead of knowing what I just wrote down. You have this great resource where you can inform yourself about all types of knowledge and wisdom, and this is as far as you got, congrats.

Personally, I think is good to regulate the hours young people spend in front of a screen but to go to the extent of making it a law...
It is a fact that people are spending too much time watching TV, messing with their phones and tablets and almost none doing healthier and wholer activities. May be in working adults it can't be 100% avoidable because they need to be focused on their jobs but a decent ammount of "free time from the Internet" is good.

A law is a bit extreme, perhaps by promoting informative campaigns about the issue, healthier lifestyles at school, educational programs for parents...etc. it can be (more or less) solved rather than making it a crime to watch TV 3 hours.
Little children worry me the most, instead of going out to the park, riding bycicles or even playing traditional table games (which are proven to enhance motor stability, decision making patterns and social skills too) they are sucked by the flashing screen.
Don't get me wrong, I love Internet, videogames and TV as much as any other but I do think it has to be balanced with some outdoor activities or non-screen indoor games.

I agree with >>45, though I don't think blaming will help anything. I think a lot of people don't go beyond the surface thoughts of a thing, which in this case is, "Oh, people being on the internet too much is bad! Stopping it must be good!" There's more to it than that.

>>46 "Personally, I think is good to regulate the hours young people spend in front of"
Yes, let's just regulate everything in a neet and careful manner, as it has proved to be an all-around solution for every problem in history. Or NOT.
(Side note: If parents knew - were educated enough, to know - how to motivate their children to WANT to do certain things instead of "telling them so", ordering them around and telling them off is something doesn't go as expected, like the authority figure they were led to believe they are, then there would be no need for regulating )

"Little children worry me the most, instead of going out to the park, riding bycicles or even playing traditional table games (which are proven to enhance motor stability, decision making patterns and social skills too) they are sucked by the flashing screen."

Why is it so hard to understand that not everyone likes to ride bikes? And what do kids actually do in the park? I always wonder...They play? What do they play? It's a park ffs, not a playground, it's boring to them after a while. It's good for a child to move around but it's not an all-in-one mandatory solution to the child's possible health problems and/or social problems. Why isn't there a law against buying a coke for your kid, or eating at McDonalds? It's a thousand times more destructive than sitting in front of a videogame or the internet. Again, the scale at you people look at things marvels me.
Also videogames are also proven to enhance motor stability, decision making patterns and social skills. Videogames and tabletop games have very little difference between them if you understand how a game works looking at it from this perspective. Don't want the kid to look like Hunchback from using the computer? Get him a good computer table, a healthy chair and adjust the height of the screen. People don't even consider this shit, instead they just want to shoot the poor kid out of the house like they're rocket-launcher ammunition.
Don't misunderstand I'm not against a healthy lifestyle, I've been playing basketball for 14 years straight 2-3 times almost every week, but thinking that healthy = get the fuck out and exercise/ go "play" in the park is plain primitive. The problem is never the access to a resource, it's the lack of values (motivators, interest, good memories) that influences one's (in this case the child's) decisions. And that's the parent's responsibility, not the goverment's, people need to learn that period. If you're not educated enough to raise a child, don't go bitching that he'll turn out to be a shut-in. And that's only half of what causes I can think of for the problems you think this primitive approach is a solution for, IF you even understand half of what I wrote.

PS:"May be in working adults it can't be 100% avoidable because they need to be focused on their jobs but a decent ammount of "free time from the Internet" is good."

The health problems coming from adault work-life could be very avoidable, if people weren't treated as modern corporate working slaves giving up almost all of their creative free time to do monotonous work that could be automated. It could be also improved if the money system wouldn't support banking autocracy, but this is really off topic now. I just wanted to note that the problem is never so simple.
Also, free time from the Internet is as good or bad as how someone uses it. Wanting to cook something when you can't find the recipe is bad if you could've found it in 5 minutes on the internet. Staying at home bitch-posting on facebook isn't good if instead you could take a walk with one of your friends sippin' a cold beer and having a good convo on a summer night. It depends on context. Not access, but how people use it. I know it's hard to understand, because most of you people aren't raised to process thought like this, but at least try to think a bit farther than your own stereotypical notions of how people work.

#2. PS: >>47 high five

Right, I'm betting that >>45 has never heard of 'social cohesion' before. Want to know what's happening in Japan? People aren't having sex! They spend too much fucking time on the internet and working, and the government was too late to curb this and now the next generation is in trouble. Do you really think that 'Big Bad Government' is frothing at the mouth preparing to strip their people of another civil liberty? Fuck no, they noticed a developing trend and decided to act before the issue became an serious threat to their society. Prolonged unnecessary internet exposure affects developing people under the age of 18. The government has the right to protect the next generation from this issue, and they need to step in for their country.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/12/jackson.aspx
http://retnotamia.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/top-10-negative-effects-of-internet-on.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/clinton-steyer-internet-kids/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/01/374382369/japans-population-declined-in-2014-as-births-fell-to-a-new-low
http://www.dw.de/impact-of-japans-shrinking-population-already-palpable/a-18172873

When I try to reread your comment, all I see is the typical arrogance from someone who has not bothered to look at an issue in depth, only viewing their decision as "gervernment is tryin to take merh freederms!".

>>50 I have. It's not a bad initiative, but I know a better one. I don't think throwing around fancy phrases makes your opinion any more valid tho. Social cohesion does not exclude access to resources.

"Want to know what's happening in Japan? People aren't having sex!" Well I definitely wouldn't want to know from you, since that's not the whole truth and you know it.
A large percentage of people are not having sex, and while that is true, there are many reasons for that besides the internet. So please, get off of the high horse will ya?
"They spend too much fucking time on the internet and working" yes that is definitely true, and the working part is what could be solved by the government, if any government ever had a spine to begin with. Instead stupid kids like you gloat the idea of another one ingeniously taking away basic human rights, like access to information. Yes they probably spend too much time in front of the internet too, but tell you what, that still doesn't justify a law against the internet. I'll quote myself here: "It will not be solved by taking away a resource. It's like saying you want to prevent food poisoning with making a law that people can't eat food." It's not the government's responsibility to regulate the way people use the internet. People aren't idiots, they can educate each other, if there are available resources like time for example. Which they don't have due to overworking themselves, which is considered just normal by the government. So I kind of view this a bit more complex than you, and don't just wave around parts of information as if it were the whole picture. Some people are having sex and some don't because they are unmotivated to. Taking away the internet won't make them more motivated. It's a much more complex societal issue and _still_ doesn't justify nullifying anyone's access to a resource. And we still haven't talked about how much of the people who do have sex use online dating, or got to know each other through online communities. If you don't have the capacity to view the problem as complex as it is, then don't expect me to take you even seriously.

"Do you really think that 'Big Bad Government' is frothing at the mouth preparing to strip their people of another civil liberty?" Yes, I fucking do.
Also, I have an itching feeling inside to quote you. Goes something like this "But what is really important in this situation is to never let the people with power take away your personal freedom."

Oh and these links, c'mon this is starting to get pathetic. How can you form opinions based on these "researches", if the research doesn't even consider every bit of environmental context that influences the subjects behaviour? Do you believe everything you read? Do you not have at least a cinch of critical thought?

"When I try to reread your comment, all I see is the typical arrogance from someone who has not bothered to look at an issue in depth, only viewing their decision as "gervernment is tryin to take merh freederms!"."
You can think whatever you want, idiot. I even don't expect you to have a different opinion about me or understand my reasoning, since you don't possess the necessary background, nor critical thinking to do so, judging from your fallacies and arguments.

>>52
The objective of this new law is to prevent these kids from having issues that are developed from spending too much time with technology. I cite studies because they are studies, and if you are as smart as you make yourself out to be then you'd understand that they are conducted with a varied population, and that these researchers do their studies in a way that eliminates errors. Your response seems to about telling me that I should not formulate opinions from the results of research, but it is a fact, not an opinion, that over exposure to technology damages developing minds, and government has a right and a responsibility to mandate that these parents protect their children. Don't you understand that until these kids are of legal age (in this case 18), they do not have the freedom and the maturity to make healthy decisions that adults can make, and preventing them from accessing technology for more than an hour at a time is not stripping their access to an important resource that they are entitled to like you make it out to be? This law targets fucking *kids*, not adults, and while current governments seem to have an appetite for more power, this law is not overextending into unnecessary territory. I'll just reiterate this: The law is not targeting adults and the internet is not a resource that everyone, including people without the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

>>53 You write some hilarious shit, like "that over exposure to technology damages developing minds" and stating that people under 18 can't make decisions for themselves as a fact, and I'd love to answer, but I'm done, the page ate my last reply because it was too long and this bullshit is not worth my time, so it's fine either way. Just stay a pinhead. I hope that you will meet people and experience things that disprove your fallacies instead of me doing it now, I've got better things to do.

>>54 Sounds like the argument of a quitting fuckhead who can't back anything he says up. You need to learn to look at things as they are, not as you feel that they are.

>>55 Christ dude, grow up. I'm not wasting my time and effort on explaining shit to someone, who doesn't even take the courtesy of disproving my arguments or answering my questions. If that makes me a quitting fuckhead, all the fine by me. It's a blessing to quit on trash like you.

>>56 oooooooohhh

>55 & >56 Ya do know the option, "Am gonna say this and be done" is actually "Am gonna say this, and never pay attention to it ever again, because fuck it."

>>56 Yet you've taken the time to go and respond to me again. Petty. If it really was a blessing to "quit on trash like me", then you wouldn't have responded.

>>58 That last jibe though was a 10/10.

>>58 I never said I'm not gonna reply to the thread itself, I just said, it's not worth my time spending an hour or so explaining my train of thought to him. It would be much faster to talk it out face to face, but I don't think I have that option.

Also, even though I had problems with it, at least even He took the time and effort to write his replies and state his case about the topic, which is more respectable than after-commenting it. An argument ends and suddenly everyone has witty remarks and everyone's a smartass :D well, whatever suits you guys.

This is the dollars, it's supposed to be making the world better not calling people names, just saying

Dai, you're too biased and butt-hurt to look at the situation objectively, and I don't understand why anyone wasted their time responding. You're projecting this topic into other liberties that are under completely different circumstances like it's a personal issue. I understand that you hate 'the man' and the 'big bad government' all the laws they make because you think it's intruding on your liberties blah blah blah, but that kind of straw man is not going to make anyone agree with you.

>>64 <3

>>64 Wow, you actually read the arguments? Each time I tried, I failed when that voice kept saying "Ain't nobody got time for that."

>>64 >>66 It's very disappointing if you got to that conclusion. Instead of being butt-hurt I'm only very sad that you people honestly believe that the government does everything in your best interests, that researchers are like machines who don't make mistakes and that people are so simple, that if you don't let them access internet enough, some of their problems will just magically disappear. I also think it's sad that you don't know that technology is a concept and not an object or that you think people in japan don't have sex, as if it was a fact, especially because they have more than 1 hour access to the internet even before they turn 18 (or 21 in japan's case). I also think it's sad that you believe that people under the age of 18 are so stupid as to not be able to make their own decisions in any aspect of life and that you believe the government has the right to invade your home privacy with laws about the details of how you should choose to live your life. It's definitely sad and I wish you would realize it instead of gloating over this with witty comments, but I've given up hope that you will ever realize these things.

Also, you don't understand. I don't hate the man and the big bad government. The government isn't responsible for it. The system which the government is integrated in is. As long as the government is as much of a monetary player as you are in the competition based capitalism that we live in, it as any one of us has monetary interests in this system. Those interests are not trivially equal to the interests of the government's people. And it's enough if someone understands my goal is only to make someone understand, not actually force them to agree with me. But as I've stated above, I won't waste my time on further or longer explanations on this matter since I realized there are fundamental misunderstandings I don't have the time to clear up in terms of functional or technical knowledge as well as social.
As a matter of fact, I know that even this is a waste of my time, as you will only understand half of what I wrote, most of you probably don't even have the vocabulary, nor the experience to interpret it as I am meaning it. You will again only conclude that I'm a smart-ass, or biased, or butt-hurt as if there truly was anyone who isn't biased on what they have experienced in the world. But it's ok, I understand the level you're at, you want to feel good about yourself, and get the recognition from the fellow commenters which leads you to self-satisfaction. Well, I hope you're satisfied.