Nick Szabo  🔑

No, they aren't. They are inculcating them in an isolationist elitist culture and implying that the technology that often *governs* the lives of normal people—but not them—is a danger during the kids' formative years.

Most "tech", especially social media, is a danger during formative years. It teaches radically low time preference, prevents children from learning how to plan ahead & think through things. I wasn't raised that way. Nobody successful has ever been raised that way, AFAIK.

I know you are stating that "tech" is not "social media"—and that is exactly my point. The article states those kids are strictly limited from technology and "electronic devices." Poor people simply don't have the option to be luddites. Every advantage must be seized.

Letting social or mass media babysit your kids is very far from giving them an advantage, however much it may well make the parents' lives much easier.

I think maybe demanding a poor family's resources and capacity for time and attention be stretched so far is unrealistic. My only point is that what is appropriate for a billionaire family is inappropriate for a poor one—and will certainly not lead kids to being billionaires.

Farmers living in the Midwest in the late 19th century had tons of kids and got along with no electricity whatsoever, much less electronic gizmos and the internet. A few of those kids became e.g. Henry Ford.

It’s still not a good idea to lionize what paranoid billionaires who refuse to treat their own cancers and neglect their children do. Those kids who can breathe technology like air and drink it like water, as Dijkstra implied, will be prepared. Hackers don’t appear in a vacuum.