The digital fact started as a supplement to our lives and now it has completely invaded them. It surrounds us 24 hours a day and in any field: education, health, business, sexuality, leisure... It is not surprising, then, that hundreds of mothers and fathers are beginning to think about limiting this colonization, the main risk of which (there there are advances, of course) is the hijacking of attention, that of children and teenagers, but also that of adults.
Why did it take us so long?, some ask. For various reasons: novelty, speed of implementation, admiration, resignation, ignorance. There are two myths that have helped a lot in this procrastination. One is that of "digital natives" assumptions. It invites us to think that, if they were born of the digital fact, there is nothing more logical that they bathe with gadgets from the first day. The truth is that no one - at the moment - is born with an iPad, we come into the world caused by a human desire and it is the parents who provide us with the objects, devices included. At their own pace and in their own style (in Great Britain, one in four children under the age of two has their own tablet).
The other myth is that technology is neutral and therefore good as long as it is not misused, it all depends on that. This would be useful if we were talking about knives or hammers that sleep peacefully in their boxes without sending us notifications, asking us for data or suggesting new uses. The digital fact does take the initiative and captures us easily (notifications, infinite scroll, rewards). Don't you think it's ridiculous, then, to put all the responsibility for self-regulation on a 12-year-old boy or his parents when the most powerful government in the world has not been able to regulate the practices - many irregular and abusive - of the five or six tech companies that control our data?
We welcome these initiatives - which are added to previous ones - of families who come together to accompany their children in a reasonable use of screens. I suggest three keys to this. The first: advance in the digital disconnection – without haste, but without pause – and, above all, collectively. The ban does not serve as a flag, nor to set us unfeasible goals, because this is an illusion that comforts us adults, but the rapid failure of which makes us more guilty. It is better to regulate its use by creating spaces free of connectivity (sleep, meals, patios, family gatherings). The second: teach them to make good use of it, respecting the principles (equity, privacy, solidarity, respect) that continue to be valid in virtuality and adding a plus: suggesting other, more diverse research than the more of the same that the algorithm serves us with tray. This is called digital literacy. The third, in a positive way, is to offer them other desirable things in person: leisure, sports, cultural, group activities. For families who do not have this time, it is necessary to demand from the administration more supervised social meeting spaces.
First, it is necessary to assume the necessary co-responsibility of all: governments, industry, schools, families and children and adolescents. Everyone has their own and adults must set an example and their witness in good digital uses.
