tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/kindle-41980/articlesKindle – The Conversation2019-04-08T10:03:47Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1150032019-04-08T10:03:47Z2019-04-08T10:03:47ZDo we really own our digital possessions?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267795/original/file-20190405-180052-1xszr3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hands-holding-ebook-on-bookshelf-backgroundcopy-1074326873?src=IfIdziPWwRFAWc6FLWcuFw-1-0">tommaso79/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Microsoft has announced that it <a href="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4497396/books-in-microsoft-store-faq?ranMID=24542&ranEAID=kXQk6*ivFEQ&ranSiteID=kXQk6.ivFEQ-eAwtdWPEGVYc54lIdxfA7w&epi=kXQk6.ivFEQ-eAwtdWPEGVYc54lIdxfA7w&irgwc=1&OCID=AID681541_aff_7593_1243925&tduid=(ir__pauzgzeqs9kfrlerxkpoxiopbn2xmjhsqdv6klxb00)(7593)(1243925)(kXQk6.ivFEQ-eAwtdWPEGVYc54lIdxfA7w)()&irclickid=_pauzgzeqs9kfrlerxkpoxiopbn2xmjhsqdv6klxb00">will close the books category</a> of its digital store. While other software and apps will still be available via the virtual shop front, and on purchasers’ consoles and devices, the closure of the eBook store takes with it customers’ eBook libraries. Any digital books bought through the service – even those bought many years ago – will no longer be readable after July 2019. While the company has promised to provide a full refund for all eBook purchases, this decision raises important questions of ownership. </p>
<p>Digital products such as eBooks and digital music are often seen to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/3/510/1822611">liberate consumers from the burdens of ownership</a>. Some academics have heralded the “<a href="https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=518530">age of access</a>”, where ownership is no longer important to consumers and will soon become irrelevant. </p>
<p>Recent years have seen the emergence of an array of access-based models in the digital realm. For Spotify and Netflix users, owning films and music has become unimportant as these subscription based services provide greater convenience and increased choice. But while these platforms present themselves clearly as services, with the consumer under no illusion of ownership, for many digital goods this is not the case. So to what extent do we own the digital possessions that we “buy”? </p>
<h2>Fragmented ownership rights</h2>
<p>The popularity of access-based consumption has obscured the rise of a range of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1089308">fragmented ownership configurations</a> in the digital realm. These provide the customer with an illusion of ownership while restricting their ownership rights. Companies such as Microsoft and Apple present consumers with the option to “buy” digital products such as eBooks. Consumers often make the understandable assumption that they will have full ownership rights over the products that they pay for, just as they have full ownership rights over the physical books that they buy from their local bookstore. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267805/original/file-20190405-180036-1cfyzkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267805/original/file-20190405-180036-1cfyzkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267805/original/file-20190405-180036-1cfyzkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267805/original/file-20190405-180036-1cfyzkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267805/original/file-20190405-180036-1cfyzkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267805/original/file-20190405-180036-1cfyzkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267805/original/file-20190405-180036-1cfyzkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We buy eBooks just as we do paperbacks, and yet the former are subject to very different terms of ownership.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/mobile-reading-literature-library-concept-book-115429459?src=3xxDnljMVOM3k-xviSdybA-1-82">Oleksiy Mark/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, many of these products are subject to end user licence agreements which set out a more complex distribution of ownership rights. These long legal agreements are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-service-online-contracts-fine-print">rarely read by consumers</a> when it comes to products and services online. And even if they do read them, they are unlikely to fully understand the terms. </p>
<p>When purchasing eBooks, the consumer often actually purchases a non-transferable licence to consume the eBook in restricted ways. For instance, they may not be permitted to pass the eBook on to a friend once they have finished reading, as they might do with a physical book. In addition, as we have seen in the case of Microsoft, the company retains the right to revoke access at a later date. These restrictions on consumer ownership are often encoded into digital goods themselves as automated forms of enforcement, meaning that access can be easily withdrawn or modified by the company.</p>
<p>This is not a one-off occurrence. There have been many similar instances that raise questions of ownership. Just last month, social media site MySpace admitted to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/18/myspace-loses-all-content-uploaded-before-2016">losing all content uploaded before 2016</a>. Blaming a faulty server migration, the loss includes many years’ worth of music, photos and videos created by consumers.</p>
<p>Last year, after customers complained of films disappearing from Apple iTunes, the company revealed that the only way to guarantee continued access was to download a local copy – which, some opined, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2018/09/17/apple-responds-to-disappearing-itunes-movie-purchases-issue/#1316ade372b6">goes against the convenience of streaming</a>. Amazon hit the headlines way back in 2009 for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html">remotely erasing “illegally uploaded” copies of George Orwell’s 1984</a> from consumers’ Kindle e-reading devices, much to consumers’ dismay and anger. </p>
<h2>Illusions of ownership</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267852/original/file-20190405-180044-3yr1mb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267852/original/file-20190405-180044-3yr1mb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267852/original/file-20190405-180044-3yr1mb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267852/original/file-20190405-180044-3yr1mb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267852/original/file-20190405-180044-3yr1mb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267852/original/file-20190405-180044-3yr1mb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267852/original/file-20190405-180044-3yr1mb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Once you purchase a physical book, you own it entirely.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-african-woman-buying-books-bookstore-555071521">LStockStudio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381667/">My research</a> has found that many consumers do not consider these possibilities, because they make sense of their digital possessions based on their previous experiences of possessing tangible, physical objects. If our local bookstore closed down, the owner wouldn’t knock on our door demanding to remove previously purchased books from our shelves. So we do not anticipate this scenario in the context of our eBooks. Yet the digital realm presents new threats to ownership that our physical possessions haven’t prepared us for. </p>
<p>Consumers need to become more sensitised to the restrictions on digital ownership. They must be made aware that the “full ownership” they have experienced over most of their physical possessions cannot be taken for granted when purchasing digital products. However, companies also have a responsibility to make these fragmented ownership forms more transparent. </p>
<p>Often there is a logical business reason for such restrictions. For instance, since digital objects are infinitely reproducible – they can be duplicated quickly and easily at negligible costs – restrictions on sharing are a means to protect the profits of both distribution companies (Microsoft or Apple, for example) and media producers (including the authors and publishers of an eBook). However, these restrictions must be stated clearly and in simple terms at the point of purchase, rather than hidden away in the complex legal jargon of end user licence agreements, obscured by the familiar terminology of “buying”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Mardon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When you buy a film, eBook or song, you might assume that you own it outright, but that’s not always the case, meaning companies may have a right to take it back from you.Rebecca Mardon, Lecturer in Marketing, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/925242018-02-27T16:27:30Z2018-02-27T16:27:30ZPublishing’s Ratner moment: why eBooks are not ‘stupid’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208029/original/file-20180227-36700-764jb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/ebook-on-pile-old-books-isolated-146809889?src=dNLzTUJzivH72YtsJN4aNg-1-50">shandrus via Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the days before social media – and, presumably, media training – Gerald Ratner’s description of some of the products sold in his chain of jewellers as “total crap” became a byword for the corporate gaffe. Recently the chief executive of publisher Hachette Livre, Arnaud Nourry, seems to have suffered his own “Ratner moment” when he described ebooks in an <a href="https://scroll.in/article/868871/the-ebook-is-a-stupid-product-no-creativity-no-enhancement-says-the-hachette-group-ceo">interview with an Indian news site</a> as a “stupid product”.</p>
<p>The interview, which was intended to address the future of digital publishing and specific issues facing the Indian publishing market, was widely misquoted and Nourry’s comments taken out of context. But there is no denying the fact that the publisher criticises his own industry (“We’re not doing very well”) and attacks ebooks for lacking creativity, not enhancing the reading experience in any way and not offering readers a “real” digital experience.</p>
<p>Some commenters on social media welcomed Nourry’s comments for their honesty. They highlight his seeming support for the idea that publishers should be championing writers and artists working to exploit the creative potential of digital formats to provide readers with experiences that may be challenging and disruptive, but also exhilarating and boundary pushing.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"965552075412209664"}"></div></p>
<p>But many of the 1,000-plus commenters reacting to coverage of the story on The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/20/ebooks-are-stupid-hachette-livre-arnaud-nourry">Guardian’s website</a> spoke out against “fiddling for the sake of it” – claiming they were not interested in enhanced features or “gamified dancing baloney” borrowed from other media. They also listed the many practical enhancements that ebooks and ereaders do offer. The obvious one is the ability to instantly download books in remote locations where there are no bricks and mortar bookstores. But there are other less obvious enhancements, including being able to instantly access dictionary and encyclopedia entries (at least if you have wifi access) and the option to have the book read to you if you have visual impairments.</p>
<p>Elsewhere, Australian researcher <a href="http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-May-2014/barnett.html">Tully Barnett</a> has shown how users of Kindle ereaders adapt features such as Highlights and Public Notes for social networking, demonstrating that even if ebooks are not that intrinsically innovative or creative, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t be made so by imaginative users.</p>
<p>Nourry clearly isn’t averse to the provocative soundbite – in the same interview he went on to say: “I’m not a good swallower” when asked about mergers and conglomeration in the publishing industry. On the other hand, he also seems very aware of the special place of books and reading in “culture, education, democracy” – so his use of the word “stupid” in this context is particularly inflammatory and insensitive.</p>
<h2>Dear reader</h2>
<p>My research on digital reading has taught me that debating books vs ereaders is always likely to arouse strong passions and emotions. Merely mentioning the word Kindle has led in some instances to my being shouted at – and readers of “dead tree” books are rightly protective and passionate about the sensory and aesthetic qualities of physical books that the digital version possibly can’t compete with.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208082/original/file-20180227-36677-dz2dny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208082/original/file-20180227-36677-dz2dny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208082/original/file-20180227-36677-dz2dny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208082/original/file-20180227-36677-dz2dny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208082/original/file-20180227-36677-dz2dny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208082/original/file-20180227-36677-dz2dny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208082/original/file-20180227-36677-dz2dny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mother and daughter Barbara and Jenni Creswell enjoyed Anne of Green Gables in both print and ebook format.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ray Gibson</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But, equally, my research has shown that enhancements in terms of accessibility and mobility offer a lifeline to readers who might not be able to indulge their passion for reading without the digital.</p>
<p>In my latest project, academics from Bournemouth and Brighton universities, in collaboration with <a href="http://digi-tales.org.uk">Digitales</a> (a participatory media company), worked with readers to produce digital stories based on their reading lives and histories. A recurring theme, especially among older participants, was the scarcity of books in their homes and the fact that literacy and education couldn’t be taken for granted. Our stories also demonstrated how intimately reading is connected with self-worth and helps transform lives disrupted by physical and mental health issues – making comments about any reading as “stupid” particularly damaging and offensive.</p>
<p>I would like to know if Nourry would still call ebooks stupid products after watching Mary Bish’s story: <a href="http://www.readingonscreen.co.uk/2017/06/21/my-life-in-books/">My Life in Books</a> from our project. A lifelong reader who grew up in a home in industrial South Wales with few books, Mary calls her iPad her “best friend” and reflects how before the digital age her reading life would have been cut short by macular degeneration.</p>
<p>As well as demonstrating that fairly basic digital tools can be used to create powerful stories, our project showed that the digital also makes us appreciate anew those features of the physical book we may take for granted, the <a href="http://www.readingonscreen.co.uk/2017/10/15/for-the-love-of-books/">touch, smell and feel of paper</a> and the special place that a book <a href="http://www.readingonscreen.co.uk/category/stories/brighton/">handed down</a> from generation to generation has in the context of family life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92524/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bronwen Thomas has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (grant ref AH/P013716/1) for the Reading on Screen project.</span></em></p>Criticism of ebooks is the last thing you’d expect from the chief executive of global publishing company Hachette Livre.Bronwen Thomas, Professor of English and New Media, Bournemouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823472017-08-17T13:09:45Z2017-08-17T13:09:45ZWhy the very idea of ‘screen time’ is muddled and misguided<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182219/original/file-20170816-32682-1a7qr4z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hang on mum, I'm just catching up on The Conversation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/little-boy-eye-glasses-reading-playing-141556504?src=c4v9N4poBQWXWywYOwlsDg-1-60">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The idea of “screen time” causes arguments – but not just between children and their anxious parents. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, recently compared overuse of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/05/children-bingeing-social-media-anne-longfield-childrens-commissioner">social media to junk food</a> and urged parents to regulate screen time using her <a href="https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/2017/08/06/digital-5-a-day/">“Digital 5 A Day” campaign</a>.</p>
<p>This prompted the former director of Britain’s electronic surveillance agency, GCHQ, to respond by telling parents to <em>increase</em> screen time for children so they can gain skills <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/let-your-kids-spend-more-time-online-to-save-the-country-says-ex-gchq-chief-10978898">to “save the country”</a>, since the UK is “desperately” short of engineers and computer scientists. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, parents are left in the middle, trying to make sense of it all.</p>
<p>But the term “screen time” is problematic to begin with. A screen can refer to an iPad used to Skype their grandparents, a Kindle for reading poetry, a television for playing video games, or a desktop computer for their homework. Most screens are now multifunctional, so unless we specify the <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2017/06/08/the-trouble-with-screen-time-rules/">content, context and connections</a> involved in particular screen time activities, any discussion will be muddled.</p>
<p>Measuring technology usage in terms of quantity rather than quality is also difficult. Children spend time on multiple devices in multiple places, sometimes in short bursts, sometimes <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2016/02/24/learning-from-children-and-young-people-about-positive-smartphone-opportunities/">constantly connected</a>. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-natalia-kucirkova/the-continuing-debate-ove_b_15668774.html">Calculating the incalculable</a> puts unnecessary pressure on parents, who end up <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2017/06/08/the-trouble-with-screen-time-rules/">looking at the clock</a> rather than their children.</p>
<p>The Digital 5 A Day campaign has <a href="https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/2017/08/06/digital-5-a-day/">five key messages</a>, covering areas like privacy, physical activity and creativity. Its focus on constructive activities and attitudes towards technology is a good start. Likewise, a key recommendation of the <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66927/1/Policy%20Brief%2017-%20Families%20%20Screen%20Time.pdf">LSE Media Policy Project report</a> was for more positive messaging about children’s technology use. </p>
<p>After all, an overwhelming focus on risk and harm creates fear, underplays possible benefits of technology, and limits parents’ role to policing and protecting rather than <a href="http://www.readingrockets.org/article/children-and-digital-media-rethinking-parent-roles">mentoring</a> and <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2017/02/07/digital-skills-matter-in-the-quest-for-the-holy-grail/">enabling</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182228/original/file-20170816-32640-1m9uwsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182228/original/file-20170816-32640-1m9uwsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182228/original/file-20170816-32640-1m9uwsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182228/original/file-20170816-32640-1m9uwsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182228/original/file-20170816-32640-1m9uwsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182228/original/file-20170816-32640-1m9uwsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182228/original/file-20170816-32640-1m9uwsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tablet time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/grandfather-grandchildren-home-using-digital-tablet-539137576?src=Gvh7JpoNUZEXm9y0G3KPhg-1-36">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Technology use is complex and takes time to understand. Content matters. Context matters. Connections matter. Children’s age and capacity matters. Reducing this intricate mix to a simple digital five-a-day runs the risk of losing all the nutrients. Just like the NHS’s Five Fruit and Veg A Day Campaign, future studies will no doubt announce that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/five-a-day-fruit-veg-must-double-10-major-study-finds/">five ought to be doubled to ten</a>.</p>
<p>Another problem will come from attempts to interpret the digital five-a-day as a quality indicator. Commercial producers often use government campaigns to drive sales and interest in their products. If a so-called “educational” app claims that it “supports creative and active engagement”, parents might buy it – but there will be little guarantee that it will offer a great experience. It is an unregulated and <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2016/12/28/what-are-the-effects-of-touchscreens-on-toddler-development/">confusing market</a> – although help is currently provided by organisations providing evidence-based recommendations such as the NSPCC, National Literacy Trust, Connect Safely, Parent Zone, and the BBC’s CBeebies.</p>
<p>The constant flow of panicky media headlines don’t help parents or improve the level of public discussion. The trouble is that there’s too little delving into the whys and wherefores behind each story, nor much independent <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-internet-is-not-actually-stealing-kids-innocence-80543">examination of the evidence</a> that might (or might not) support the claims being publicised. Luckily, some bodies, such as the <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/">Science Media Centre</a>, do try to act as responsible intermediaries.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"894797187183464448"}"></div></p>
<p>When it comes to young people and technology, it’s vital to widen the lens – away from a close focus on time spent, to the reality of people’s lives. Today’s children grow up in increasingly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/upshot/stressed-tired-rushed-a-portrait-of-the-modern-family.html">stressed, tired and rushed modern families</a>. Technology commentators often revert to food metaphors to call for a balanced diet or even an occasional digital detox, and <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797616678438">that’s fine to a degree</a>. </p>
<p>But they can be taken too far, especially when the underlying harms <a href="https://www.netfamilynews.org/generation-destroying-smartphone-researchers-push-back">are contested by science</a>. “One-size-fits-all” solutions <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2017/02/23/supporting-and-developing-parents-strategies-for-childrens-use-of-digital-media-at-home/">don’t work</a> when they are taken too literally, or when they become yet <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2016/10/26/when-parents-choose-screen-time/">another reason to blame parents</a> (or children), or because they don’t allow for <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2017/02/23/supporting-and-developing-parents-strategies-for-childrens-use-of-digital-media-at-home/">the diverse conditions</a> of real people’s lives. </p>
<p>If there is a food metaphor that works for technology, it’s that we should all try some humble pie when it comes to telling others how to live. “Screen time” is an <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2017/08/02/screen-time-for-kids/">outdated and misguided shorthand</a> for all the different ways of interacting, creating and learning through screen-based technologies. It’s time to drop it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82347/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalia Kucirkova receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sonia Livingstone receives funding from the MacArthur Foundation for her research project, Parenting for a Digital Future.</span></em></p>Technology enables many ways of interacting. We need to be more specific and scientific.Natalia Kucirkova, Senior research associate, UCLSonia Livingstone, Professor of Social Psychology, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.