In a shocking new report by the 1001 Critical Days Foundation that revealed two-thirds of babies (yes babies) use screens – some up to eight hours a day – the report’s authors and researchers go to painful lengths to avoid blaming parents for this dreadful state of affairs.
The research commissioned by 1001 Critical Days Foundation, a charity set up Dame Andrea Leadsom, conducted by iADDICT found deeply troubling screen use by babies:
- One in 10 babies now regularly falls asleep with a screen
- Screen use was reported in over 70% of babies and under twos, with some using screens for several hours a day.
- A meaningful minority of babies were exposed to up to eight hours per day.
- One mother interviewed as part of the research described how, “Sometimes my baby struggles in her sleep to let go of the tablet.”
The problems caused by infants using screens do not require any sort of scientific study to prove: developmental delay, speech delay, bonding issues, damage to eyesight, inability to socialise normally, shortened attentions spans, the development of autistic-like behaviours, a strange morphing between reality and the digital world and a complete disconnection from the physical world around them. Anyone who has been in a restaurant and observed toddlers and babies in high chairs clutching with two tiny hands their digital tablet, while their parents silently scroll on phones, will have observed the problems: absolute pandemonium when screens are removed and the babies and children have to eat. No wonder
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And yet we worry about the rise of autism and ADHD.
ADHD and autism can be caused by wireless radiation. See https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/
Very good article, but why does no-one mention that the wireless radiation emitted by these devices does physical damage, leading to hormonal & neurological disease, cancer and infertility as well as electrosensitivity? This alone explains behavourial problems. It’s not only algorithms, content and the bad habits formed. Neuroscientist Dr. Starkey gave a round up of the science to the Early Years Inquiry about 9 years ago. Instead of reducing Wifi in schools they increased it. Why? See https://cdn.website-editor.net/2479f24c54de4c7598d60987e3d81157/files/uploaded/Early_Years_Inquiry_EY10062.pdf. Dr Starkey is not alone. A large group of international experts at https://icbe-emf.org/
Of course it is the parents fault; but then many of them will also be addicted to their screens and will see nothing wrong with it.
Meanwhile, the Government is actively trying to push everything online so they can monitor and control the population via Digital ID. So, as usual they are the problem and any “solution” they are offering is simply trying to mitigate the damage they are deliberately causing.
Many adults certainly set the scene.
Everything shown to babies by a black mirror device is a lie and a distortion of the truth. It is truly incredible that adults are exposing them to this evil, but as it is the most efficient and hypnotic baby sitter known to man or woman, hardly surprising. If the seductive content isn’t bad enough, little is known about the effects of electromagnetic fields and waves on developing brains. Not a risk worth taking.
This article lost me at “family hubs” being funded and tech companies taking responsibility… This is so simple: BABIES DO NOT NEED SCREENS. Case closed.
Let’s face reality, The Labour Party and the Greens and the other socialist Parties want stupid people, they want dumb kids, then there is no questioning, no challenge, useless eaters on a lifetime of benefits, who in return for Love Island, tik tok, kebabs and cheap booze will happily give their vote and continue to breed more useless eaters.
If the Government really wanted to improve children’s lives they would ban IPADS, phones, etc which connect to the internet for children under 16, they would teach subjects in school which cover real history, real classical literature, mathematical reasoning, and the ability to question and debate. But they do none of these things, because strong, educated, self reliant people do not need Socialism.
Its the Prussian model, except instead of useful obedient citizens, we are teaching them to be useless, ideological, weak and helpless.
“If the Government really wanted to improve children’s lives they would ban IPADS, phones, etc which connect to the internet for children under 16”
I don’t think it’s any business of Government to “improve people’s
lives” other than by performing the basic functions that it makes sense for a state to perform – law and order, protecting our borders, some infrastructure and planning activities. I don’t want my life “improved” by anyone other than me, and I certainly don’t want the state to pretend to improve my kids’ lives either.
You obviously feel that excessive internet use is bad for kids. I happen to agree. It’s bad for adults too. But it’s ultimately none of my business what other people and their kids do in their spare time. Be careful when you support the power of the state to ban things – they might use it to ban things that you don’t disapprove of, such as not wearing a face mask during a “pandemic”, or tumble driers.
Agreed. It’s the parents’ responsibility.
As for a parent complaining that an education support worker is interfering? WTF did she think they were there for? Moron.
Indeed – people want their cake and eat it. Give me free money and resources, tell me what to do because I can’t be arsed to think about it, until you tell me something I don’t like then it’s interfering.
The smoking gun that gives credence to your argument is that if the government was intent upon intervening to improve the welfare of kids by mobilizing tech company regulation, family “hubs” and other external, community-level measures, it can only be justified by peddling the pretence that screens are somehow a necessary part of a baby’s care, i.e. the silly idea that they can’t just be taken away, only regulated, moderated.
That kind of thinking suggests that parents have no agency of their own, they must be directed by the state as to how to care for a newborn infant. So socialism creeps in at the most foundational level.
I wish we could up-vote articles. Have a virtual, virtual up-vote Mary Gilleece
Seconded. What a brilliant article.
I don’t believe it
A confected report to show that parents can’t be trusted and the state needs to be empowered to protect the babies.
Part of the bigger psy-op
If you haven’t observed this yourself you must lead a very sheltered life.
Children who are isolated fail to socialise, gain language skills and are incapable of judging emotions in others. Sitting in front of a screen Is isolating.
A couple of weeks back, we were at a restaurant. On a table nearby, was a family gathering for a birthday, including a child of no more than two years old. The entire meal the half dozen adults, and the same in children were chatting laughing, and engaging. Except that is for the two year old, glued to its iPad and not engaging with anyone.
When the food arrived they tried to get the tablet off the kid, but he screamed as if they were trying to cut his hands off. the mother went back to pushing bits of food into its face, while it remained glued to the iPad. I’ve seen similar played out many times over the last five years especially.
So, anecdotally, I’m a believer that we are doing immense harm to the psychological and social development of our kids by not doing the simple thing of talking to our kids.