When did "screen time" become a thing? What has the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had to say about screens and babies? What are the key issues and findings in screen time research? I share my top 3 "lessons learned" about using screens with and around babies, and my top 3 reasons why - despite debatable findings - I still think minimizing and delaying screen time are worthy parenting pursuits.
I’ve never been that caught up in the whole “screen time” debate, mostly because it hasn’t been a debate in my family. We have a television, but we’ve made it inconvenient to watch things on it. The TV is up in an attic, where it’s annoying to get to, and it’s not hooked up to cable. We don’t even have Netflix – we use our local public library for DVDs. When my husband and I turn on the television, it’s a conscious decision – we choose to watch, to deviate from our default. We’re not entirely opposed to TV or movies (I love re-watching Mad Men as much as the next person), but in general we prefer to read or talk or listen to podcasts – and we make it a point to use the TV screen purposefully. TV simply is not a part of our daily lives. Given the way our home is set up, the matter of television for our son has essentially been a non-issue.
But screen time is no longer synonymous with television. And while our television use might be way-below average, it’s still something. And screen time in our home is up there. Rare are the stretches of time devoid of computer screens or cell phones. If I wasn’t all that curious about whether and how much TV my son should watch (which, I quickly became – the landscape is fascinating), I was curious about whether and how much my own typing, web surfing, online reading, or exercise-video watching affects my son. What exactly is the problem with screen time, anyways? Is it all visual? Or is there an audio component? (And then, do podcasts or music have any associated issues?) What’s the difference between different kinds of screens? My questions abounded.
My first inclination was to find out when all the hubbub about screen time started. To put it mildly, very recently. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published its first policy statement on screen media in 1999. “Screen time” wasn’t even “a thing” yet.
This issue is new. Which means its “history” is all but nonexistent. Prior to the 1990s, although there were tons of cultural and scientific explorations about children and TV, there were almost no cultural or scientific explorations considering babies or screen time. When I started reviewing this, I was less concerned with the historical debates regarding older children’s access to inappropriate programming (measured in terms of violence, aggression, drugs, sex, etc.) or lifestyle correlations (obesity, hours of sedentary activity, school performance, behavior problems, eating disorders etc.) My purpose was to inquire about the actual screen technology and its effects on babies’ brains – not screen content or long-term health issues. But I quickly realized that it’s not so easy to parse all this out. Everything is too interconnected. After spending several weeks researching this, here is a synopsis of what I found most important and applicable. For anyone interested in reading more, pick up Lisa Guernsey’s book Screen Time, which is an incredible and approachable resource for parents with lots of questions about screens.
Magic Picture Tubes: TVs to Tablets
Screens made their way into Americans’ homes (and later, their pockets) beginning in the mid-1900s. This history is a separate story, but the briefest overview suggests a sweeping pattern: screen technology proliferation met with (often simultaneous) optimistic, creative anticipation and critical, concerned agitation. It happened with movies. It happened with television. It happened with video games. And now it’s happening with the exponentially-growing amount of screen media on computers, phones, and tablets.
Television took off in America around 1950. As of 1948 there were 100,000 TV sets nationwide. The next year there were a million. The next decade, there were 50 million; 7 out of 8 U.S. homes had a television. Furthermore, families with kids were more likely – twice as likely – to own televisions. It was in the 1950s, then, that kids began watching the “magic picture tube.” TV was America’s pastime. Babies grew up with televisions on, and typically had their “first direct experience” with TV (meaning they used it themselves) at around 2 years of age.
Within a couple of years, observers were bemoaning the fact that American children spent more time each year watching television than in school. (The school vs. TV comparison stuck – it’s still frequently reported.) Early critics in the 1960s talked about TV as the “opiate of the masses,” and posed poignant questions still relevant today: “do [children] learn more from [TV] than they would learn without it?”
Between the expansion of television and the present day – a mere six decades – other screens infiltrated American life. Where the U.S. Census once asked about TVs, it now asks about computers. Per Pew research, in 2015, almost 70% of U.S. adults owned a smartphone (for all cell phones, 92%). More than 70% owned a laptop or desktop computer. Forty-five percent owned some sort of tablet.
These screens are visible to babies. In 2012, almost one-third of American babies had a TV in their bedroom, and almost half watched TV or movies for nearly 2 hours daily.
When it comes to the next generation, there exists a sort of intrinsically negative perspective about technology’s permeating effects. I am certainly biased in this direction. So are pediatricians, apparently – according to a 2004 study, they “almost universally believe that children’s media use negatively affects children in many different areas, including children’s aggressive behavior, eating habits, physical activity levels, risk for obesity, high-risk behaviors, and school performance . . . .” There are legitimate reasons to be wary of technology, but some of our (my) woes might be misguided. As researcher Alison Gopnik observes, “innovative technologies always seem distracting and disturbing to the adults attempting to master them, and transparent and obvious—not really technology at all—to those . . . who encounter them as children.” New technology is often overwhelming before it becomes ordinary. Case in point: reflecting on TV’s time demands of Americans, in a 1961 book called Television in the Lives of Our Children, authors observed that “if any of us were now compelled to find two or three hours every day for a new activity, we should probably resent that requirement as an intolerable intrusion on our scheduled lives . . . .” But, they stated, this is exactly what TV did. (And before the TV it was the radio.) Sound familiar? In 2017, these “intolerable intrusions” are Snapchat, Twitter, blogs, Facebook, Instagram – everything at our fingertips pressing us to “keep up.” Technology can be a paradox: it’s freeing but also confining; it’s helpful but also a nuisance; it connects us but also divides us.
The First AAP Statements: 1985 & 1999
Distilling the entire history of pediatric screen woes would be a monumental project. Let’s just cover the milestones. Broadly speaking, the biggest concerns involved the effects of inappropriate content and physical health. (Remember, almost none of this was specified to babies – just older children.)
After decades of worrying about how excessive violence, sexuality, and substance use on television influenced child viewers, doctors in the 1980s discovered TV’s associations with obesity. It was a big deal. The landmark 1985 article in Pediatrics asked: “Do We Fatten Our Children at the Television Set?” The study looked at older children’s TV usage (the youngest children were 6) between 1966 and 1970 and found “significant associations” between time watching TV and the incidence of obesity. In fact, the association was so strong that it qualified as a dose-response relationship, meaning that the more TV kids watched, the higher their risk for obesity. Every extra hour kids spent in front of the television per day was correlated with a 2% increase in obesity rates. The effects were so strong that they met the criteria for a causal association – television could (indirectly) be a cause for obesity. (In brief, these associations have (mostly) held firm over time. TV remains a convoluted culprit in the childhood obesity epidemic for multiple reasons.)
The same year (1985), the AAP released a task force statement expressing concerns about the amount of television American children were watching, and specified problematic content – violence, sex, and drugs – as well as the newly-documented elevated risk of obesity as key areas of concern.
Over the next 10-15 years, concerns about media content escalated. Studies exploring the ramifications of television (especially television depicting violence, sex, and drugs) abounded. Then, investigators also had to contend with video games. And computer games. And younger viewers. In 1997, Baby Einstein came out.
By 1999 the digital media landscape was totally different than in 1985, and the AAP issued a statement on “media education.” It encouraged doctors to start asking parents about media use and suggested that parents carefully select what kinds of programs their children watched (or played). It also advised parents to: “co-view” media with their children, talk with their kids about shows watched or games played, role model “responsible media use,” and work to cultivate their children’s interests in non-media activities. The statement also urged parents to create “electronic media-free environments” in bedrooms and refrain from relying on television as an “electronic babysitter.”
This was the first piece of formal advice I could find that specifically referenced babies. Babies two years or younger should “avoid television viewing.” The AAP called out programs advertising to parents with babies (such as Baby Einstein), saying that their promises of early development and learning were a farce. Instead, babies needed “direct interactions” with humans for “healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills.”
The Next AAP Statements (2011 & 2016) and the Spread of Second-Hand Screens
Then things got really interesting. For the first decade of the 2000s – the 10 years that saw the development of the IPod, IPad, and IPhone, not to mention GPS devices , TiVo, Nintendo Wii, Kindle, and digital photo frames – the AAP stuck with its 1999 recommendations for families: limit screen time to less than 2 hours per day, limit all screen time for babies, keep bedrooms screen free, and watch and talk about screen media content with kids. Even though pediatricians agreed with these directives, they were “least likely to have discouraged TV viewing for children <2 years of age.” The average 0-2 year-old watched television for 1-2 hours daily.
(Side note – by this time the number of AAP policy statements was snowballing in general, to the point that one study in 2006 announced that pediatricians trying to implement policy statement directives were “drowning in a sea of advice.” Study investigators noted that media use comprised 12% of the existing advice.)
In 2011 the AAP came out with a new statement reaffirming its 1999 policy statement. For babies 0-2, the Academy still “discouraged media use,” noting that there were essentially no benefits associated with babies’ screen time, but there were potential negative effects. Again challenging companies that marketed to families with babies, the AAP asserted that “the educational merit of media for children younger than 2 years remains unproven despite the fact that three-quarters of the top-selling infant videos make explicit or implicit educational claims.” (To explain this a little further, babies don’t understand what they see on a screen – it’s not impossible for them to learn from or interpret something on a screen, but screens are finicky, unreliable teachers. Somewhere around 2 years, children experience developmental shifts that help enable them to follow televised programs differently. This happens at different times, and to a different degree, for every child.)
Most of this reiterated the 1999 policy statement, but the 2011 AAP statement differed from its 1999 predecessor in that it distinguished – for the first time – between “foreground” and “background” media use, calling background media use “second-hand television.”
Second-hand TV distracts. It distract babies from creative play and parents from their babies. For babies, television watching came directly out of their time spent interacting with family members or playing independently.
Overall, the 2011 AAP policy statement upheld the existing recommendation to “discourage media use” among 0-2 year olds, explaining that “media – both foreground and background – have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years.” “Unstructured play time,” the statement read, “is more valuable for the developing brain than any electronic media exposure.”
There was a serious backlash against this. The AAP caught major flak from parents, researchers, and some of its own, who said the organization’s stance on screens (1) was unreasonably strict, (2) was unrealistic and therefore unhelpful for parents, and (3) ignored (the lack of) evidence about how screens affect babies. Critics said there wasn’t enough evidence available to justify a rigid screen time limit of “zero” for babies. (Remember, the actual suggestion was to “discourage media use.”)
The way I see it, these criticisms were right and wrong. There was a dearth of information linking television to specific negative health effects for babies (compared to older children, for whom there is an abundance of evidence showing just that). And parents could benefit from more nuanced advice about TV. At the same time, though, I don’t necessarily think the AAP was off its rocker. It had reason to believe babies who watch more television are delayed in language development, although the jury is still out. It had plenty of evidence about sleep disruption. (In children under 3, TV-watching is clearly associated with irregular sleep schedules. This alone is enough to convince me to keep my baby away from screens as much as possible.) And it “discouraged” media for babies – it didn’t “ban” screens, as some media outlets suggested.
Parents, pediatricians, and scientists applauded the AAP’s 2016 updated screen media statement. They praised the new policy statement for being more reasonable, evidence-based, and offering a more “nuanced” take on screen time. So, what was different? First, instead of referring to babies’ and kids’ screen time, the AAP discusses “family media use.” For babies 18 to 24 months, it still recommends no screens, but makes allowance for video chatting. Beyond 18 months, the AAP continues to advise against screen time but offers a little guidance for parents interested in introducing digital media anyways: “choose high-quality programming/apps and use them together with children, because this is how toddlers learn best. Letting children use media by themselves should be avoided.” (What kinds of programs are appropriate? It’s best to “avoid fast-paced programs . . . apps with lots of distracting content, and any violent content”; for little people, “slower, quieter, less, is more.”)
Herein lies a major point of stress in 2016: co-viewing. “Screen time in question has to be parent time.” It is technically possible for older babies to learn from screens, but that learning is highly conditional, more challenging, and less likely to “stick.” Parent participation in screen media – watching together, talking about it – is a key component facilitating any of that learning. (Isn’t this just learning from adults, though? And is this actually how families are using or will use screen media? The way I hear parents talk about screen time is almost like nap time – a sort of hallowed window for parents to get something done – not as “together time” with their babies.)
Some other noteworthy bits from the AAP’s 2016 screen media statement include recommendations to turn screens off during meals and for at least an hour prior to bedtime, avoid using media as a calming tool, and turn screens off when they are not being used. Instead of screens, promote as much unstructured play time and social interaction with adults as possible.
Follow Up: Some Foils in Some Arguments
There are several “go-to” lines of thinking that defenders and critics of screen time rely on. Some of them have some issues – let’s look.
1. “Delaying exposure and access to screens puts kids at a disadvantage.” Not so.
There is something to be said for role modeling responsible use of technology for children, but delaying introducing screens will not put kids behind. “It is often assumed,” explains psychologist Aric Sigman, “that if children do not ‘get used to’ screen technology, early on, they will in some way be intimated by it, or be less competent at using it later. However, research has found that even Rhesus monkeys are comfortable with, and capable of using, the same screen technology that children are exposed to.” Plus – this just makes sense. Kids are learning machines. Every second of a child’s day is about learning. Just because I might struggle with new technology does not mean my son will. Kids are growing up in a tech world – it’s impossible to change this. In the 1950s, when Americans were buying televisions in droves, even kids who grew up in towns without access to television never “live[d] in a pretelevision era.” Adults and kids in places without televisions (yet) were “very conscious of living in a world of television.” So it is with digital media today.
2. “Scientific evidence proves screens are terrible for babies.” Not exactly.
The studies are really hard to run. There are tons of caveats and subtleties. (Again, read Lisa Guernsey’s book Screen Time if you are up for learning about them all.) Instead, scientific evidence indicates that screen time can be a problem for babies. Furthermore, every child responds to screens differently – some become placated, others hyper. Mine displays classic symptoms of overstimulation, becoming restless and cranky.
3. “Trading out screen time is ALWAYS the best choice.” Not necessarily.
As researcher Alexandra Samuel describes, there’s a tendency to portray time spent away from screens as idyllic, and time spent in front of them as something to panic about.” It’s probably almost always better for babies and kids to be doing something else – and by this I mean actually doing something else, or otherwise figuring out how to not be bored – than to be watching a screen. TV displaces other activities, after all. But perhaps that’s not always true for parents, who might benefit from the “x” number of minutes that screen time provides them to exercise, make dinner, read, or generally do anything necessary to maintain sanity. (Although, now we’re wading back into murky water because “using” screens in this way goes against all evidence indicating parents should be participants in their kids’ screen time.)
Summing Screens Up
This research is still in its infancy. There is so much we’ve yet to learn. Here are my top 3 “lessons learned” about using screens with and around babies, and my top 3 reasons why I still think minimizing and delaying screen time are worthy parenting pursuits.
1. “All screen time may not be equal.” I love Lisa Guernsey’s wonderful take on screen time for young children. She emphasizes the “Three C’s”: context, content, and child. “What media means to children at these very young ages almost entirely depends on context—on how it is being used and talked about by the adults and siblings around them,” she explains. If and when screens bring parents and kids together, maybe we can think of them as “good.” But no screen is going to be always good or always bad – screens could be “baby occupiers at one point in the day and conversation starters another.” And “children, even at very young ages, can benefit from using media when it catalyzes conversation and is designed for learning.” For me, Skype and FaceTime are reminders of this. But even television and movies can potentially be a source of bonding. Which brings me to #2. . .
2. Parent interaction with screen time is essential. The “chief factor that facilitates toddlers’ learning from commercial media (starting around 15 months of age) is parents watching with them and reteaching the content.” Unless you are watching something baby-appropriate (i.e., designed for babies) WITH your child and interacting with him while doing so, screen time is probably - best case scenario - confusing to him.
3. Be a screen time mentor. Keeping kids’ lives screen free might work temporarily, but we have a responsibility to help teach our kids how to utilize technologies as a source of growth and learning – not distraction and mindlessness. “Just as abstinence-only sex education doesn’t prevent teen pregnancy,” writes researcher Alexandrea Samuel, it seems that keeping kids away from the digital world just makes them more likely to make bad choices once they do get online.” I’m striving to be more mindful with my own reliance on screens, to set a better example for my son as he grows up.
All of that said, here are my three reasons for avoiding screens as much as possible:
1.To establish the habit of minimal or no screen time.
Here’s the thing: screen time isn’t great for adults. It’s “bad” for humans. It’s tied up with obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. It screws with our eating patterns and our sleep. As one researcher summarizes: “numerous well designed prospective cohort studies continue to find a highly significant dose-response association between ST [screen time] and risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality among adults.” One study “recently reported that every 1 h/day increase in television viewing was associated with a 6% increased hazard for total fatal or non-fatal CVD [cardiovascular disease], and an 8% increased hazard for coronary heart disease.” It makes no difference what you are watching: these risks are not merely from being sedentary. It seems as though screen time “may be somewhat distinct from other forms of sedentary behavior . . . The education value of screen material being viewed does not preclude the significant associations reported above between ST and morbidity, mortality and associated biomarkers.” Steven Gortmaker, a professor of the Practice of Health Sociology at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, advises parents on how to “Limit the Dose” when it comes to screen time. One strategy is to start early. It’s easier to maintain the pattern of lower levels of screen time than it is to cut back.
2.To minimize second-hand screens (and noise) and begin teaching mindful screen media use.
For all the questions and uncertainties about how watching TV influences babies, there is a great deal of evidence indicating that having TVs on in the background is demonstrably problematic for babies. “Background television,” says Lisa Guernsey, “which . . . gets very little attention, has been shown in recent scientific studies to have the potential to do harm to very young children.” Background TV interrupts babies’ and toddlers’ creative play, interferes with baby/toddler-parent interaction, and impedes babies’ and toddlers’ language learning. These effects can also apply to distracting background sound in general -- yes, that means podcasts or loud music or the radio or exercise videos might be a problem. When there’s too much noise, says one expert researcher, a baby’s attempts to learn language become “‘devastatingly impaired.’” A separate pair of researchers likens the problem to trying to learn a foreign language while the television is on in the background – sounds frustrating, right? I'm not going cold turkey on all sound-emitting devices and programs, but every little bit helps. Shutting screens, being selective about podcasts or radio shows, and turning things off when they’re not being used can help instill a pattern of purposeful, mindful screen time and provide my son with a better learning environment.
3.To get sleep.
I’ve already touched on the extent to which screens mess up sleep (again, for people of all ages). Blue light screens are particularly disruptive. Parents with babies literally dream about sleep. It’s the holy grail. I’d do anything that might help my son – and therefore me – sleep more soundly. Of course, screens aren’t the only culprit obstructing children’s sleep – as Michael Rich, the director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Boston Children’s Hospital, notes, “‘I’ve also had kids who have been found staring wide-eyes and bloodshot at Harry Potter [books] at two in the morning.” We still have a way to go before the Harry Potter series is keeping my son up. In the meantime, I’m relying on Lisa Guernsey to keep me up to speed and I’m sticking with a low screen time mantra: “limit the dose.”
 Wilbur Schramm, Jack Lyle, and Edwin Parker, Television in the Lives of Our Children (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), 11, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KyykAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=history+american+television+homes+children&ots=F5Qo9YKG43&sig=Zx04m6Pg9wmH5eR4eueJ9AwHVUI#v=onepage&q=history%20american%20television%20homes%20children&f=false.
 Ibid., 12.
 Ibid., 25.
 Ibid., 2, 3.
 Aric Sigman, “Time for a View on Screen Time,” Archives of Disease in Childhood 97, no. 11 (November 2012): 935, doi:10.1136/archdischild-2012-302196.
 Douglas A. Gentile et al., “Well-Child Visits in the Video Age: Pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Guidelines for Children’s Media Use,” Pediatrics 114, no. 5 (November 2004): 1235.
 Alison Gopnik, “Is ‘Screen Time’ Dangerous for Children?,” The New Yorker, November 28, 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/is-screen-time-dangerous-for-children.
 Schramm, Lyle, and Parker, Television in the Lives of Our Children, 12.
 William H. Dietz and Steven L. Gortmaker, “Do We Fatten Our Children at the Television Set? Obesity and Television Viewing in Children and Adolescents,” Pediatrics 75, no. 5 (May 1985): 807, 808, 811.
 Lisa Guernsey, Screen Time: How Electronic Media-from Baby Videos to Educational Software-Affects Your Young Child (New York: Basic Books, 2012), 231.
 Congressional Record, “American Academy of Pediatrics Releases Task Force Statement on Children, Adolescents, and Television,” Congressional Record Daily Edition 131, no. 27 (1985): E872.
 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Public Education, “Media Education,” Pediatrics 104, no. 2 (August 1999): 342.
 Melinda Rogers, “Physicians Should Ask About ‘Screen Time’ at Every Well Visit,” Pediatric Annals 39, no. 9 (September 1, 2010): 586, doi:10.3928/00904481-20100825-11.
 Gentile et al., “Well-Child Visits in the Video Age: Pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Guidelines for Children’s Media Use,” 1235.
 Peter F. Belamarich et al., “Drowning in a Sea of Advice: Pediatricians and American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statements,” Pediatrics 118, no. 4 (October 2006): 1705.
 Council on Communications and Media, “Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years,” PEDIATRICS 128, no. 5 (November 1, 2011): 1040, 1041, doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1753.
 Ibid., 1042, 1043.
 Ibid., 1043.
 Markham Heid, “What the New Screen Time Guidelines for Kids Really Mean,” Time, October 21, 2016, http://time.com/4541118/screen-time-guidelines-kids-parenting/.
 COUNCIL ON COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA, “Media and Young Minds,” PEDIATRICS 138, no. 5 (November 1, 2016): 3, doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2591.
 Ibid., 4.
 Alva Noe, “The Upshot of New Screen Time Guidelines? Spend Time With Your Kids.,” NPR, November 4, 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/11/04/500484900/upshot-of-new-screen-time-guidelines-spend-time-with-your-kids.
 COUNCIL ON COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA, “Media and Young Minds,” 1.
 Council on Communications and Media, “Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years,” 3–4.
 Sigman, “Time for a View on Screen Time,” 940.
 Schramm, Lyle, and Parker, Television in the Lives of Our Children, 16.
 Alexandra Samuel, “Parents: Reject Technology Shame,” The Atlantic, November 4, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-parents-shouldnt-feel-technology-shame/414163/.
 Emily Oster, “‘Screen Time’ for Kids Is Probably Fine,” FiveThirtyEight, June 18, 2015, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/screen-time-for-kids-is-probably-fine/.
 Elisabeth R. McClure et al., “‘Facetime Doesn’t Count’: Video Chat as an Exception to Media Restrictions for Infants and Toddlers,” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 6 (December 2015): 1–6, doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.02.002.
 Lisa Guernsey, “When Baby Apps Actually Lead to Learning: The Lessons of Baby Einstein,” Slate, September 9, 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/baby_app_ftc_complaints_are_missing_the_big_picture.html.
 Lisa Guernsey, “The Beginning of the End of the Screen Time Wars,” Slate, October 21, 2016, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/10/the_american_academy_of_pediatrics_new_screen_time_guidelines.html.
 COUNCIL ON COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA, “Media and Young Minds,” 1–2.
 Samuel, “Parents: Reject Technology Shame.”
 Sigman, “Time for a View on Screen Time,” 936.
 Ibid., 935.
 Ibid., 936.
 Alvin Powell, “Keeping an Eye on Screen Time,” Harvard Gazette, September 15, 2015, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/keeping-an-eye-on-screen-time/.
 Guernsey, Screen Time, 70, 82.
 COUNCIL ON COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA, “Media and Young Minds,” 2.
 Gopnik, “Is ‘Screen Time’ Dangerous for Children?”
 Rachel Becker, “Why Calling Screentime ‘Digital Heroin’ Is Digital Garbage,” The Verge, August 30, 2016.