Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

On the flip side, I can see some potential bad outcomes for young children being exposed to this.


sort by: page size:

I wouldn't want my kids exposed to this stuff. I don't want them to learn this as desirable behavior.

Can you provide some examples of this, and how it's impacting children in some sort of harmful way?

It sure does seem risky to give children something for which the long-term risks are unknown. I’d hate to think people have been doing that in recent years.

My biggest concern would be children doing what they're not supposed to.

There's a strange assumption going around the (western?) world that, because something is fun for children, it must be bad for you.

I saw the keyword, and as I qualified in the full comment, it’s a risk and one that shouldn’t be borne by the children

But it is toxic and dangerous and exploits you. It's also a very valuable tool. As with all things, there's a cost/benefit calculation to be done here.

I think that the cost/benefit ratio is hugely unfavorable when we're talking about very young children.


Damaging children in what way?

To what end? What could that possibly achieve? If it might make other children safer, perhaps? But I'm afraid that the kind of folks who make choices like that wouldn't make even a rational choice in their own favor to avoid the consequence.

this is once of those things where I'm 90% confident it isn't actually harmful to a young child...

...and yet if I had a child, I wouldn't expose them to tablets at a young age, just because that 10% is scary.


I believe that most people would probably assume that it's similar to eating a coin or other small piece of non-sharp metal -- it's not good, but it's generally not potentially life-threatening.

If you spend a little bit of time thinking about how strong magnets can probably attract each other through internal tissue, the risk makes sense, but it doesn't seem like something that's obvious, at least not to me.

This is one circumstance where awareness/warning labels are really useful, but unfortunately we hear so many frivolous warnings people are not likely to take them seriously. Everyone should know that these contraptions were literally banned at one point for the risk they pose to children, and the disclaimers encountered are not just generic CYA, but representative of a real risk to small children that has a real body count.

Like the GP, I'm glad that these are legal in the United States again, but we should not take the issue of informing parents of the risk involved with these toy-like objects lightly.

A similar issue is being posed by the small watch batteries included in many children's toys and remote controls these days. Children swallow these and they burn holes in their organs that result in serious disabilities. It's important that parents be aware of such non-obvious environmental dangers.


Are .. are you saying it’s a bad thing children can’t handle dangerous chemicals anymore? Wut?!

Under normal circumstances it would kill children.

It would probably disturb me, but I'm not sure I'd truly be disappointed. People are going to try that sort of manipulation on the child, and it's important that they be aware of the technique. It increases their resistance to it.

The "advertising inoculation" mentioned in the article is an example of this.


I think that most serious dangers are pre-wired into us, most kids will avoid them.

Oddly, I can agree it is more deadly for children, while still knowing it is not the likely reason for my kids to be in danger...

What if it will kill your children?

I wonder how this impacts very intelligent / early of age children, that might be flagged as adults by it...

The risk is turning away young minds.
next

Legal | privacy