It's true that screens are helpful. But at least in many cases, they are making life worse. It's not that there aren't benefits, but in many specific domains, the negatives outweight the positives. This is true for children because they no longer have mental space to think for themselves, and it is true for many adults as well who spend 8+ hours in front of them. It might make the enterprises they work for more efficient, but it doesn't necessarily make the work enviroment better.
So I think there is sense to use "screens" in the pejorative sense. They are quite irritiating.
The misattribution to screens instead of antisocial behavior is what's making things worse. My children are fine despite having basically unlimited "screen" time. It's not my fault other parent's are incapable of parenting and rely on heavy handed legislation to protect their children from themselves. My children's lives are richer for having those "screens". They are far more curious and explore more than many of their peers do thanks to them. I think the pejorative of "screens" is far better spelled as "bad parents". But bad parents won't ever acknowledge that. Especially bad parents on HN thanks to Dunning-Kruger.
It's quite frankly ridiculous that people who associate with "hackers" want to isolate their children socially and technologically until some magical time that their mind is ready for controversy. As if the generations most capable of "hacking" weren't doing things far beyond their parent's understanding. Half the "hackers" here wouldn't be a fraction as successful if the censorship and restricted access they wanted were present when they were kids. Ladder pullers are some of the worst people in society.
> The misattribution to screens instead of antisocial behavior is what's making things worse. My children are fine despite having basically unlimited "screen" time
Technically it's only your word that your children are fine. Who's to say? Not really a datapoint in that regard.
> The late Steve Jobs famously didn't let his own children have iPads when they were young
Is this from his biography or something? I haven't read it. But the iPad came out in 2010 and Jobs passed away in 2011. I'm not sure how the timeline works there.
This claim has been passed around for years and comes from an article in 2011.
>“So, your kids must love the iPad?” I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The company’s first tablet was just hitting the shelves. “They haven’t used it,” he told me. “We limit how much technology our kids use at home.”
> "Screen-free" is clearly implying disapproval of screen time.
This is entirely an assumption on your part. Just because parents are looking for screen-free activities doesn't mean they're anti-screen. They're two totally different things. Most parents want to balance screen time with screen-free time. This doesn't imply anything. When you see a gluten-free option on a menu, do you feel so attacked? While some people may be so gluten-free that they impose their preachy anti-bread beliefs on others, most folks don't and are either looking to avoid wheat or have an allergy.
> Just because parents are looking for screen-free activities doesn't mean they're anti-screen.
The fact that they're highlighting the screen-free nature of these activities is what makes it perjorative. Otherwise they would just be "activities for kids". This sort of thing:
> When you see a gluten-free option on a menu, do you feel so attacked?
No, because some people genuinely can't tolerate gluten.
Putting "screen-free" in there serves zero purpose except to guilt people who let their kids watch videos occasionally into thinking they're doing something wrong.
It's obviously not a good idea to let your kids watch TV all day. Nobody thinks that. But you don't need to feel guilty about letting them watch Saturday morning cartoons or whatever. That's my issue with this "screen-free" guilt trip.
There are plenty of examples where a screen provides a better and more enriching/edifying experience than dead trees, etc