This article, though compelling, doesn't seem to quite understand that the current accessible streams of the internet- which is largely social media or social media adjacent- (owned by meta, google, kicrosoft, or tiltok) is designed specifically to take advantage of our neurology and to capitalize on our attention.
Anybody can be addicted to anything, anybody can have mal-adaptive relationships with everything.
The current internet, however, is explicitly designed for mal-adaptive relationship in a way that paper isn't.
This in many ways is like comparing honey- the naturally sweet, succulent, lightly medicinal and stimulating syrup- to crack. A hammer of a euphoric stimulant that, after use and post-addiction, skews our entire perception and abilities to neurologically regulate due to the intensity of craving, and the discomfort (and often pain) of understimulation.
I'm not against the use of the internet, I'm also not against the use of crack. But if we're not being honest about what the real addictive effects these have on our neurology/nervous systems, we will not be able to talk about them honestly and introduce the possibility of right-relationship with them.
I was an internet kid, raised on video games, television, and the internet. I am now struggling with basic functioning in my mid-twenties, and struggle not to deeply squander my attention. I see this not as me being a victim to the internet, but as a natural consequences of deferring my agency for relating to my life in all its struggle and lonliness to the comfort that I recieved from the stimulation of what computers offered me.
This resonates so deeply with me and my girls. As I’ve come to understand them more, I’ve seen how they use screens not as an escape, but as a way to regulate, explore, learn and create. I’ve never set arbitrary “screen time limits” — instead, we talk and figure things out together. They’ve learnt through open, two-way conversations how different kinds of screen use affect them, like noticing when too much brightness late at night makes it harder to sleep. We’ve found gentle ways to work around it — listening to Audible through Alexa, or using red-light filters so they can keep going with a project they’re immersed in. It might not be a paper project, but the creativity and focus are the same. How will the world judge its worth, I wonder?
They have no access to social media, and no interest in it either. There’s no doom-scrolling — instead they build worlds, make digital films, design mood boards, create annotated lists of the things that fascinate them, and even put together research-based PowerPoints. For them, screens are tools for expression and discovery, not distraction.
They’re ten and twelve, and neither has been able to reliably attend mainstream school for almost two years. Both are bright, curious girls who’ve been let down by a system that couldn’t see their needs — yet they’re slowly finding their own way, learning through passion, autonomy and trust.
Naomi’s article is such a powerful reminder of how young people use digital spaces to think, create and make meaning — and how often adults respond with limits, fear and judgement instead of curiosity. Watching my girls has completely changed how I think about learning and childhood. It’s shown me that creativity doesn’t live in paper or pixels — it lives in imagination. When we stop worrying about the medium, we finally start seeing the child.
And that’s been the biggest lesson they’ve taught me. Thank you Naomi for your inspirational articles, books and courses!
After dropping out of school my eldest son started spending all his waking hours watching youtube videos on his iPad. When we started to try and get him to engage in literally anything else, he started watching videos from the time we went to bed, to when his little brother got up. He would then spend all day asleep. We took him for blood tests because we were generally worried he had a physical illness. Fortunately we worked it out from the screen time app on the tablet.
We have started to realise that it is his escape from a reality that he cannot cope with. When he feels better he is able to engage in other activities (life), but when he feels worse he reverts to just watching one youtube video after another.
To say I find this insanely depressing is an understatement. How have I failed my child to the extent that they are opting out of life? (It reminds me of the start of Trainspotting).
I would agree that not all screen time is "bad", but a significant amount of social media screen time is deliberately addictive and actively harmful to our SEND kids, who are even less prepared to deal with the algorithms than our neuro typical children.
In summary I get what you are saying, but it feels a bit like a strawman argument. Yes, not all screen time is bad, but to compare it to paper is delegitimising a serious issue. As yet, no one has managed to build a paper based algorithm to actively damage people.
Having been in your son's position: I get what you say about algorithms, and I think they are geared towards giving more of what the IP owner is interested in, but I can tell you that when I was a kid I would just bury myself in books (and videogames and comics). As you say, when a certain kind of person is too overwhelmed they'll soothe themselves with something, for your son it seems to be Youtube videos.
I also think that some neurotypes are more prone to seeking stimulation - I couldn't even sit on the loo without reading the labels on the shampoos and washing liquid/powder. Or the cereal box.
I don't think you've failed your child, I think you're both dealing with an environment that isn't suited to him, and he deals with the stress of it how he can.
I can't guarantee things will get better, but in case it can help you: I spent years not wanting to get out of my home, not in school or employment, and now I have lived years in a different country (the UK), I'm married with a child (with his own challenges, similar to mine) and I work in IT, in a fairly technical job.
I was certainly lucky in some ways, I have a supportive husband, but I also was unlucky with my family instead. If you met me when I dropped out of school you'd have probably worried about my future, but I did manage.
For me school was just too much. It wasn't even as bad as I gather UK school can be (with the strict uniform code, the isolations/detentions, the longer time there, the bigger classes). Too many people in a class, too much switching, too much everything. It didn't prepare me for work at all anyway.
Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to say: you're doing what you can, and I do think ND folk often have a different path to adulthood than NTs.
Love this!! Can you speak to whether or not there is any DATA to indicate that the use of screens has developmental hazards associated with it? We regularly hear the argument that certain games and social media are designed to have a neurological effect, which makes them harder to "quit". The argument is that kids may/may not have the life experience or be developmentally able to make an informed choice regarding the potential consequences and, therefore, need others to facilitate that. Would you agree? For me, that's a slippery slope!!
This is a really interesting perspective and a thought-provoking read. Made me pause and really think about how I use the words screen time with my own children.
This article, though compelling, doesn't seem to quite understand that the current accessible streams of the internet- which is largely social media or social media adjacent- (owned by meta, google, kicrosoft, or tiltok) is designed specifically to take advantage of our neurology and to capitalize on our attention.
Anybody can be addicted to anything, anybody can have mal-adaptive relationships with everything.
The current internet, however, is explicitly designed for mal-adaptive relationship in a way that paper isn't.
This in many ways is like comparing honey- the naturally sweet, succulent, lightly medicinal and stimulating syrup- to crack. A hammer of a euphoric stimulant that, after use and post-addiction, skews our entire perception and abilities to neurologically regulate due to the intensity of craving, and the discomfort (and often pain) of understimulation.
I'm not against the use of the internet, I'm also not against the use of crack. But if we're not being honest about what the real addictive effects these have on our neurology/nervous systems, we will not be able to talk about them honestly and introduce the possibility of right-relationship with them.
I was an internet kid, raised on video games, television, and the internet. I am now struggling with basic functioning in my mid-twenties, and struggle not to deeply squander my attention. I see this not as me being a victim to the internet, but as a natural consequences of deferring my agency for relating to my life in all its struggle and lonliness to the comfort that I recieved from the stimulation of what computers offered me.
This resonates so deeply with me and my girls. As I’ve come to understand them more, I’ve seen how they use screens not as an escape, but as a way to regulate, explore, learn and create. I’ve never set arbitrary “screen time limits” — instead, we talk and figure things out together. They’ve learnt through open, two-way conversations how different kinds of screen use affect them, like noticing when too much brightness late at night makes it harder to sleep. We’ve found gentle ways to work around it — listening to Audible through Alexa, or using red-light filters so they can keep going with a project they’re immersed in. It might not be a paper project, but the creativity and focus are the same. How will the world judge its worth, I wonder?
They have no access to social media, and no interest in it either. There’s no doom-scrolling — instead they build worlds, make digital films, design mood boards, create annotated lists of the things that fascinate them, and even put together research-based PowerPoints. For them, screens are tools for expression and discovery, not distraction.
They’re ten and twelve, and neither has been able to reliably attend mainstream school for almost two years. Both are bright, curious girls who’ve been let down by a system that couldn’t see their needs — yet they’re slowly finding their own way, learning through passion, autonomy and trust.
Naomi’s article is such a powerful reminder of how young people use digital spaces to think, create and make meaning — and how often adults respond with limits, fear and judgement instead of curiosity. Watching my girls has completely changed how I think about learning and childhood. It’s shown me that creativity doesn’t live in paper or pixels — it lives in imagination. When we stop worrying about the medium, we finally start seeing the child.
And that’s been the biggest lesson they’ve taught me. Thank you Naomi for your inspirational articles, books and courses!
Valid perspective! I do remember one of the nuns ripping up my art work in school, because I'd gone over my allotted "paper time". Traumatising.
After dropping out of school my eldest son started spending all his waking hours watching youtube videos on his iPad. When we started to try and get him to engage in literally anything else, he started watching videos from the time we went to bed, to when his little brother got up. He would then spend all day asleep. We took him for blood tests because we were generally worried he had a physical illness. Fortunately we worked it out from the screen time app on the tablet.
We have started to realise that it is his escape from a reality that he cannot cope with. When he feels better he is able to engage in other activities (life), but when he feels worse he reverts to just watching one youtube video after another.
To say I find this insanely depressing is an understatement. How have I failed my child to the extent that they are opting out of life? (It reminds me of the start of Trainspotting).
I would agree that not all screen time is "bad", but a significant amount of social media screen time is deliberately addictive and actively harmful to our SEND kids, who are even less prepared to deal with the algorithms than our neuro typical children.
In summary I get what you are saying, but it feels a bit like a strawman argument. Yes, not all screen time is bad, but to compare it to paper is delegitimising a serious issue. As yet, no one has managed to build a paper based algorithm to actively damage people.
Having been in your son's position: I get what you say about algorithms, and I think they are geared towards giving more of what the IP owner is interested in, but I can tell you that when I was a kid I would just bury myself in books (and videogames and comics). As you say, when a certain kind of person is too overwhelmed they'll soothe themselves with something, for your son it seems to be Youtube videos.
I also think that some neurotypes are more prone to seeking stimulation - I couldn't even sit on the loo without reading the labels on the shampoos and washing liquid/powder. Or the cereal box.
I don't think you've failed your child, I think you're both dealing with an environment that isn't suited to him, and he deals with the stress of it how he can.
I can't guarantee things will get better, but in case it can help you: I spent years not wanting to get out of my home, not in school or employment, and now I have lived years in a different country (the UK), I'm married with a child (with his own challenges, similar to mine) and I work in IT, in a fairly technical job.
I was certainly lucky in some ways, I have a supportive husband, but I also was unlucky with my family instead. If you met me when I dropped out of school you'd have probably worried about my future, but I did manage.
For me school was just too much. It wasn't even as bad as I gather UK school can be (with the strict uniform code, the isolations/detentions, the longer time there, the bigger classes). Too many people in a class, too much switching, too much everything. It didn't prepare me for work at all anyway.
Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to say: you're doing what you can, and I do think ND folk often have a different path to adulthood than NTs.
Love this!! Can you speak to whether or not there is any DATA to indicate that the use of screens has developmental hazards associated with it? We regularly hear the argument that certain games and social media are designed to have a neurological effect, which makes them harder to "quit". The argument is that kids may/may not have the life experience or be developmentally able to make an informed choice regarding the potential consequences and, therefore, need others to facilitate that. Would you agree? For me, that's a slippery slope!!
I understand your point, but I disagree. As a teenager in the 90’s, I did use books as my escape, and my enjoyment. They were lovely.
As an adult, I discovered gaming, and social media. It is addictive, and I do regret letting it become my escape.
This is a really interesting perspective and a thought-provoking read. Made me pause and really think about how I use the words screen time with my own children.