Our association has been concerned for a very long time about the impact of screens on children and on all of us. Need we recall that in 2008, when the 3-6-9-12 milestones were created, the essential concern was to advocate education about screens and therefore limited, supported use? It was about children of course, but thanks to them and through them, the impact of technoference led us to think about adults’ use. This initiative was born of a worry: that of rushing into digitalisation without control and forgetting that this tool, like all those humans have invented so far, has advantages and drawbacks. At the time, some people were interested in our approach, specialists or researchers who saw in it an interesting stance to advocate or a way of being ahead of the market. In society, there was little interest, so strong was the appeal of digital novelty. One of the first conflations came with the controversy over screens supposedly making children autistic… Fortunately, this disinformation was officially refuted by the Haute Autorité de Santé in France. But that was only the beginning. The acceleration of digitalisation has plunged society into the inevitable overconsumption we feared, and with it conflations, confusions and anxieties.
So here we are, faced with panic. The government commissions a report on the subject; psychologists, sociologists, researchers and paediatricians give their opinions. The finding is unequivocal: our society is said to be sick with digital obesity. Then studies, so difficult to carry out given how precise the analyses and protocols must be, rain down endlessly. At last, they are made to speak. Books fill the shelves of our bookshops, tips and tricks on how to cope with screens become livelihoods, and the subject quickly becomes a divisive opinion. You are for or against screens. They are said to be definitively toxic or admirably helpful. Like many social issues, the use of screens becomes an opinion.
During our talks we are challenged on our lack of a clear position: should screens be banned, yes or no ? Are they harmful, yes or no ?
3-6-9-12+ has always chosen to bring reflection to a complex subject. It is neither an opinion nor a set of beliefs. It means studying closely and precisely what the scientific community has to say on the subject, and has done so from the start. Without easy conclusions, we hold a discourse that is both clear and nuanced, and call on collective intelligence to reflect together on what can be done in terms of prevention, use and restriction.
“But people don’t understand” we are told. Really ?
We are now seen by some as too soft, too permissive, inaudible and perhaps even suspect. Indeed, if others have conflicts of interest, what proves that we do not?
So we would go from pioneers in prevention to being guilty of laxity ? And perhaps even opportunists ?
What can be said in the face of these attacks that only deepen the confusion and sharpen the divide ?
We are all childhood professionals. We have no conflicts of interest with commercial companies; we closely study the international studies that regularly come out on the subject, without conflating correlation and causation. We believe that talking together enables better prevention and more effective support. We sounded the alarm as early as 2008, and will continue to do so with intelligence, nuance and professionalism.
