this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
738 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

81710 readers
3798 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Despite building an increasingly screen-focused world, billionaire tech leaders are keeping their own children away from the tech they helped create.

As far back as 2010, Apple cofounder Steve Jobs told a New York Times reporter his kids had never used an iPad and that, “We limit how much technology our kids use at home.”

Since then, the trend of Silicon Valley billionaires keeping their families away from technology has become even more pronounced, thanks in part to the rise of social media and short-form video.

At the 2024 Aspen Ideas Festival, early Facebook investor and billionaire Peter Thiel joined Chen among the ranks of tech leaders who are setting strict limits on screens. Thiel said he only lets his two young children use screens for an hour-and-a-half per week, a revelation that prompted audible gasps from the audience.

Other tech CEOs, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and Tesla’s Elon Musk, have also spoken about limiting their children’s access to devices. Gates has said he did not give his children smartphones until age 14 and banned phones at the dinner table entirely. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, in 2018, said he limits his child to the same 1.5 hours per week of screen time as Thiel. And finally, Musk, who bought the social media company X, formerly Twitter, in 2022, said it “might’ve been a mistake” to not set any rules on social media for his children.

Yet, as the trials against social media companies continue and country after country moves toward legislating what Silicon Valley’s billionaires have quietly practiced for years, the private behavior of the world’s most powerful tech figures stands in contrast to what they’re promoting and building

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 2 points 30 minutes ago

Listen, billionaires suck. But if you think tech giants are hypocritical for strictly rationing screen time to their children then you have lost the plot.

Social media, and screen time in general, are bad for you. Everyone knows this now. If you aren't limiting your child's access, that's on you.

Before a child can get addicted, their parents have to give them access. If you can't live life without looking at a phone, TV, or tablet every free moment, then you're the reason your kids are turning into morons.

[–] deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zip 2 points 48 minutes ago

I love how Elon Musk was the sole fuck up in these examples

[–] BiomedOtaku@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago

Lol I've always known this. People are beyond retarded now. Like biggie use to say

" Never get high on your own supply "

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And they've convinced you that it's a-okay for your kids to be using these products, in full knowledge of the harm they cause.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

It's so fucking creepy. It's not just making people dumber, its literally exposing kids to sexual content and sexualizing children in advertisements aimed at adults.

At what point is it ok for all of society to demand these people either be put in jail or at least exiled from the rest of society?

Parents outraged as Meta uses photos of schoolgirls in ads targeting man Instagram pictures of girls as young as 13 were posted to promote Threads site ‘as bait’, campaigner says

Meta CEO Zuckerberg blocked curbs on sex-talking chatbots for minors, court filing alleges

Regulations are keeping your businesses from thriving? The ones you seem to be building to intentionally cater to pedophiles and harm children? Half of these creepy ass broligarchs are already confirmed to be in the Epstein files.

They're pretty open about what they want the future to look like, and the shit they've already got going, like the inescapable 24/7 surveillance where they can pick and choose the victims they want to legally abduct and traffic is just the beginning. And we're supposed to just pretend we're all fucking stupid enough to go along with it?

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 1 points 5 minutes ago

I don't agree.

I started using the web as a curious 8 years old. I was pretending to be an adult in order to sign up to forums, chat with people, etc.

Yes, I was exposed to porn, gore (remember goatse?) but that didn't make me dumb or a molester.

But nothing beats what I learned thanks to the internet. Endless days spent on programming forums, reading articles on a newborn Wikipedia, etc.

Even just talking with older people than me made me learn how to deal with things and life.

I don't think that the internet for a kid is bad per se. I wouldn't like a blanket ban for kids like the UK. If it was like that when I was a kid, I would probably be a more stupid person.

I think that the real bad thing is the stupid phones and apps that give you dopamine rushes.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

People get pissed at me but, as a short-term solution, I'm okay with giving up my ID in order to lock kids out. I personally think it is the lesser of two exceedingly great evils.

Ideally, there'd be federal regulation of these platforms in every country banning algorithmically-elevated content, ads, privacy violations, and holding the operators of these platforms accountable for CSAM, but I think that will take decades.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Why does it need to take decades though?

I bet if there were actual consequences for this shit, like in the form of seizing assets from the broligarchs who run these companies, and giving them to the victims of their creations, the issue would be solved very quickly.

[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 hours ago

Because they know their kids will have an advantage over the stupefied masses if they can keep them unmezmerizes.

[–] Kubiac@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 6 hours ago

Well, they know why. And they know that most of the people are stupid as a stone. This is how they made their money.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 hours ago

Duh. You think the CEO of Kraft feeds his kids mac and cheese from a box?

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 10 points 7 hours ago

Wow what a surprise. I can't imagine anyone better to know how unsafe something is other than the lead architects themselves.

[–] lmmarsano@group.lt 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Other tech CEOs, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and Tesla’s Elon Musk, have also spoken about limiting their children’s access to devices. Gates has said he did not give his children smartphones until age 14 and banned phones at the dinner table entirely. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, in 2018, said he limits his child to the same 1.5 hours per week of screen time as Thiel.

Seems like these failures suing them & demanding government paternalism

Yet, as the trials against social media companies continue and country after country moves toward legislating what Silicon Valley’s billionaires have quietly practiced for years

don't know how to effectively limit access/use parental controls as tech CEOs claim to do.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 8 hours ago

This behavior seems to be very similar to NFL stars and how they never wanted their kids to play football.

Everyone involved knows how dangerous social media/football is and many of them are in positions to actually do something about it. But because it benefits them personally, they won't even rock the boat.

[–] ravenaspiring@sh.itjust.works 26 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

YouTube cofounder Steve Chen said at a talk at the Stanford Graduate School of Business last year that he wouldn’t want his kids consuming only short-form content, noting that it might be better to limit kids to videos longer than 15 minutes.

I hope this is introduced at the LA trial in some form that demonstrates the why.

I should not be amazed, but I still am, at the entire lack of morality that tech entrepreneurs have post dotcom bursting.

[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Yeah, but the Epstein class wants us conditioned to be as forgetful as their LLMs, and compartmentalized like good robots so we reset to compliance by default without connecting too many dots. Concentration and focus are how you exercise consciousness, which is the opposite of what the ruling class wants. They've literally attempted to and in the minds of many individuals they've succeeded in framing consciousness as a "mind virus".

[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

They're subhumans with no morality or code of ethics whose sights are set on more and more wealth, spiralling them further into the depths of depravity and the cardinal sin of greed.

Greed begets more greed, but unlike gluttony and wrath, the billionaires' deterioration doesn't manifest itself physically, so they allow themselves to become evermore corrupted by it until they become a fountain of disease, rotting and decaying everything around them.

[–] UniversalBasicJustice@quokk.au -1 points 1 hour ago

Calling someone "subhuman" is the language of a supremacist. They are some of the absolute worst examples of humanity, yes, but they are still human. Referring to them as subhuman abdicates humanity's responsibility to bring them to justice and to build systems that prevent a disproportionate concentration of power and influence.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 47 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

"Our technology is perfectly safe and harmless for all ages!"

"So you would let your own children use it?"

"Nooo. No no no no no no. God no."

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 10 points 10 hours ago

"Are you kidding? I KNOW how addicting we make that shit. I don't want my kids anywhere near it."

[–] OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago

This isn't new. I remember fifteen years ago some Silicon Valley app engineers forbade their children from playing the games that were being developed.

It's because they're engineered to use your psychology against you. This is by design.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 hours ago

banned phones at the dinner table entirely

I would everyone is doing this. Sitting down to eat together once a day and talk isn't something only billionaires can afford.

[–] mrnobody@reddthat.com 140 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Hmmm it appears they understand how evil all the tech companies are, harvesting data to the fullest extent. Spying, influencing, etc.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 79 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

Oh they absolutely know. Zuck's Meta is on trial right now not only because Instagram creates an addiction for kids, but because it was made delibarately, on purpose. Kids addictron was the goal.

They've always known. They just don't care for the rest of humanity.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 28 points 12 hours ago

Look to the masters, the tobacco industry with additives to make it more addictive (been a while since I researched it and that's the one that popped up, but they spent 60+ years making it more addictive).

Social media speedran it with something apparently innocuous ('they trust me, stupid fucks'), and a bunch of corrupt psychologists (and marketers/advertisers also known as corrupt psychologists). Do no harm my ass, wait, that doesn't apply to psychologists, wait again, that's more like guidelines for doctors (not an actual vow in most places).

Next bill of rights / constitution needs to address this specifically, there's a reason why quacks have a special hatred (and if there were one, a special hell)...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] architect@thelemmy.club 2 points 8 hours ago

I doubt. I think it’s more like they fear us getting to them through their kids.

Imagine doing that to your child. Raising them in an alternate world that doesn’t really exist? That’s not fearing the tech and caring about their kids. That’s control. That’s them proving their children are the same things as a car.

Fucking degenerate assholes, pushing drugs knowing full well how harmful it is.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 79 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

Does musk even see any of his kids often enough to set rules?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 hours ago

He probably just wishes he put it in the contract signed with the mothers.

[–] slackarr@piefed.ca 29 points 12 hours ago

not if his kids have any say in the matter

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 30 points 11 hours ago
[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

How cute. They think the things billionaires say for ammo in the evential lawsuit are actually true.

[–] Antaeus@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago

That should be enough evidence for the rest of the world…

[–] db2@lemmy.world 45 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

The most disturbing part is these ghouls reproduced.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 6 hours ago

And they turn into whining crybabies when birth rates start dropping. It's their Achilles' heel, an actual challenge to their control.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 16 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

You look at the ~~eugenicist~~ natalist couples who worship Elon Musk and you realize they are indeed ghouls, and they treat their children like non-sentient garbage. Hitting them during interviews in public. Imagine what they do in private.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 hours ago

That article was an insane read. I couldn't have written more unserious people if I tried

[–] Uranhjort@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago

Leave it to natalists to make extinction seem the better option.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 25 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I say bullshit, these people aren't involved enough in their kids lives to even know if their "1 hour a day" or whatever rules are happening. Their kids are absolutely doing whatever the fuck they want.

[–] NannerBanner@literature.cafe 14 points 11 hours ago

That's what the paid 24/7 nanny is for.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 3 points 8 hours ago

I honestly think this is more likely the case. It’s a story they sell us idiots. But if it’s true, it’s not because they care about their kids.

[–] shiftymccool@piefed.ca 46 points 14 hours ago

Eat the rich

[–] Twongo@lemmy.ml 19 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Musk is the most Twitter addicted person I am aware of.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] enbiousenvy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

And finally, Musk, who bought the social media company X, formerly Twitter, in 2022, said it “might’ve been a mistake” to not set any rules on social media for his children.

That would require him to spend more time around his children than photoshoots and using them as human shields

load more comments
view more: next ›