Inherent in this discussion is the judgement that online interaction is less valuable than interpersonal interaction. I think that depends on what value we're judging.

I think it also depends on who we're judging. I've 'met' a lot of social outcasts on the internet. Some people just aren't capable of interpersonal interaction because of mental makeup or what have you, and previously maybe they didn't have any alternatives. Now they can shack up with other people like them on the internet, where things that make interpersonal relationships click are deemphasized. You can argue that it's a bad thing that we cater to people like that when we should be teaching them to be sociable, but I think the reverse is true, that it's a good thing they can have any interactions at all. So I guess the internet can turn potential loners that were never going to have much 'real' interaction to begin with into people with friends, online or not. Very generalized, but you get the gist.

Ignore all the "the problem is you" crap, that's not why I shared this article.

It was a shitty article, perfectly apt for truereddit. Blame shouldn't even enter the equation. I merely wanted opinions on whether their thesis was true.

I read that Daily Mail article, I think it was linked in the comments. I had an atypical childhood as far as freedoms, but I still find myself reflexively noticing and wondering whenever I see a kid who looks <10 by themselves. Especially if they're near a street with cars. This reflexivity makes me think it's a societal issue rather than a parental one -- I'm not a parent, but I still have certain thought-patterns which I acknowledge are silly but continue to have.

So a final question: is it something to "fix," as you say? On the face of it seems obvious that kids should have freedoms not limited by overbearing society and stupid curfews and expensive cars, but you make the convincing argument above that teenagers are the ones driving this trend. If they are, who are we to try and fix it?