UK Considers Banning Smartphone Sales To Children Under 16 (theguardian.com) 108
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Ministers are considering banning the sale of smartphones to children under the age of 16 after a number of polls have shown significant public support for such a curb. The government issued guidance on the use of mobile phones in English schools two months ago, but other curbs are said to have been considered to better protect children after a number of campaigns. [...] A March survey by Parentkind, of 2,496 parents of school-age children in England, found 58% of parents believe the government should ban smartphones for under-16s. It also found more than four in five parents said they felt smartphones were "harmful" to children and young people.
Another survey by More in Common revealed 64% of people thought that a ban on selling smartphones to under-16s would be a good idea, compared with 20% who said it was a bad idea. The curb was even popular among 2019 Tory voters, according to the thinktank, which found 72% backed a ban, as did 61% of Labour voters. But the thought of another ban has left some Conservatives uneasy. One Tory government source described the idea as "out of touch," noting: "It's not the government's role to step in and microparent; we're meant to make parents more aware of the powers they have like restrictions on websites, apps and even the use of parental control apps." They said only in extreme cases could the government "parent better than actual parents and guardians."
Another survey by More in Common revealed 64% of people thought that a ban on selling smartphones to under-16s would be a good idea, compared with 20% who said it was a bad idea. The curb was even popular among 2019 Tory voters, according to the thinktank, which found 72% backed a ban, as did 61% of Labour voters. But the thought of another ban has left some Conservatives uneasy. One Tory government source described the idea as "out of touch," noting: "It's not the government's role to step in and microparent; we're meant to make parents more aware of the powers they have like restrictions on websites, apps and even the use of parental control apps." They said only in extreme cases could the government "parent better than actual parents and guardians."
"Selling"... (Score:3)
Don't most kids get their phones when their family buys a multi-pack?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't most kids get their phones when their family buys a multi-pack?
WFT is a multi-pack of phones? Not a concept I've ever come across, in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't most kids get their phones when their family buys a multi-pack?
WFT is a multi-pack of phones? Not a concept I've ever come across, in the UK.
"multi-pack" is a marketing angle I see in the US. The cellular wireless company brags about a low low monthly rate but only if you sign up for 2 or 4 lines
The number of lines depends on the carrier but now I see lots of low-price BUT sign up for 2 lines packages.
So that all might be a great deal and all BUT what if you are single and don't need 2 lines? Is that discriminatory marketing?
Re: (Score:2)
So that all might be a great deal and all BUT what if you are single and don't need 2 lines? Is that discriminatory marketing?
The more you buy, the more you save. I don't think this is a very new or surprising concept in marketing. And while single people do sometimes need two mobile phones, that is usually because they have separate personal versus work phones and have the work one on an employer approved plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, as a single nobody I see that a family can get $25 per line everything plans while a single line is almost triple that. A family even uses more bandwidth per line with all the inter-family videos and children that consume videos all day.
If anything my single nobody adult line should cost the company less to service. I am the one that should get the discount!
Re: (Score:2)
Is that discriminatory marketing? Yes, as a single nobody I see that a family can get $25 per line everything plans while a single line is almost triple that.
Here in the UK you can get unlimited data for less than that....they all do unlimited calls and texts, even the £5 a month deals.
Re: (Score:2)
"multi-pack" is a marketing angle I see in the US. The cellular wireless company brags about a low low monthly rate but only if you sign up for 2 or 4 lines
The number of lines depends on the carrier but now I see lots of low-price BUT sign up for 2 lines packages.
So that all might be a great deal and all BUT what if you are single and don't need 2 lines? Is that discriminatory marketing?
Yeah we don't need that kind of shit here in the UK because we actually have a competitive mobile phone market. I can get 50GB of 5G data, unlimited calls and texts and EU roaming for £8 a month on a SIM only rolling monthly contract, not even tied into a 12 or 24 month contract.
Re: (Score:2)
As such many of the service providers offer bundle packages for families or other multi-person groups, and because the cost to "own" one of these phones is always cheaper than paying for the device outright (and then being on the hook when it dies in 6 months - 2 years), most will just sig
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, most people don't actually own the phone they carry around with them. It's part of their cell service subscription and they pay a rental / lease fee every month that varies depending on the model of the phone.
Got any stats to back that up? Leasing cars is common in the USA, but phones? Most Americans on postpaid service plans either got an initial discount on their phone in exchange for signing a (usually 2 year) contract, or are financing the phone for a similar term. After the phone is paid for, it's yours to do with as you please (assuming of course that the carrier made good on unlocking it for use on other networks).
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"Selling"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Smart. Condoms are cheaper than kids AND cellphones.
Re: (Score:2)
Multi pack?
Well I remember walkie talkies coming on packs of two and PMR446 radios usually have at least two radios but I've never seen anyone offer a smartphone with more than one handset, what would be the point?
Is this a US phone contract thing? Then maybe suh deals exist but here in the UK the kids would be using PAYG not contract.
Regarding your point, the kids would likely get the old hand me down phones from the parents. They then just put a new PAYG SIM in and top up tommys phone with his own pocke
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "multi-pack" was a funny word... but don't all American carriers have a "Family Plan"?
Re: (Score:2)
> but don't all American carriers have a "Family Plan"?
I have no idea, never been there. In the UK there is no such thing, each phone is a separate line so if they are contract phones, which I think is an obsolete idea not to mention a financially dangerous one, then each phone would have its own separate contract.
I do recall back in the day when us kids started carrying phones that some kids who had no self control and spent hundreds on a contract mobile would end up with one, the parents sorted out, t
Re: (Score:2)
We have an interesting control conundrum going on in the US. Parents don't want to give money to their kids, nor let them go without being tracked and limited... so they must pay for the extra lines.
Rich Kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, How many children under 16 are buying smartphones using their own money? Most likely their parents are buying smartphones for them and letting their kids use them on their phone plan.
Unless they're going to make giving a cellphone to kids akin to giving them cigarettes and alcohol, I don't see how this ban will do anything.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It is loosely categorized as behavioral addiction. And I would draw a distinction between a child chatting with peers that are part of their regular circle of friends. And with interacting with social media comments, forums, image boards, etc and communicating with semi-anonymous strangers that are not invested in their well being.
If a person often feels despondent when randos don't react enough to posts is one example of behavioral addiction. If you post something and get 3 "likes" and move on with your li
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
whys it safe for us though?
It's not safe or healthy for adults. But I'm not your mother and neither is the government.
but ban it? you can get the same anti-social cope with frickin arts and crafts for god sake
Coping mechanisms are fine if they provide some relief and allow a person to return to healthy behavior. If someone does some scrapbook crafting on the weekend after a rough week. That's great. If someone is crafting instead of interacting with their partner or going to work, then that's not healthy.
Why would we ban a product that is part of a wide-spread behavioral pattern in children that the public perceives as har
Re: (Score:1)
that is exactly where they are going with it. its being compared to alc and gambling.
Exactly. It's a great example of the slippery slope.
1: Ban "sales" to kids, because, you know, for the children
2: Limit the use of the bad smartphones, because, you know, for the children
3: Criminalize adults buying for their kids, because, you know, for the children
4: Tell parents how to raise their kids, because, you know, for the children
Seriously, Fuck the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
4: Tell parents how to raise their kids, because, you know, for the children
It takes a village to raise a child. I have every right to tell other parents how to raise their children. Especially since I'm helping to pay for it via tax credits.
Re: Rich Kids? (Score:2)
That goes two ways: that means I have every right to tell you how to live when later on my taxes that have been forcefully taken from me are paying for your health care and state pension. I donâ(TM)t think youâ(TM)d appreciate that though, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
Found the annoying millennial who goes to therapy, but still thinks they can do everything on their own.
Re: (Score:1)
But then it would be the parents flaunting the law. I'm not sure many parents would let their kids have such accounts if they might get fined for it.
Re: (Score:2)
But then it would be the parents flaunting the law.
How? It says banning the sale to minors under 16, not banning possession by minors under 16.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I guess I expected it to be the other way 'round.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're going to make giving a cellphone to kids akin to giving them cigarettes and alcohol, I don't see how this ban will do anything.
I believe it's legal for kids in the UK 16-17 to smoke and drink as long as their parents purchase it. I don't see why phones would be any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Rich Kids? (Score:3)
Seriously, How many children under 16 are buying smartphones using their own money?
My son had to trade in one of his guns to buy an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was under 16 I spent my money on things like knives, throwing stars, and fireworks. Seriously, actual brick and mortar stores used to sell 12 year old me black cats (exploding fire work) and jumping jacks (spinning firework). Adult supervision was very low back in the old days.
But I digress. I don't know how complicated it is to buy a phone in the UK. But in the US you can buy any one you want if you have a credit card. Without a credit card you can buy a pay-as-you-go phone as well as physical card
Re: (Score:2)
But I digress. I don't know how complicated it is to buy a phone in the UK.
Walk into your local Asda or Tesco supermarket, get one off the shelf, go to the counter and pay for it. As long as you're getting a pre-pay SIM nobody gives a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Roughly the same in the US. Walk into either an electronic store or most bodegas and buy a phone. But the phone and sim, and you can load minutes onto the sim with cash (using top up cards). Additionally, sim cards are often free if you go into a phone store. Google will mail you one for free as well if you're on Google Fi. These days most carriers support Bring-Your-Own-Device, even if most people over here still do the free phone with contract scam.
Last time I was in Canada (many years ago), people seemed
Re: (Score:3)
Most likely their parents are buying smartphones for them and letting their kids use them on their phone plan.
That's how parental responsibility is supposed to work. If some parents don't want their early teenaged or younger child to have a phone, the kid can't just go to the store and buy one themselves. Restricting device sales by age make far more sense than expecting every site on the internet to comply with your country's age restriction laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Most likely their parents are buying smartphones for them and letting their kids use them on their phone plan.
Yes.. Either that, Or the kid is working and probably driving, which you can do at Age 15 in the UK, In that case it would be inappropriate to say they can't have a cell phone. A cell phone is kind of indispensible to basic tasks in this day in age. The kids might be even in increased danger if they are not allowed to obtain that resource; as they could not use a Maps app to help them fi
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely their parents are buying smartphones for them and letting their kids use them on their phone plan.
Yes.. Either that, Or the kid is working and probably driving, which you can do at Age 15 in the UK,
I doubt it. You can't get a learners driving licence until age 17.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, How many children under 16 are buying smartphones using their own money?
Probably more than you think. When buying a new phone for their children, many responsible parents ask their children to contribute at least part of the sum from their own savings (as in: if you are OK with an old phone, get my old one, if you want a new phone, put at least % of the sum).
big brother (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
If they wanted to spy on kids or normalize spying, wouldn't they WANT kids under 16 to have smart phones?
Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a parent, I tried setting up Apple's child restrictions on a tablet. What a disfunctional mess. Unlike other aspects of iPadOS that are usable, this is just an obvious lawyer-driven kludge. It was not at all functional.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Phone or a tablet is not a problem, it is unrestricted access to social media that is. As a parent, I tried setting up Apple's child restrictions on a tablet. What a disfunctional mess. Unlike other aspects of iPadOS that are usable, this is just an obvious lawyer-driven kludge. It was not at all functional.
More than just this, it’s also proper education and training in how to be responsible, healthy, and safe online. Simply denying them access based on nothing but authoritarian principle is likely going to lead to nonstop binges once they inevitably are on their own. It’s important for them to actually understand why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Phone or a tablet is not a problem, it is unrestricted access to social media that is. As a parent, I tried setting up Apple's child restrictions on a tablet. What a disfunctional mess. Unlike other aspects of iPadOS that are usable, this is just an obvious lawyer-driven kludge. It was not at all functional.
More than just this, it’s also proper education and training in how to be responsible, healthy, and safe online. Simply denying them access based on nothing but authoritarian principle is likely going to lead to nonstop binges once they inevitably are on their own. It’s important for them to actually understand why.
Or rather, just doing it behind your back and not telling you.
Think back to when we were kids with alcohol and drugs. The worst kids were those who's parents expressly forbade it and pretended that, that worked. Those of us who had parents who acknowledged that as kids we'd get into these kinds of things whether they wanted us to or not prepared us for it and better, were someone we could talk to if things went wrong (which they inevitably did).
Like it or not, social media is part of our world and yo
Re: (Score:2)
> Simply denying them access based on nothing but authoritarian principle is likely going to lead to nonstop binges once they inevitably are on their own
I grew up in the 90's and when I got internet I never had binges like that.
This "constantly online" thing is only 15 or so years old, brand new in the history of humanity and childhood. It is a fad that makes tons of money and is addictive, like they used to do with giving ciggarettes to the kids outside school to create new customers, we have aquired t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Bye all (Score:1)
Seen some interesting stuff in the last 27 years, will miss my daily dose, sadly ill health has done me in.
"Neil Greatorex" for those that knew me.
Do the parents know (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, when a child has no smartphone, but all, or even a lot, of their peers have one they're going to get bullied.
If a child comes home crying because of getting bullied for not having a smartphone, any parent is going to budge and give them one.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, when a child has no smartphone, but all, or even a lot, of their peers have one they're going to get bullied.
If a child comes home crying because of getting bullied for not having a smartphone, any parent is going to budge and give them one.
This is bad parenting.
You are teaching the child that bullying is ok, that they must "keep up with the Jones's", and that giving in to peer pressure is the way life works.
Instead you could be teaching them to be strong willed, that bullying is wrong, and that friends treat each other with respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, but nobody parents anymore.
Those that do keep the kids offline much of the day.
It was much easier when it was dialup as using the line would tie up the line for everyone else in the household thus there was pressure to stop using it all the time, plus the cost of the calls too.
Unfettered access and speeds were thus avaliable in the schools, of course the teachers would only let you do the stuff you wanted to do during breaks and after school, for a time.
Phones (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really hard to limit kids' access to social media. But if you want to curb it somewhat, and still want your kid to have a phone, get a dumb phone. Calling and texting... that's it. Enough for emergency situations, but not enough to access social media.
Of course, your kid may well be ridiculed by other kids, so there's that...
Honestly, I'm in favor of just banning social media as a health hazard. The harm it does far outweighs the good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, I'm in favor of just banning social media as a health hazard. The harm it does far outweighs the good.
Your sentiment makes me thankful for the 1A in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
That amendment that say's Congress can only limit speech if it is commercial, bad for the kids, a national security issue and whatever other speech the Supreme Court is happy to limit?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What would USAA stand for?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm in favor of just banning social media as a health hazard. The harm it does far outweighs the good.
Honestly, as long as we are enforcing our will upon others based upon what we think is good, I think we should ban you from the Internet because you think controlling other people's behavior is your right and you tell others about it.
See how that works? Not so fun when that gun is turned around on you. Stop waving your gun in my face. (not that I am under 16 or anything, but the point still stands)
Re: (Score:2)
> you think controlling other people's behavior is your right
Other people?
These are kids. They earn new freedoms as they grow. Giving them everything on a platter from year 0 is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
> Of course, your kid may well be ridiculed by other kids
Moot point as they will ridicule the kid for anything else should they have a phone. Bullies dont ignore targets because they comply with "norms" they will use that compliance to find anything else they can use, which will stick out like a sore thumb.
I was picked on because I used a commodore 64 while everyone else was on a megadrive or snes. But as they made fun I simply learned to argue my case, that the SNES and MD were defective as they could
Typical unworkable solution. (Score:2)
No one under 16 buys a cell phone, and then the question of if they should have a phone or not is their parents, not the governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a ban on social media sites allowing 16 accounts would be much more effective. But that would not be super effective without age verification better than ticking a box.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. In the us you're already functionally limited to above 13, because of Data collection laws. To the best of my knowledge, that has not stopped any 12 year old who wants a twitter account.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a ban on social media sites allowing 16 accounts would be much more effective.
Do you know why sites like PornHub have just said "fuck you" to age verification laws? Because they don't want to deal with a worldwide patchwork of age regulations.
The UK is finally handling this sort of thing the correct way. If you don't want kids to be on a service intended for adults, don't give them access to the device that allows it in the first place. It's amazing that so many other Americans just don't get it.
Hell, when I was 13 I got onto an adult dial-up BBS, because my parents bought me a PC
Re: (Score:2)
And I agree with them, but on the much better grounds that when the government does verification, it from then knows every single communication or page or activity you make.
I'm thinking more what we have now, leave it up to companies, but levy fines on them if they're caught, or they don't make affirmative steps to ensure young children aren't joining their sites. Require parental controls on devices, that sort of thing. I don't want any government ID system being used to eliminate internet anonymity, no
Re: (Score:2)
Age rules certainly can be enforced against domestic websites, but this is the part where I remind you what those first two "W"s in WWW stand for. We'd end up needing a national firewall to block all the non-compliant sites, and at that point you've basically sunk to China's level of freedom.
Restricting access at the device level is really the most sane solution. It preserves the internet as it is now for adults, anonymity and all. Plus, if enough parents begin coming around to the idea that they shouldn
Re: (Score:2)
Such laws only apply domestically. Other jurisdictions are irrelevant.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Seems like a ban on social media sites allowing 16 accounts would be much more effective
Hasnt worked yet. Facebook, whatsapp, all full of underage kids. They need legally enforced age checks, which should due to the sensitive nature of the data, be backed with an ID check on the parents that confirm the kid can be checked in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
I struggle to understand people with this kind of default attitude.
The way I see it is as follows:
On the one hand, you have multi-billion dollar companies who are trying their utmost to exploit your children for profit. It's not that they're evil, it's just that they exist to make profit, because that's the system they exist in, and so what they care about is profit, not your well-being or that of your family. If it had turned out that asbestos tasted of bacon, at some point in the 70s there would have been
Re: (Score:2)
This is the whole "Some parents won't parent their children, so we shouldn't give anyone the opportunity to try", which is the same as "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't eat it" It's just dumb. Dd you know in Alabama you cannot buy a vibrator without a perscription? Do you know why? Guess.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yet somehow, some people see any attempt at government intervention as a tyrannical power grab
Those will be the people who lost at the election, or those who are waiting for the next one because they changed their mind ;)
> and actual direct and intentional manipulation by companies as freedom
Ah well they are in the system also. War is Peace, Slavery is freedom etc.
> Utterly bizarre.
I've been seeing this and thinking that since I was 15 in 1995
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so what's the angle here?
Maybe the whole point of it is to require ID so they can put a stop to burner phones.
Re: (Score:2)
> burner phones
Hasnt been a thing since Bourne Identity. All PAYG phones are activated and registered to an address with ID checks before use.
polls have shown (Score:4, Informative)
Ministers are considering banning the sale of smartphones to children under the age of 16 after a number of polls have shown significant public support for such a curb.
Translation: The tories are grasping at straws. https://www.politico.eu/europe... [politico.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Then the Tories are right on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Then the Tories are right on this one.
Yes, peculiarly enough they are giving up on their long time favourite tactic of doing crap the that pleases their donors but pisses off the British public off and are instead trying the desperate move of doing something the electorate actually likes. Let's see how much good that does them chewing up the 23 percent lead the Labour Party has on the Tories opinion polls.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, who the fuck are the Tories? Or Labour?
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, love how you're agreeing with the party but don't have a clue who they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm feeling a bit frivolous today.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Then the Tories are right on this one.
Yes, peculiarly enough they are giving up on their long time favourite tactic of doing crap the that pleases their donors but pisses off the British public off and are instead trying the desperate move of doing something the electorate actually likes. Let's see how much good that does them chewing up the 23 percent lead the Labour Party has on the Tories opinion polls.
This, it's not things like a 16 yr age limit on buying electronics that has sunk the Tories, it's the corrupt backhanders and read meat policies like Rwanada that has done it. Its a bit late for them to pretend they actually care or have any kind of affinity with the average person in the UK now.
Not that such a policy is remotely workable, we cant even stop 16 yr olds buying alcohol, let alone phones.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, they are trolling for laws to pass. That will not be very fun to deal with. Are they TRYING to cause social unrest?
The Limey Beans Are Floating To The Top (Score:2)
Of the British cesspool. Again.
Is the law written... (Score:2)
Is it written to include straw purchases for children under 16? Or just giving a kid a smartphone that's already owned? Or the use of smartphones by kids who already own them? I would think it would have to cover lots of edge cases to be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's no different than the laws already banning sale of knives or ciggies to kids.
Shops that allow it are those who will actually pay, it thus closes off one avenue.
Censorship! Woot? (Score:1)
Censorship AND parenting (Score:2)
This is a GREAT idea that won't stop bad parenting.
Have you seen what today's kids do? They have spare phones and their friends loan them spare phones when their parents dare to take away the phone. They buy phones off their friends too. You can't stop them but they are so ignorant you can spot the new devices showing up on your wifi...(or one of their friends who's not visiting shows up.) They are so addicted, they'll get caught using the device forgetting they are not supposed to have one!
This is like
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship of what?
The kids are not allowed to have phones in the pockets. They can access the internet via any other means. Just not have a phone. They dont need them. I never did, even when I demanded one and finally got one in the late 90's. I wanted one for the mobile internet but it was shit.
Now, today I actually have what I wanted to have back then and you know what, Id love to just leave the phone at home and forget about it. Too much online time, too much social media and adverts and distracti
Is there a real issue this addresses? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, you dont NEED a phone. You NEED internet access. Thats it.
IN fact using a proper computer solves so many issues with websites on phones. My cousin has a phone but she has a 3 year old and she NEEDS a computer to manage the 3 year olds applications and forms and what not as phones are crap at that sort of thing. She needed to have me ressurect he old windows 7 netbook so she could edit her CV, something that her phone totally messed up.
My other cousin needed to do online training that simply di
Wait, what? (Score:2)
At least back when I was that age (which admittedly was over 20 years ago) I couldn't have bought a cell phone if I wanted to. My parents got me my Nokia nugget at 16, and like the DAY I turned 18 they said "Go to the phone store and switch it to your own account". I had to pay a deposit, too, because I didn't have any credit yet either since I just bought my first car with cash.
If I had kids that age I
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't you have to be 18 to sign a legally binding contract anyway?
What contract?
In the UK the most commonly used phone is the PAYG phone, I myself at 43 never will or have had a phone contract (apart from the landline broadband).
Anyone can buy a phone and as long as you top it up, off you go. MOst kids are likley getting the old hand me down, which they just slide a SIM in that they get from the corner shop for £1 but this law will make sure that shops cant legally sell to under 16s, just like w
My! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There will be a lot more of this to come thanks to covid lockdowns changing the attitude of the public at large.
The government must and will provide...