UK Considers New Smartphone Bans for Children (wired.com) 30
The UK parliament is considering clamping down on how young people use smartphones. A bill brought forward by a Labour member of parliament proposes both banning phones in schools and raising the age at which children can consent to social media companies using their data. Wired: Calls for smartphone bans have been growing in the UK, driven by fears that the devices are driving a decline in kids' mental health and ability to focus. Smartphone Free Childhood, a prominent pressure group inspired by Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation, calls for parents to delay getting smartphones for their children until they are at least 13. Florida has already passed a law that bans under-14s from holding social media accounts, and Australia is considering similar restrictions.
But academics warn that smartphone and social media bans are unlikely to be a catch-all solution to the problems facing young people. Experts on the impact of digital technologies argue that the legislation could end up shutting children out from the potential benefits of smartphones, and that more pressure should be put on social media companies to design better digital worlds for children. The latest proposed clampdown in the UK is thin on details, but the MP bringing the bill, Josh MacAllister, told the radio show Today that it would prevent social media companies making use of young peoples' data until they are 16. "We can protect children from lots of the addictive bad design features that come from social media," he said. The bill would also make a ban on phones in schools legally binding.
But academics warn that smartphone and social media bans are unlikely to be a catch-all solution to the problems facing young people. Experts on the impact of digital technologies argue that the legislation could end up shutting children out from the potential benefits of smartphones, and that more pressure should be put on social media companies to design better digital worlds for children. The latest proposed clampdown in the UK is thin on details, but the MP bringing the bill, Josh MacAllister, told the radio show Today that it would prevent social media companies making use of young peoples' data until they are 16. "We can protect children from lots of the addictive bad design features that come from social media," he said. The bill would also make a ban on phones in schools legally binding.
Re: Good! (Score:3)
More like cigarettes.
Thought to be harmless or a bit unpleasant at worst but turns out to be far more harmful than anyone anticipated.
Re: (Score:1)
Dumb phones to the rescue. (Score:2)
Just give them a dumb phone instead. All parents really want is the ability to call them and ask "where the hell are you?".
Re: (Score:1)
All parents really want is the ability to track their children via an app and let something else parent, because they’re just as addicted to smartphones as their junkie kids are.
Fixed that for you. Sorry about all those truth shit stains. They’ll come out. Eventually.
Re: (Score:1)
Just give them a dumb phone instead. All parents really want is the ability to call them and ask "where the hell are you?".
Yep, that's how smartphones were pushed/sold. "Oh you wouldn't want your little darling to be without a phone in an emergency, would you?"
Convincing people that a pocket internet connected computer was a "phone" was genius.
Re: (Score:2)
My parents offered to get me a cell phone in the mid 90s when I was a college student. I said no, I don’t need it most of the time, and when I really might need one, the CB radio I had would be of more use in the rural areas I traveled through (US 11 corridor - New Orleans to Syracuse, though I didn’t drive the whole way, it’s full of trucks staying o
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is pretty much what's being asked for by campaign groups (what the government does is of course not related to reality so may differ from this - YMMV).
Most schools just say "no phones during the day", but most of the campaigns say "no smartphones for kids". There are, weirdly, still schools that actively encourage smart phone use during the school day. Goodness knows how they keep the kids attention during class if they're telling kids to "research" something on their phones. Those schools are
Enumerate those benefits, bitches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Experts on the impact of digital technologies argue that the legislation could end up shutting children out from the potential benefits of smartphones, and that more pressure should be put on social media companies to design better digital worlds for children.
I would like an enumerated list of supposed benefits that children get from smartphones. I get why "experts," paid by the companies making the phones and the social media companies that require *AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE* to be data cattle think there are benefits, but I'd like to know what the actual benefits are. And don't say, "Know how to use a smartphone." My fucking grandparents learned how to use smartphones when they were on the verge of checking into the retirement community. It's not a difficult thing to learn. What are the benefits? Aside from mental stunts that prevent them from being able to engage in meat space and ADHD that makes us eighties kids feel like we really knew how to concentrate on shit.
No, having mom and dad being able to raise hell with the kid while in class is not a benefit. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They get the ability to connect to random people with dubious goals in life. What could be more beneficial than that?
Which leads to politicians breathlessly saying, "Think of the children," in a way that sounds suspiciously like you hope those hands are above the podium.
Re: (Score:2)
Which leads to politicians breathlessly saying, "Think of the children," in a way that sounds suspiciously like you hope those hands are above the podium.
lol, sometimes it's best to not look where their hands are...
Ban social media instead (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why "instead". Social media isn't the only problem with a phone. By all means let's restrict social media, but while we're at it we should do what the little girl in the taco advert said: "Why not both."
Smartphones are hugely disruptive in schools, and every place where they've been banned it's been a huge success.
Seems Reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
Moving the goal posts (Score:3)
Can we put more pressure on tobacco corporations to provide clean (air) workplaces? Can we put more pressure on oil corporations for a cleaner planet?
When drug-dealers are caught, we don't beg them to sell a 'better' product. When drug-addicts are caught, we don't demand they have "potential benefits". This is moving the goal-posts so that children remain subscribers and remain a revenue stream for soulless corporations.
Regulate the app (Score:4, Interesting)
not the device. Age restrictions on certain social media are a much more logical approach to all of the problems attributed to "smart phones."
Re: (Score:2)
On the whole, the age limit of WhatsApp of 16 (below 16 parental consent is needed) meant that our kids' school teachers could not do any communication over WhatsApp, so that's a clear benefit. They use email, and nowadays also use Teams. So you win some and then you lose some...
That's just stupid! (Score:4, Funny)
You can't ban technology! That's just a stupid idea! If the children are the problem then just ban children from the UK. Problem solved and just like Brexit, with no negative side effects! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Err that's one of the dumbest things you've written. Of course you can ban a technology. In fact what the UK is proposing is already in place and having a positive effect in other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Err that's one of the dumbest things you've written. Of course you can ban a technology. In fact what the UK is proposing is already in place and having a positive effect in other countries.
Many, many countries try to ban certain bits of technology, just look at any puritan country that puts a ban on sex toys... they still get into the country. I don't even mean places like Saudi Arabia, I believe Thailand has a ban on them.
You cant un-fuck a goat. Once that genie is out of the bottle, it's out. I mean most nations have banned recreational drugs, some even execute smugglers and it hasn't stopped the drugs trade, hasn't even slowed it.
But this is all academic, it'll never happen. This is
Re: (Score:2)
*Whooosh!*
Just a thought... (Score:3)
but it could be the ban on silent prayer [reason.com] and the realization they're growing up in an Orwellian dystopia which makes them want to escape from reality into their phones.
But I think that no matter what you think about any issue, you need not think at all. As I was researching a move to the UK, I discovered that I wouldn't need to bring any of my thoughts or opinions from the US with me, because whatever the subject, the UK government has an agency telling its people what they should think about it. This is just one more example of how the UK supports parents by telling them how they should raise their children.
I didn't realize how freeing it was to have someone else do my thinking for me. I'm still not sure I'm on board with it, though - it might be too much of an adjustment - but I never realized how much easier it is for a Briton to go through life without having to think for themselves even once. I think some of my American colleagues who avoid thought as if it were some sort of a disease would feel right at home in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
them want to escape from reality into their phones.
Jeesh how much TikTok marketing have you been exposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
but it could be the ban on silent prayer [reason.com] and the realization they're growing up in an Orwellian dystopia which makes them want to escape from reality into their phones.
For everyone else who isn't a complete nutter, this person wasn't "silently praying"... She was harassing people outside of an abortion clinic (which is legal here in the UK) and had been orders by a court to stay away from the abortion clinic precisely because she'd been attacking and harassing both staff and patrons. She was arrested for breaching a court order.
Also the charges were dropped. Which is a shame, you should be free not to be harassed at your place of work (or anywhere really).
The UK isn
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're a bit confused; if you read the article, the man was convicted and had to pay court costs.
SO THEY CAN DESTROY YOUR CHILDREN (Score:2)