A modest proposal: No smartphones for kids

[Seirith]

Problem is this only works if nobody else in their peer group has a smartphone either. So the more I think about it, the more I reckon there's only one solution.

Governments need to age-restrict smartphones, and forbid possession under, say, 16 or 18 years of age.

Sounds very extreme, but we have a long history of successfully doing this for other damaging, addictive things - so why not here?

At this point we have more than sufficient evidence of how incredibly harmful smartphones are to adolescents, and it's time to act.

Click to shrink...

Smart phones were not around when I was a teen, only dumb phones but I had a dumb phone starting at age 15 which I paid for by working and used to let my mom know where I was and when I would be home.

At 16 I worked a PT job and had a car, sometimes I went right from school to work or my job would call and ask if I wanted to work and I would call my mom and tell her I would not be home after school. I would call and let her know I was going to my boyfriends house if we were both free. I graduated HS at 17 and started to work FT and right after I turned 18 I was engaged but by your logic even though I was done with HS at 17 and working FT I was too young for a smart phone?

 

[SchrodingersDog]

I graduated HS at 17 and started to work FT and right after I turned 18 I was engaged but by your logic even though I was done with HS at 17 and working FT I was too young for a smart phone?

Click to shrink...

Yes, I do.

You were still too young too vote. You were too young to smoke. In large parts of the world, you were still too young to drive. And if you're American, you were still years away from being allowed to even just have a sip of beer.

I don't see why the the age threshold for owning Smartphones should necessarily be any lower than those. Frankly speaking, I'd imagine unrestricted access to, say, beer might statistically speaking be less harmful to the average individual than unrestricted access to smartphones.

 

[Seirith]

Yes, I do.

You were still too young too vote. You were too young to smoke. In large parts of the world, you were still too young to drive. And if you're American, you were still years away from being allowed to even just have a sip of beer.

I don't see why the the age threshold for owning Smartphones should necessarily be any lower than those. Frankly speaking, I'd imagine unrestricted access to, say, beer might statistically speaking be less harmful to the average individual than unrestricted access to smartphones.

Click to shrink...

So I was not too young at 17 to work 40 hours or drive a several thousand pound killing machine all alone but having a smartphone is too much? Should minors also not be allowed to use a TV, computer, video game system or tablet because those can be just as addictive and can all access social media as well?

You really want the government to tell people what they can and cannot own and what ages they need to be to own certain things?

 

[Rosebud]

I hate how many people even on a place like Era come with the argument that essentially boils down to "all of the cool kids do it. You want your kid to be cool, right?"

Click to shrink...

Not cool, just not bullied or a total outcast. Anyone who was bullied knows the school won't do anything to stop it, so I will.

 

[Reick17]

I work in an elementary school. Phones/social media are screwing up these generations in whole new ways. Full on phone/sm ban please.

Hell, I know plenty of adults who could stand to have their phones revoked.

 

[Doggg]

Hell, I know plenty of adults who could stand to have their phones revoked.

Click to shrink...

Yup. It's insane how much I notice people looking down at their laps when driving. The thought of today's youth eventually getting their driver's licenses rather frightens me.

 

[Lexad]

Hard disagree.

Click to shrink...

Tell us what the trained psychologist doesn't know or understand

 

[Lexad]

I dont have a kid but in theory, I agree. But in reality, it would never work in the US for the sole reason that schools are danger zones. I dont think parents would feel comfortable not being able to contact their kids in case of a mass shooting. Its sad but we have normalized mass shootings in schools here.

Click to shrink...

Do you know what a flip phone is?

 

[Macam]

I get the argument and there's certainly a case to be made for it, but thinking this will go anywhere (in the US at least) is fanciful.

Maybe some private boarding schools might do it.

 

[NetMapel]

Not sure if this was posted earlier, but I saw this topic primarily because I listened to this recent podcast. I thought it's a worthwhile listen and helped elaborate on the original researcher's intention behind his suggestions. The main take away for me is that this suggestion is meant to address the fact that phones itself should likely still be available to kids. However, they need not be fancy smartphones nor should they be used as a way to discriminate different children. Aka, if all the kids only have dumb flip phones, it could not be used as a way to differentiate between social economical classes and still allow for calls to be made during an emergency.

I am not a parent so this sounds pretty good to me in my mind conceptually. I am curious how it works practically with parents here chiming in.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-nBEX1FgBk

Additionally, slightly off topic, but I really liked the distinction made here between how the social networks of early 2000's have now morphed to social media, which is now an entirely different beast.

 

[ratprophet]

I think this type of thing is knocking at the door of 'no smartphones for anyone at all' which....I can also get behind honestly.

 

[Lashes.541]

This dude was on a podcast last week that I won't mention, and he seemed to be coming from a really reasonable perspective, but a lot of his idea on how to fix the issues going on with children were just not real world solutions, they seemed to me to be utopian world ideas. Such as using face recognition to stop bots as well as kids from being on social media. It's really going to be up the the parents more than anything else to fight the flood of issues effecting there children, and since becoming a parent years ago I have a extremely pessimistic view in general of other parents. From what I have seen of other parents the last few years there completely checked out…. Like here second grader watch my phone, I'll be hanging out in the bedroom the rest of the day for the next six hours. My eight year old has been wanting a smart phone for several years and is the only kid in her class to not have one, and I as well as her mom find that completely insane! One of the other things this guy brings up is great in theory but really does not grasp the world most of us live in, he wants young kids to be allowed to play outside unsupervised, that's all well and good, me and my wife grew up like that, we both were raised out in the county. But even in my small rural city under no circumstances would I let my child play even in the front yard with out being watched, four times in the last two weeks I had to tell some one clearly not "well" to take a hike out of our yard. If I have to do that in a town of 24,000 I would assume it's even worse in larger city's, This is all good advice, but like a lot of the advice coming from these experts, I struggle to understand how tuned in they really are to the life most live in? Because from my perspective it just seemed like advice that we are so far down the rabbit hole that non of it can really be implemented. Most of it depends on parents showing personal responsibility and I feel I'm seeing less and less of that as time goes on, Perhaps other places it's different and my perspective of living in a rural city is warped. Maybe if we told the parents they can have a tax break? 😆 that seems to be all anyone cares about here.

 

[Pocky4Th3Win]

I'm OK with this as flip phones are still available. It's weird seeing kindergarten kids rocking me iPhone, makes keeping them focused at school a lot harder.

 

[RPGam3r]

Not sure if this was posted earlier, but I saw this topic primarily because I listened to this recent podcast. I thought it's a worthwhile listen and helped elaborate on the original researcher's intention behind his suggestions. The main take away for me is that this suggestion is meant to address the fact that phones itself should likely still be available to kids. However, they need not be fancy smartphones nor should they be used as a way to discriminate different children. Aka, if all the kids only have dumb flip phones, it could not be used as a way to differentiate between social economical classes and still allow for calls to be made during an emergency.

I am not a parent so this sounds pretty good to me in my mind conceptually. I am curious how it works practically with parents here chiming in.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-nBEX1FgBk

Additionally, slightly off topic, but I really liked the distinction made here between how the social networks of early 2000's have now morphed to social media, which is now an entirely different beast.

Click to shrink...

You can limit kids to just calls on smart phones. They can then still have a cool gadget to do other stuff out of school.

Also, trying to level the playing field from a social economical perspective seems like a battle that would never been won. Let's remember that just recently (still?) that a stupid branded cup was what decided the "haves" vs "nots". Take away phone differences and they'll just find something else.

 

[Pomerlaw]

They should be banned from class rooms as a first step. As far as social media goes it is poison but I don't know how you could implement a ban. Adults should leave these platforms too.

 

[Ash_Greytree]

Lol at Haidt. An occasionally insightful but also insufferable "the thing that is wrong with higher education and the kids these days is safe spaces and trigger warnings" straw-man loving academic devils advocate.

Click to shrink...

Yeah this is my big issue with Haidt and how he keeps getting work and funding. He was one of the co-authors on "Coddling Of The American Mind" which is something that helped kickstart a lot of right-wing culture war garbage targeted at universities which is still going on to this day.

I wish that there were other tech regulation advocates that were more sensible. Because wrangling tech companies and giving kids more third spaces to live and be themselves in is something that needs to happen. Just without the reactionary "And colleges are letting political correctness run amok!" trash on the side like Haidt peddles.

 

[Alcander]

As a parent of 3, agree 100%.

 

[RPGam3r]

What if instead of trying to focus on the kids we focus on the parents who could easily protect kids using parental controls? Maybe something like being required to have a parenting license, you know a "modest proposal".

 

[ArrogantBastard]

Tell us what the trained psychologist doesn't know or understand

Click to shrink...

When it comes to education, specifically technology...we don't do that here; you see regardless of what trained professionals tell you it is all about visceral reactions an anecdotal evidence.

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

I get the argument and there's certainly a case to be made for it, but thinking this will go anywhere (in the US at least) is fanciful.

Maybe some private boarding schools might do it.

Click to shrink...

Might as well be regarding smoking back when it was normal in high school.

 

[BeastmodeDynasty]

Yeah this is my big issue with Haidt and how he keeps getting work and funding. He was one of the co-authors on "Coddling Of The American Mind" which is something that helped kickstart a lot of right-wing culture war garbage targeted at universities which is still going on to this day.

I wish that there were other tech regulation advocates that were more sensible. Because wrangling tech companies and giving kids more third spaces to live and be themselves in is something that needs to happen. Just without the reactionary "And colleges are letting political correctness run amok!" trash on the side like Haidt peddles.

Click to shrink...

If you actually read the Coddling of the American Mind you would be able to tell it's all based on legitimate research and isn't some right-wing propaganda piece. Haidt is equally critical of right wing extremism and Trump in that book alongside (legitimate) critiques of college campuses. He's about as non-partisan of a person as you're going to see in modern academia.

 

[Hesdry]

Yeah! And ban this damn playstations!

 

[ArrogantBastard]

Yeah! And ban this damn playstations!

Click to shrink...

Yah, and drive by troll without any commentary!

 

[ShadowAUS]

If you actually read the Coddling of the American Mind you would be able to tell it's all based on legitimate research and isn't some right-wing propaganda piece. Haidt is equally critical of right wing extremism and Trump in that book alongside (legitimate) critiques of college campuses. He's about as non-partisan of a person as you're going to see in modern academia.

Click to shrink...

Whilst I won't necessarily call Coddling 'right-wing propoganda', Haidt, whilst he would call himself a classical middle of the road libertarian, absolutely is not non-partisan and his work should not be taken in the context of being non-partisan. Hell, he's a founder of HxA, an ostensibly non-partisan organisation that happens to be co-founded by other conservative libertarians, whose whole charter is to raise up conservative voices in academia as they believe that current academia is liberal dominated and doesn't have enough diversity - they also have a history of flimsy arguments to back up their assertions, go figure.
Oh and also this gem that get's thrown around in my circles anytime Haidt comes up.

On the topic of Coddling, something being based on legitimate research isn't an automatic positive if the research itself isn't well done (unfortunately common in academia), and on that note there have been many criticisms of Haidt, his writings, and his research.

Heck, on the topic of the thread as a whole I remember this from last year - https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-s...dia-is-causing-the-teen-mental-health-crisis/ (Do note, I'm not fond of Reason Magazine, but I thought this article in particular was well done.)

If you can stand If Books Can Kill and all it's snarky dunking and casual chatter their episode of Coddling is really good and goes over a lot of my criticisms of it.

The Coddling Of The American Mind – If Books Could Kill – Podcast

TRIGGER WARNING: if you're a SNOWFLAKE college professor afraid of how your students are expressing themselves, you might need a SAFE SPACE, because Michael and Peter are discussing "The Cod... – Listen to The Coddling Of The American Mind by If Books Could Kill instantly on your tablet, phone...

podtail.com

 

[Aske]

I like the idea, but I'm not a kid. I imagine that all their friends have phones and that it would be easy bullying in today's age for anyone who didn't.

But maybe it's worth it anyway?

Click to shrink...

My only concern is with the accuracy of the information and the research on which it's based.

I would say posting on social media probably shouldn't be allowed for anyone under 18, regardless. I don't think "no smart phones until high school" is necessarily the answer, but I defer to available evidence. I'm all for giving kids more and better recess.

This really is an incredibly important area that needs to be kept away from ignorant people with opinions. Policy has to be based on the best available evidence, not on the musings of boomers who are confused by shit kids enjoy.

 

[Macam]

Might as well be regarding smoking back when it was normal in high school.

Click to shrink...

Not remotely the same, but sure, okay.

 

[apocat]

You really want the government to tell people what they can and cannot own and what ages they need to be to own certain things?

Click to shrink...

Yes. Oh god, yes.

Why would that be controversial when talking about minors?

 

[golguin]

Not difficult to see the effect that smart phones and tablets have on little kids. Just talk to teachers and anyone that watches over kids for any length of time.

I imagine that we will soon see a clear divide within populations between those that have not had their mental development stunted by technology and those that have.

We already get enough articles about the youngest generation being unable to hold a job due to attention issues. This is only going to increase unless people actively make moves to change the learning environment.

 

[Big Powder]

Pretty much completely agree, down to the specific age mentioned as the cutoff (16). I think it'd be fine to start giving kids big ol' blocky dumbphones that can call and text and not much else around age 12 or so, but we should really try to keep kids off of social media and the unsupervised internet in general prior to age 16 or so for a variety of reasons.

The main thing that gives me pause and keeps me from committing to that idea entirely, is that the internet was also one of the only things that helped me find friends and not feel so alone during a really rough period of my life while I was being bullied. It was one of the only things that made me feel like I wasn't abnormal for being queer. The problem, though, was that the people I ended up befriending and confiding in were often much older than me and one of those experiences was predatory and really messed me up. So, even in that silver lining, I experienced directly a kind of harm.

The main issue is generally that adults will find ways into spaces where kids are online (and vice versa), whereas if the kids are just not online to begin with, it's much harder to, for example, talk to a kid in private without someone noticing. The scariest thing about the modern internet in terms of child safety is how easy it is for someone to just send a private message and suddenly the only people aware of this communication are the two parties involved. At least with dumbphones, if you're concerned about what your kid is up to, you can contact the phone company and see who is being texted or called. That being said, the downside of that is that control freak, abusive, or unaccepting parents can use this to invade their kid's privacy. It's a tradeoff that will screw some kids over no matter what. The question is, which tradeoff is safer in aggregate?

I'm personally leaning more towards "just keep them off of the internet without supervision until age 16", but that's definitely heavily influenced by my own negative experience.

 

[Aria]

Whilst I'm not against smart phones I am against any form of social media for kids. Heck even some adults are annoying with it. Me and my wife plan to limit access to social media by an either outright ban or screen time limitations on iOS.

I already feel this is dictator-y and my daughter won't understand why we're doing it so something will have to give at some point.

I'm also getting to the age of I have no clue what kids are doing and TikTok already became a massive hit before id even heard of it so how would I even stop access to that other than becoming some hyper obsessed protect the children loon who researches this.

 

[eso76]

. But if I had a kid, I think I wouldn't give them a smart phone until later in highschool. .

Click to shrink...

That was the plan, but then at 11 all my daughter's classmates have one, and she was being left out of the loop and group chats and being made fun of...

We had to give her one, although she's not allowed to bring it to school (fortunately kids are required to leave their phone in a locker during class anyway) and can only use it at home and for a limited time.

 

[NetMapel]

You can limit kids to just calls on smart phones. They can then still have a cool gadget to do other stuff out of school.

Also, trying to level the playing field from a social economical perspective seems like a battle that would never been won. Let's remember that just recently (still?) that a stupid branded cup was what decided the "haves" vs "nots". Take away phone differences and they'll just find something else.

Click to shrink...

I get it. I can't tell people how to parent so I can only wish more parents would actually use the parental features on kids' smart phones 😅 I know there are infinite ways to discriminate such as that stanley cup thing. I guess the argument is that if kids only have dumb phones, that is one less rather expensive thing to compare and divides? Otherwise I guess I will just cite this latest post as an example where thoughtful parents felt like they had to buy a smartphone for their kid so she doesn't feel left out :(

That was the plan, but then at 11 all my daughter's classmates have one, and she was being left out of the loop and group chats and being made fun of...

We had to give her one, although she's not allowed to bring it to school (fortunately kids are required to leave their phone in a locker during class anyway) and can only use it at home and for a limited time.

Click to shrink...

 

[Mathematical Milly]

Obviously you don't want to be the reason your child is ostracized in their classroom but imo the smart phone is not a good thing for kids. I don't know think that's a genie that can get put back into the bottle though..

 

[BeastmodeDynasty]

Whilst I won't necessarily call Coddling 'right-wing propoganda', Haidt, whilst he would call himself a classical middle of the road libertarian, absolutely is not non-partisan and his work should not be taken in the context of being non-partisan. Hell, he's a founder of HxA, an ostensibly non-partisan organisation that happens to be co-founded by other conservative libertarians, whose whole charter is to raise up conservative voices in academia as they believe that current academia is liberal dominated and doesn't have enough diversity - they also have a history of flimsy arguments to back up their assertions, go figure.
Oh and also this gem that get's thrown around in my circles anytime Haidt comes up.

On the topic of Coddling, something being based on legitimate research isn't an automatic positive if the research itself isn't well done (unfortunately common in academia), and on that note there have been many criticisms of Haidt, his writings, and his research.

Heck, on the topic of the thread as a whole I remember this from last year - https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-s...dia-is-causing-the-teen-mental-health-crisis/ (Do note, I'm not fond of Reason Magazine, but I thought this article in particular was well done.)

If you can stand If Books Can Kill and all it's snarky dunking and casual chatter their episode of Coddling is really good and goes over a lot of my criticisms of it.

The Coddling Of The American Mind – If Books Could Kill – Podcast

TRIGGER WARNING: if you're a SNOWFLAKE college professor afraid of how your students are expressing themselves, you might need a SAFE SPACE, because Michael and Peter are discussing "The Cod... – Listen to The Coddling Of The American Mind by If Books Could Kill instantly on your tablet, phone...

podtail.com

Click to shrink...

Non-partsian as in not left-wing or right-wing. The statistics show he's right about academic being predominantly left-wing, especially the social sciences, and that's not a good thing since science should strive to be as unbiased as possible. And you need people on both sides to achieve a balance and healthy critical dialog.

I don't think Haidt being philosophically libertarian debunks any of the arguments made in Coddling. The research cited in the book is well grounded and I'd be interested to see any it be "debunked".

I listened to the podcast you linked and they get seriously stuck up on the peanut allegory used in the opening chapter. They basically dismiss the point entirely and strawman Haidt, saying it's a right-wing conspiracy theory. That's just... not true? The rise in peanut allergies is a real phenomenon and medical guidelines for Pediatricians were updated directly as a result of new research; they previously said to avoid all peanut products until the ages of 3, now they recommend peanut products at 6-11 months since early exposure does reduce the risk of developing an allergy.

The rest of the podcast was the hosts smugly dismissing the rest of the arguments in the book and reading statements under their worst possible interpretation. The level of snarkiness and dismissiveness was really unappealing and they didn't really make any good counterarguments.

 

[Dreaver]

Smartphones and social media are a silent poison for society. Especially for younger people. A ban would be good. The ironic part is that tech entrepreneurs have made society addicted to digital fast food, while keeping their own children away from it.

 

[Menchin]

Why not just use parental controls to restrict the use of social media apps, no need to ban phones completely

 

[Lexad]

So I was not too young at 17 to work 40 hours or drive a several thousand pound killing machine all alone but having a smartphone is too much? Should minors also not be allowed to use a TV, computer, video game system or tablet because those can be just as addictive and can all access social media as well?

You really want the government to tell people what they can and cannot own and what ages they need to be to own certain th

Click to shrink...

If your kid doesn't have a phone, they will be made fun of. Simple as. I was being made fun of all the way back in 6TH GRADE for it and it only got worse as I got older. A phone isn't like some random "trendy thing of the month" type thing. Everyone uses a cell phone all the time. As dystopian as it sounds, to people nowadays a smartphone is as essential as breathing. Not giving your kid a cell phone is the equivalent of naming them "Abcde" or "Gaylord". At some point, you're just setting them up for bullying.

Edit: That said, you should still do your job as a parent and teach them how to use their phone responsibly.

Click to shrink...

You are really helping prove the point at just banning it outright. Thank you

 

[Palette Swap]

Why not just use parental controls to restrict the use of social media apps, no need to ban phones completely

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to want parental controls / child accounts to default to "no social media".

 

[RPGam3r]

Yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to want parental controls / child accounts to default to "no social media".

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Like there are other useful things your kids can do with a smartphone. Personal example of allowed apps:

• Streaming services
• LEGO Mario
• Shared Calendar
• Music
• Shared Todo lists
• Google Classroom
• Hiking trails
• Plant/mushroom identification

And many more. Some folks make it sound like all these things are good for is social media.

 

[ThlammedCarDoor]

I despise when kids have phones/tablets playing media at full volume in public places.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Yes, I do.

You were still too young too vote. You were too young to smoke. In large parts of the world, you were still too young to drive. And if you're American, you were still years away from being allowed to even just have a sip of beer.

I don't see why the the age threshold for owning Smartphones should necessarily be any lower than those. Frankly speaking, I'd imagine unrestricted access to, say, beer might statistically speaking be less harmful to the average individual than unrestricted access to smartphones.

Click to shrink...

If the beer is enjoyed in moderation, I'm inclined to agree.

Legislating this should be a no brainer. Weird to see people oppose it in this thread even.

 

[Nairume]

Exactly. Like there are other useful things your kids can do with a smartphone. Personal example of allowed apps:

• Streaming services
• LEGO Mario
• Shared Calendar
• Music
• Shared Todo lists
• Google Classroom
• Hiking trails
• Plant/mushroom identification

And many more. Some folks make it sound like all these things are good for is social media.

Click to shrink...

Streaming and music options are part of the problem.

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

Not remotely the same, but sure, okay.

Click to shrink...

"I can't be cool without X"

 

[RPGam3r]

Streaming and music options are part of the problem.

Click to shrink...

Not really. Parental controls limit when those apps can be used.

 

[Jonnax]

Is Google maps too dangerous for kids?
How about music streaming?

How about software development? Lots of children learn how to develop applications for smart phones.
But I guess those kinds of skills aren't valuable lol.

I wonder what the split is for religious Vs non religious, because of the fear their children might lose their faith etc.

Also urban vs small town.
Like take the discourse about dining in a restaurant alone that pops up on the internet every once in a while.

There's more that 22,000 pub,bars and restaurants in London. So it would be strange for a Londoner to judgemental.
Whilst someone living in a town of 10,000 people, may only perceive their 3 restaurants as special occasions locations.

In my opinion, wanting an 18 year minimum age for smart phones highlights the attitudes that cause well meaning parents to badly equip their children for adulthood.

What other things will they not be allowed to have until they're 18?

Their own bank account?
Email address where you don't know the password?
If they're 17 would you let them go in holiday on their own? Lol

I remember at university a 24 year old saying that he couldn't take the underground because his mum said that public transport is dangerous due to the risk of terrorism. Lol.

Don't be surprised if your kid gets a smartphone at 18 and then loses their money to a crypto scam, joins an MLM and gets their identity stolen 😅

Streaming and music options are part of the problem.

Click to shrink...

Music is bad as well?
This forum really is full of out of touch boomers lol

It seems the key point is that children should not engage in youth culture.

I wonder how many people railing against smart phones are actually able to use one.

 

[RPGam3r]

Music is bad as well?
This forum really is full of out of touch boomers lol

It seems the key point is that children should not engage in youth culture.

I wonder how many people railing against smart phones are actually able to use one.

Click to shrink...

I was assuming that person was talking about during class. But parental controls can limit app use as part of downtime. (Side note: I don't limit music use).

 

[mrmoose]

The other thread showed that at least in the US we can't even suggest that smartphones not be allowed to be used on school premises, let alone not letting kids have them at all.

 

[RedHeat]

I'd unironically be fine with just giving them jitterbug-like phones with just access to the basics (call, text, etc.). Maybe slap parental controls on there limiting text to outside school hours.

 

[skeezx]

lol reading this thread i just remembered when my buddy got called to the principal's office for looking at his beeper (yes, a beeper). and supposedly it was caught off camera footage so somebody was actively caring about that

woo the times how they change

 

[Bladelaw]

Why not just use parental controls to restrict the use of social media apps, no need to ban phones completely

Click to shrink...

Seriously, you can lock down a smart phone pretty hard both in terms of total time limits, opening time windows for certain apps (so lock out most things during school hours), force them to get approval for installing any app.

It's not even hard to do, it just takes a little time to set up.