Taking away iPhone made daughter a better person(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Taking away iPhone made daughter a better person
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/13/kids-no-iphone-screen-time
214 comments
> But more often than not leaving someone to their own devices when they clearly can't cope with the situation by themselves makes them look for a different source of distraction that in turn will make you wish they were "just" addicted to social media.
A thinly veiled pro-social media post. The quote highlighted alone is very dangerous. It's almost as if people have developed a form of Stockholm syndrome to appeal to social media addictions vs the boogie man that is a "different source of distraction".
A thinly veiled pro-social media post. The quote highlighted alone is very dangerous. It's almost as if people have developed a form of Stockholm syndrome to appeal to social media addictions vs the boogie man that is a "different source of distraction".
Very true. My childhood friend and I were major computer nerds from 1991 to 2002. Then I left for college and he didn't somehow. We had such matched similar personalities for those 10 years.
By 2008 when I saw him he had totally fallen off from computers and couldn't care less.
I'm engrossed in tech still and I do waste wayyy to much time on HN, blogs, reading, YouTube, Twitter and the like. No doubt I have a problem..
My friend though died last year of heroin/fentanyl overdose. He had been struggling with it for 5+ years. Same as I have with modern phones. I wish he had gotten addicted to YouTube shorts instead.
By 2008 when I saw him he had totally fallen off from computers and couldn't care less.
I'm engrossed in tech still and I do waste wayyy to much time on HN, blogs, reading, YouTube, Twitter and the like. No doubt I have a problem..
My friend though died last year of heroin/fentanyl overdose. He had been struggling with it for 5+ years. Same as I have with modern phones. I wish he had gotten addicted to YouTube shorts instead.
Yea, verily. Nerddom is the best path. The true tao.
Divorce, drug addiction? Sorry; addicted to code, I no longer have time for relationships nor the ability to relate to normal people nor the brain cells to spare.
COVID lockdowns? Ha; I've been living under lockdown for the last ten years; it's my optimal lifestyle.
YouTube requiring brain scans with which to inject targeted ads directly into your videos? Too bad; I've already downloaded the Warcraft 3 and StarCraft playthroughs I watch over and over locally.
Microsoft integrating an AI into Windows which will predict the exact moment you're about to be racist and brick your machine? Nice try; I've already moved to Linux years ago.
It is the gift that keeps on giving.
Divorce, drug addiction? Sorry; addicted to code, I no longer have time for relationships nor the ability to relate to normal people nor the brain cells to spare.
COVID lockdowns? Ha; I've been living under lockdown for the last ten years; it's my optimal lifestyle.
YouTube requiring brain scans with which to inject targeted ads directly into your videos? Too bad; I've already downloaded the Warcraft 3 and StarCraft playthroughs I watch over and over locally.
Microsoft integrating an AI into Windows which will predict the exact moment you're about to be racist and brick your machine? Nice try; I've already moved to Linux years ago.
It is the gift that keeps on giving.
Wow sounds a bit like me. Didn't realize that that's a trope somehow, because I know no one else like that.
But that may be because of the low relationship effort count. Probalby hard for two people of that type to ever meet
But that may be because of the low relationship effort count. Probalby hard for two people of that type to ever meet
A phone, a book, a movie, a show, hobbies, exercise… they’re all going to be parts of “avoidance behavior”.
Often though, some issues in life are not resolvable through some simple analysis and avoiding thinking about the issue might really be the best course of action.
Often though, some issues in life are not resolvable through some simple analysis and avoiding thinking about the issue might really be the best course of action.
Harmful effects of social media notwithstanding, it's not just about the phones. Reaching for your phone is an example of what psychologists refer to as avoidance behaviours
avoid what exactly?
that needs to be qualified. do they avoid talking to their friends in school? do they avoid facing the fact that they have no friends?
or are they using it because their friends are doing it as well? what are they avoiding then?
and and let's not brush aside those harmful effects. some kids may use the phone to avoid facing things that feel worse, but as others mentioned, so do people using drugs or alcohol. the problem is that the harmful effects of the phone/social media are much much less obvious, so many more kids are at risk. drugs and alcohol are so much easier to avoid.
avoid what exactly?
that needs to be qualified. do they avoid talking to their friends in school? do they avoid facing the fact that they have no friends?
or are they using it because their friends are doing it as well? what are they avoiding then?
and and let's not brush aside those harmful effects. some kids may use the phone to avoid facing things that feel worse, but as others mentioned, so do people using drugs or alcohol. the problem is that the harmful effects of the phone/social media are much much less obvious, so many more kids are at risk. drugs and alcohol are so much easier to avoid.
> avoid what exactly?
I said it already: difficult thoughts and emotions. Teenagers naturally have a lot of that and little to no ability to process them on their own.
I said it already: difficult thoughts and emotions. Teenagers naturally have a lot of that and little to no ability to process them on their own.
This is me with my dog. Whenever I'm stressed out from life I can always escape to my bichon
A bichon is not a dog, it is a human baby with extra floof.
Do you have any suggestions on how to help people achieve and maintain good mental health?
It's true that addiction is ultimately a psychological problem. It's true that people engage in addictive behaviors as a coping mechanism to avoid difficult emotions.
It's also true that the Internet has enabled a lot of deliberately addictive content. Phones keep that content constantly at hand. And it's difficult to avoid having a phone since they also provide utilities.
I'd like to live in a world where everyone had such great mental wellness that they were impervious to the temptations of their phones. What are some serious tactics to make that happen?
It's true that addiction is ultimately a psychological problem. It's true that people engage in addictive behaviors as a coping mechanism to avoid difficult emotions.
It's also true that the Internet has enabled a lot of deliberately addictive content. Phones keep that content constantly at hand. And it's difficult to avoid having a phone since they also provide utilities.
I'd like to live in a world where everyone had such great mental wellness that they were impervious to the temptations of their phones. What are some serious tactics to make that happen?
At the risk of it coming across like I’m boasting or virtue signalling (whatever that means), what keeps me going is the thought that I can use my time and money to help other people. Simple stuff like donating to charities and planting trees.
For parents, this could take the form of doubling a child’s pocket money/allowance on the condition that half of it is donated to charities - encourage the child to research charities and talk about them.
(The latter isn’t an original idea - I originally read about it in the form of tripling the pocket money with 1/3 to keep, 1/3 for charity, and 1/3 to invest. If your kid has to do some chores to get their pocket money, then this sets them up with a pattern for a good life (work, then give and save).
For parents, this could take the form of doubling a child’s pocket money/allowance on the condition that half of it is donated to charities - encourage the child to research charities and talk about them.
(The latter isn’t an original idea - I originally read about it in the form of tripling the pocket money with 1/3 to keep, 1/3 for charity, and 1/3 to invest. If your kid has to do some chores to get their pocket money, then this sets them up with a pattern for a good life (work, then give and save).
It’s empirically false that people would have equal problems without the phones.
> A person doing well mentally has no need to avoid anything.
True. People doing well mentally should start heroin and meth right now since they have no need to avoid anything. Why should they miss out on that experience since they can just quit.
True. People doing well mentally should start heroin and meth right now since they have no need to avoid anything. Why should they miss out on that experience since they can just quit.
I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone disagree with the premise that phone and social media addiction is bad for kids (and probably adults too), and yet we still find ourselves in this position.
What are we to do? Banning phone use on an individual basis is a recipe for social suicide. Some kind of collective action is needed.
Legislation against phone use for minors is one option, but I wouldn’t expect it to receive widespread support. Banning social media for minors might be workable, but it wouldn’t fully resolve the issue.
What are we to do? Banning phone use on an individual basis is a recipe for social suicide. Some kind of collective action is needed.
Legislation against phone use for minors is one option, but I wouldn’t expect it to receive widespread support. Banning social media for minors might be workable, but it wouldn’t fully resolve the issue.
As a parent of three I’d suggest that it’s probably the best to teach them to use them as tools not entertainment.
As I quoted elsewhere, any extremist or reductionist position makes things worse for them.
As I quoted elsewhere, any extremist or reductionist position makes things worse for them.
Social media is both a tool and entertainment. It's not entertainment that's wrecking kids. It's being in a global and immutable social circle.
In the 90s, if you were a nerd in high-school, you get a chance to re-invent yourself in college, and another at your first job. Heck, you can re-invent yourself between different groups of friends. Now, we ask kids to define themselves completely, wholly, all at once, finally, in front of everyone. Got broken up with? It was pretty hard to tell someone in the 90s their lives weren't over, but it's impossible now. There is an (apparently) permanent record of all your failures and lack of successes.
Tons of kids grew up glued to their Nintendos. I played an _insane_ amount of Starcraft. Our generation did not have the same negative effects that the current generation is having with social media.
What we need is physical community based social media - ie: a facebook with only your high-school, which becomes inaccessible upon graduation.
In the 90s, if you were a nerd in high-school, you get a chance to re-invent yourself in college, and another at your first job. Heck, you can re-invent yourself between different groups of friends. Now, we ask kids to define themselves completely, wholly, all at once, finally, in front of everyone. Got broken up with? It was pretty hard to tell someone in the 90s their lives weren't over, but it's impossible now. There is an (apparently) permanent record of all your failures and lack of successes.
Tons of kids grew up glued to their Nintendos. I played an _insane_ amount of Starcraft. Our generation did not have the same negative effects that the current generation is having with social media.
What we need is physical community based social media - ie: a facebook with only your high-school, which becomes inaccessible upon graduation.
> What we need is physical community based social media - ie: a facebook with only your high-school, which becomes inaccessible upon graduation.
That’s a really interesting suggestion. It reminds me of haolez’s comment yesterday (abridged by me) [0]:
> I was a CTO and was a member of a group chat for CTOs. We had very insightful and rich discussions about topics that affected our roles, like vendor reputation, frameworks, team management, talent acquisition and so on.
> The group became popular and the admin […] merged all group chats into a single one of thousands of users. […] What ended up happening was that the discussions plummeted in quality, where a very noisy minority would take up most of the space in the discussions. There were some high profile CTOs that stopped engaging at that point.
> This left me wondering if there is enough demand for smaller social networks with very limited visibility that can foster rich and insightful discussions (although this sounds like forums from the nineties).
———
Both of you get at the same point - private and manageable (and moderatable) communities are probably a much better option to allow everyone freedom to interact without feeling insignificant (due to size), and with the right moderation, can be a place which allows healthy conflict, discovery and rule-bending, and the other things that we were able to get up to as kids without our parents knowing, while maybe being moderated by a third party who isn’t acting as an authority figure (people won’t get in trouble for reasonable rule-testing), maybe even some sort of private task-specific bot which looks only for egregious bullying, hate, and scheming?
I really like your suggestion and would love to see it fleshed out.
The one thing that I feel differentiates from current-day is that I would like to see automatic enrollment (or ability to enroll) for everyone from the target audience, e.g. not student-run and only one clique, but nothing wrong with it also allowing private sub-areas. There shouldn’t be a technological or social barrier to entry, it should be up to each person (child, in this example) to log in and participate. That would probably help a lot of the shy or socially awkward kids bridge the gap.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40673691
That’s a really interesting suggestion. It reminds me of haolez’s comment yesterday (abridged by me) [0]:
> I was a CTO and was a member of a group chat for CTOs. We had very insightful and rich discussions about topics that affected our roles, like vendor reputation, frameworks, team management, talent acquisition and so on.
> The group became popular and the admin […] merged all group chats into a single one of thousands of users. […] What ended up happening was that the discussions plummeted in quality, where a very noisy minority would take up most of the space in the discussions. There were some high profile CTOs that stopped engaging at that point.
> This left me wondering if there is enough demand for smaller social networks with very limited visibility that can foster rich and insightful discussions (although this sounds like forums from the nineties).
———
Both of you get at the same point - private and manageable (and moderatable) communities are probably a much better option to allow everyone freedom to interact without feeling insignificant (due to size), and with the right moderation, can be a place which allows healthy conflict, discovery and rule-bending, and the other things that we were able to get up to as kids without our parents knowing, while maybe being moderated by a third party who isn’t acting as an authority figure (people won’t get in trouble for reasonable rule-testing), maybe even some sort of private task-specific bot which looks only for egregious bullying, hate, and scheming?
I really like your suggestion and would love to see it fleshed out.
The one thing that I feel differentiates from current-day is that I would like to see automatic enrollment (or ability to enroll) for everyone from the target audience, e.g. not student-run and only one clique, but nothing wrong with it also allowing private sub-areas. There shouldn’t be a technological or social barrier to entry, it should be up to each person (child, in this example) to log in and participate. That would probably help a lot of the shy or socially awkward kids bridge the gap.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40673691
> Now, we ask kids to define themselves completely, wholly, all at once, finally, in front of everyone. Got broken up with? It was pretty hard to tell someone in the 90s their lives weren't over, but it's impossible now. There is an (apparently) permanent record of all your failures and lack of successes.
For what it's worth, none of this has been my experience at all. I'm not even really sure what the first sentence means exactly.
For what it's worth, none of this has been my experience at all. I'm not even really sure what the first sentence means exactly.
I think what it meant is that, in the social networks today, you have to behave “consistently” all the time. If you wrote something today and then say the opposite tomorrow, people online would probably attack you for being untrustworthy or something like that, and refuse to accept your points. But in reality, nobody can be consistent all the time. We’re all different from minute to minute, and it’s perfectly natural to change your opinions however often you want.
If you were in any sort of closed community (religious, political, niche industry, etc), the fear of not being able to reinvent yourself was always there. Now its everywhere is the difference.
That's Discord, Messenger groups, iMessage groups, ...
Nerd dad here. This is hard. You can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink. Meta Quest is the only tech that's being used as a tool in my house. Everything else are used as toys. I've even tried to restrict games heavily and it still was tough. Basically, some kids will not seek out education things even if they are installed. This was not my upbringing. I would eventually bore of games and looked for educational things like Dangerous Creatures, Microsoft Bob, Encarta, etc. But I am not seeing the same in my kids.
It is hard, but don't forget that toys are learning tools too! You can learn a lot without overtly feeling like you're studying. An example is playing a "learn math" game vs playing Slay the Spire which innately includes a lot of math you have to grasp. Or Hue to understand color theory and color grading without it ever feeling like a "lesson". Kerbal Space Program for basic physics, Portal for momentum and logic (Portal 2 can be great for coop sessions where they figure out how to collaborate and communicate through tough problems that seem impossible).
A lot of the lack of curiosity is because so many kids are taught to view curiosity as boring, rather than fostering that curiosity as just another form of play.
There are even things like minecraft plugins/servers where text is translated to a language of your choice, and everyone is encouraged to use only that language to collaborate which can be such an exponentially fast way to learn languages without ever feeling like it's a chore.
So don't be afraid to seek out things that blur the lines between education and play! Foster that creativity and curiosity.
A lot of the lack of curiosity is because so many kids are taught to view curiosity as boring, rather than fostering that curiosity as just another form of play.
There are even things like minecraft plugins/servers where text is translated to a language of your choice, and everyone is encouraged to use only that language to collaborate which can be such an exponentially fast way to learn languages without ever feeling like it's a chore.
So don't be afraid to seek out things that blur the lines between education and play! Foster that creativity and curiosity.
I've done most of those things but they don't take. For some reason, grind games, pointless games take. Some educational games took but not many. Not enough.
I have two boys 10 and 12. Same upbringing, same household culture, same screen time rules. The young one loves programming in Scratch, building levels in Roblox, creating music, exploring all kinds of creative projects. The older one has tried it all out, but prefers to just play games.
I can already see this disparity forming between my two boys, 7 and 4. It's remarkable how different they are for kids brought up in identical conditions.
Yeah I only played games as well. They teach you how to solve problems. I am grateful for this.
Crap time is fine. Not everything has to have educational value or they will get burned out. Variety is the problem.
Their comment implies that very little time is spent in educational content (all the time is “crap time”), which is the other extreme.
What do you mean by variety is the problem?
What do you mean by variety is the problem?
Well I should say lack of variety. Games are healthy, communications are healthy, education is healthy. Too much of any of those at the sacrifice of any other is not.
I think in order for parents to do this, they must themselves use their phones as tools and not entertainment.
Kids are great at spotting hypocrisy, and if parents are seen zombie-scrolling through Instagram for hours, and then they tell their kids not to zombie-scroll because it's bad for you, well the kids will know their parents are totally full of shit.
It's impossible for parents who are themselves addicted to smartphones to tell their kids not to be addicted to smartphones. The parents need to cure their own addiction first.
Kids are great at spotting hypocrisy, and if parents are seen zombie-scrolling through Instagram for hours, and then they tell their kids not to zombie-scroll because it's bad for you, well the kids will know their parents are totally full of shit.
It's impossible for parents who are themselves addicted to smartphones to tell their kids not to be addicted to smartphones. The parents need to cure their own addiction first.
This is probably true, but doesn’t stop kids developing addiction on their own. It might encourage them to get started, but once hooked the inputs/outputs are the same.
100% agree with this on all points.
I hope that by the time my 2 year old is in middle school, it’s fairly normal for parents to keep their kids off of social media and smart phones.
From what I’ve seen right now it depends on SES.
Fussellian middle class in a suburban school: will call your kid poor and bully them if they don’t have a recent phone by 6th grade (often much earlier)
Fussellian upper-middle in expensive private school: may not have a phone themselves until high school (handy for keeping in touch when at college-application-building extra curriculars), won’t make fun of kids whose parents don’t give them phone.
Fussellian middle class in a suburban school: will call your kid poor and bully them if they don’t have a recent phone by 6th grade (often much earlier)
Fussellian upper-middle in expensive private school: may not have a phone themselves until high school (handy for keeping in touch when at college-application-building extra curriculars), won’t make fun of kids whose parents don’t give them phone.
I think you unlocked some core memories for me.
When I was a kid I moved from a rich suburban New England town to one that was considerably more working class. When I lived in the rich town, no one talked about how much money the other kids' parents had, I guess because everybody was rich. When I lived in the working class town, everybody knew who the rich kid was and who the poor kids were, and where you shopped could get you admired or bullied. Wearing clothes from K-mart was a fast track to becoming a pariah.
When I was a kid I moved from a rich suburban New England town to one that was considerably more working class. When I lived in the rich town, no one talked about how much money the other kids' parents had, I guess because everybody was rich. When I lived in the working class town, everybody knew who the rich kid was and who the poor kids were, and where you shopped could get you admired or bullied. Wearing clothes from K-mart was a fast track to becoming a pariah.
What does “Fussellian” mean?
Fussell’s definition of the various classes in America in Class.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_A...
His “Middle” is characterized by a lot of class-anxiety and especially the twin characteristics of wanting to appear like the upper-middle or upper classes, while having very wrong ideas about how those two classes “signal”.
His upper-middle is basically professional-class (doctors, lawyers, professors, bankers, finance) prep school sorts. Same as the main demographic covered in Birnbach’s The Official Preppy Handbook
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_A...
His “Middle” is characterized by a lot of class-anxiety and especially the twin characteristics of wanting to appear like the upper-middle or upper classes, while having very wrong ideas about how those two classes “signal”.
His upper-middle is basically professional-class (doctors, lawyers, professors, bankers, finance) prep school sorts. Same as the main demographic covered in Birnbach’s The Official Preppy Handbook
For everyone's sake, I hope you're right.
To the OP's point, without some collective support, I don't anticipate this happening.
In fact, you'll likely have to deal with this as early as elementary school.
In fact, you'll likely have to deal with this as early as elementary school.
At least among my peer group, there’s clear support for holding off on smart phones for kids until at least high school, so I have hope.
Like the other commenter in this thread who says "... not social suicide ..." I would suggest just implementing the rules yourself regardless of what society is doing. The trend (as you can imagine) is definitely still going younger and younger. And unless you have the funds to fight off the marketing teams of Google and Apple, I imagine that will continue.
My kids are fine. Even with their parents fighting tooth and nail to keep them off devices as much as possible, they will still be on them sometimes (in your home or out of it). Maybe my kids are just weird to not be craving social media - just being able to send text messages to her friends seems to be enough for my 14 year old currently. Is that the same thing? My observations say "definitely not".
They complain about it sometimes, (and I complain about their usage sometimes) but nobody is really angry and everybody is really reasonable. Your mileage may vary.
My kids are fine. Even with their parents fighting tooth and nail to keep them off devices as much as possible, they will still be on them sometimes (in your home or out of it). Maybe my kids are just weird to not be craving social media - just being able to send text messages to her friends seems to be enough for my 14 year old currently. Is that the same thing? My observations say "definitely not".
They complain about it sometimes, (and I complain about their usage sometimes) but nobody is really angry and everybody is really reasonable. Your mileage may vary.
"My kids are fine." ... "Your mileage may vary."
It almost certainly does. People are wildly different in their susceptibility to alcohol, gambling etc. We should expect the same wild variability when it comes to social networks.
It almost certainly does. People are wildly different in their susceptibility to alcohol, gambling etc. We should expect the same wild variability when it comes to social networks.
In the same situation, I really hope so too.
It's not social suicide for a kid or teen not to have a smartphone (or to limit usage), so it's solvable individually.
My social life suffered greatly being one of the only kids in my highschool without a cellphone. This was the early 2010s in the United States.
Imagine being a teenager and trying to include someone lacking a cellphone to your social group. It adds a huge amount of friction.
Including someone without a cellphone means you give up the ability to be spontaneous (assuming the kid needs to adhere to an agreed-upon schedule to be picked up by a parent), and trivial things become a literal telephone-game ordeal.
It also means almost invariably that the kid is relying on a friend's phone to communicate parents / a ride, unless that kid is so privileged as to own their own car.
Could you imagine if every time you hung out with a friend, they asked to borrow your phone, open Facebook Messenger (or whatever sensitive messaging app you use), and to contact a parent?
It also means the kid isn't included in group chats, which means they just aren't part of conversations other kids are having. You can't have a rich social life with someone you can only talk to in classes you share and for 20 minutes during lunch break.
The "green bubble" phenomenon is bad enough as it is. I don't like it, but for all practical reasons, owning a cellphone is necessary for a kids social life in the United States.
Imagine being a teenager and trying to include someone lacking a cellphone to your social group. It adds a huge amount of friction.
Including someone without a cellphone means you give up the ability to be spontaneous (assuming the kid needs to adhere to an agreed-upon schedule to be picked up by a parent), and trivial things become a literal telephone-game ordeal.
It also means almost invariably that the kid is relying on a friend's phone to communicate parents / a ride, unless that kid is so privileged as to own their own car.
Could you imagine if every time you hung out with a friend, they asked to borrow your phone, open Facebook Messenger (or whatever sensitive messaging app you use), and to contact a parent?
It also means the kid isn't included in group chats, which means they just aren't part of conversations other kids are having. You can't have a rich social life with someone you can only talk to in classes you share and for 20 minutes during lunch break.
The "green bubble" phenomenon is bad enough as it is. I don't like it, but for all practical reasons, owning a cellphone is necessary for a kids social life in the United States.
> Could you imagine if every time you hung out with a friend, they asked to borrow your phone, open Facebook Messenger (or whatever sensitive messaging app you use), and to contact a parent?
What if the parent could handle such eventualities - based on trust in the child - with no freaking out ?
What if the parent could handle such eventualities - based on trust in the child - with no freaking out ?
I'm not sure what you mean.
The point of this quotation is that a cell phone is a very personal thing. It's anxiety inducing and burdensome to hand over your cellphone to someone.
And that's not the mention the power dynamic between the kids with the cellphone and the kid without.
The point of this quotation is that a cell phone is a very personal thing. It's anxiety inducing and burdensome to hand over your cellphone to someone.
And that's not the mention the power dynamic between the kids with the cellphone and the kid without.
Sorry for ambiguity. What I meant is, what if the parent trusts the kid to do the right thing, and so the kid does not have to call in to the parent for an okay to hang out with a friend ?
This kind of independence might be a social plus for a kid. Something like "I don't need a phone cos I can go where I want until dinnertime". No helicopter parenting.
This kind of independence might be a social plus for a kid. Something like "I don't need a phone cos I can go where I want until dinnertime". No helicopter parenting.
This only works if the kid lives somewhere with robust public transportation between their and their friends houses, or if they own their own vehicle.
Assuming neither, they're probably getting picked up and dropped off by a parent or other family member, with dropoff/pickup schedules arranged in advance.
It's less, "I don't need a phone cos I can go where I want until dinnertime," and more, "My mom will be driving 25 minutes to pick me up at 4PM, and my friends spontaneously decided to go bowling. I can only ask her when she gets here, but that would mean she needs to drive another hour and fifteen minutes."
Assuming neither, they're probably getting picked up and dropped off by a parent or other family member, with dropoff/pickup schedules arranged in advance.
It's less, "I don't need a phone cos I can go where I want until dinnertime," and more, "My mom will be driving 25 minutes to pick me up at 4PM, and my friends spontaneously decided to go bowling. I can only ask her when she gets here, but that would mean she needs to drive another hour and fifteen minutes."
It sounds bad for me to be anxious, when friends use each other’s phones. Why should I be anxious?
It is common for people including teenagers to use phones for personal and private things, like internet searches and private messages to other friends.
I can imagine someone who doesn't have their own phone being clumsy (or careless) and accidently dropping it and breaking the screen.
What an appalling, broken social life you want to condemn children to.
I grew up before smartphones and I spoke to people around my own age. I arranged my own travel without parents checking in on me. Bullying assholes didn't need groups to amplify their message which was a good thing.
How are things better now exactly?
I grew up before smartphones and I spoke to people around my own age. I arranged my own travel without parents checking in on me. Bullying assholes didn't need groups to amplify their message which was a good thing.
How are things better now exactly?
OP's comment has nothing to do with what he "wants" for his kids.
Good for you.
I'm describing how things are, not how I want things to be.
I'm describing how things are, not how I want things to be.
[deleted]
I agree that a cellphone for call/text only is important. I had one too. If you need blue bubbles nowadays, fine, handmedown iPhone with parental controls will do that.
Curious, do you have teens? Most people saying things like this don't, but if you do, curious if you've tried this and it works/ed out for you?
Two years ago a coworker became the parent to a teen overnight after his wife's son moved in with them as the sons father booted him to make room for a new wife and kid. Of course this comes with behavioral problems, nothing serious just being rebellious and doesn't listen and the mother levies punishment as needed. Of course kids think they are slick but unfortunately for him his new stepfather is technologically very literate. So every few weeks I hear a new tale of angsty teen son vs parents.
Today he told me the son was banned from phone use for two weeks as a punishment for something. Son hands the phone to the mother last night but she doesn't look at the phone. He asks her to check the phone screen and wouldn't you know - it was missing its sim card. Kid sim swapped to an old phone a friend gave him. Didn't work, mother confiscated his sim card. WiFi? Well the Unifi system he has setup in his house has a separate ssid for the stepson and his gadgets that gets shut off after 10PM on school nights and if he is punished, remains off until the sanctions are lifted. Kid is blacked out on personal devices but is still allowed to - watch TV if he is done with homework or go out with friends in meat space with strict curfew.
The son deals with it because he has no other choice. And I have heard no complaints that he is dying a social death. Just stick to your guns and show them who is in charge - you, the parent.
Today he told me the son was banned from phone use for two weeks as a punishment for something. Son hands the phone to the mother last night but she doesn't look at the phone. He asks her to check the phone screen and wouldn't you know - it was missing its sim card. Kid sim swapped to an old phone a friend gave him. Didn't work, mother confiscated his sim card. WiFi? Well the Unifi system he has setup in his house has a separate ssid for the stepson and his gadgets that gets shut off after 10PM on school nights and if he is punished, remains off until the sanctions are lifted. Kid is blacked out on personal devices but is still allowed to - watch TV if he is done with homework or go out with friends in meat space with strict curfew.
The son deals with it because he has no other choice. And I have heard no complaints that he is dying a social death. Just stick to your guns and show them who is in charge - you, the parent.
Taking away the phone for 2 weeks is different than never having a phone for the entirety of high school though.
It worked when I was a teen (not very long ago) and nearly everyone else had smartphones. I think the people who consider it social suicide are unconvinced that smartphones are a problem to begin with, which like I said is fine if they want that.
Were you popular? I feel like social dynamics must play a role. I mean I'm pretty sure blue vs green bubbles are a big deal in some circles let alone social media.
Moderately, or at least, not socially dead. Only played video games on weekends, including a Minecraft server with friends, which in hindsight still became a bit of an addiction I would've been better without. I was popular in college, and I did have a phone then but barely used it. Having a Facebook account mattered in college purely for class groups, events, and group chats where people coordinated stuff. One thing I don't know is what replaced that (if anything).
So basically, having a PC at home was more than enough.
So basically, having a PC at home was more than enough.
Another factor is how long ago we’re talking, too. 2024 is quite a bit different vs., for example, 10 years ago.
HS was 10 years ago, college was after. Since 7th grade, most kids had smartphones and were using them all hours of the day. Most people used Facebook, and by hs Minecraft was huge. What changed, aside from old games/platforms getting replaced?
I've heard Insta has a bunch of stuff that can replace FB's remaining uses (not just photo sharing, events and such) but I've never gotten into it so don't really know.
IG doesn't seem to have the equivalent. Events for instance, https://help.instagram.com/448430800019943 says "This feature is only available to professional accounts on Instagram."
Just checked, I'm still in the largest school-wide FB group from college. It ceased posting in 2019 despite technically having over 100K members still. Gonna assume FB groups aren't a thing anymore and it's moved to Discord, but I'm still curious.
Just checked, I'm still in the largest school-wide FB group from college. It ceased posting in 2019 despite technically having over 100K members still. Gonna assume FB groups aren't a thing anymore and it's moved to Discord, but I'm still curious.
n=1 but i didn't have a smartphone until halfway through senior year of hs (2013-2014) whereas most of my peers had one from 2010 onwards. i wouldn't say socially stunted but popularity wise i would say not a full member of the social groups i was tangentially in, not in any group chats, etc.
deep 1-1 connections for the most part because yeah i was texting and messaging people but other than that...i think it's probably only worse now. there are group chats/discords for each social group probably and not having a smartphone would mean you can't participate.
deep 1-1 connections for the most part because yeah i was texting and messaging people but other than that...i think it's probably only worse now. there are group chats/discords for each social group probably and not having a smartphone would mean you can't participate.
I'm willing to bet that social dynamics around phones at high school in 2024 are markedly different from 2014.
yeah i agree, if it wasn't clear what i meant to say was that i functionally didn't have a smartphone until high school was over, and as a result i think i was socially excluded from a lot of things - the social groups from hs seem to have survived college (which may be a quirk of my specific hs) whereas i only talk to two people who i was deeply close with.
and i think it's even worse now.
and i think it's even worse now.
'social suicide' is a vague term but my daughter has been spending a fair amount of this summer break texting groups of friends and/or playing online multi-player games with friends. Nothing good would come of my taking away her phone.
Idk how to say this exactly, but one thing I've learned from playing online MP games is that people aren't socializing on them, they're just being antisocial as a group.
I'm sure it varies. The peals of laughter coming from her room suggest her experience is different.
It depends on whether the laughter is about the game itself or some personal experience a friend has shared over VC. Cause the loudest room on our dorm floor was always the League+Melee room, and it wasn't cause they were sharing funny stories, it was because Falcon did a moonwalk short-hop reverse-knee fast-fall L-cancel.
They are laughing because someone got killed by Glitch. Fortunately I do have conversations with my kid.
I laugh at the funny HN comments. It is still a solitary activity.
That's a function of the games you play. Online games are a 3rd space for hanging out with your friends. Like sure if all you're doing is joining public matches on CoD or whatever then yeah it's pretty antisocial but hoping on Discord with your friends and playing Minecraft / Roblox / Fortnite / the current meme game de jour then it's a great time. My friends and I currently have a long-running game of Don't Starve Together going.
And it's one of the few activities you can do with friends when you're stuck home on a school night.
And it's one of the few activities you can do with friends when you're stuck home on a school night.
Oh our main thing was Minecraft. Must be the longest running popular video game ever.
Minecraft isn't even close to World of Warcraft. Several times the billions and been around since 2004.
This really isn't the case anymore. People are socializing in Valorant, they're socializing in Lethal Company, they're socializing in Roblox. Very little of this "antisocial in a group" stuff, which I assume you're mostly referencing to stuff like COD players screaming in mic at others (but mostly themselves), mostly because there are now better tools to detect and ban those participating in such.
They've really become digital third places, especially when IRL third places have been overly monetized or destroyed.
They've really become digital third places, especially when IRL third places have been overly monetized or destroyed.
I was the Minecraft server admin of my high school, csgo was big in college, I know how it is. Not referring to public matches like CoD. Just cause we were unaliving mobs and building stuff together doesn't mean we were socializing.
It doesn't, but many people do socialize in current games rather than just mindlessly unaliving mobs.
yeah, I limit video game time for my kids but don't take it away as that's how they play with their friends currently. So outside time and sports during the day and I let them have game time with friends after dinner. Seems to be a good balance
It obviously depends on circumstance - she doesn't have endless phone time but it's summer and this week she has few other plans.
I don't wish her only social interaction to be on her phone but the fact remains that if I took it away forever it would mostly impact her ability to play with her friends. I don't personally believe that it would be good for her mental health.
I don't wish her only social interaction to be on her phone but the fact remains that if I took it away forever it would mostly impact her ability to play with her friends. I don't personally believe that it would be good for her mental health.
Yup, I agree. Kids need to be able to talk with friends. Especially over summer when they cant always see them in person at school.
I have zero issues with phones, its just the social media apps I am against.
My kids have a Facetime video chat they all jump on while they game so they can see each other and talk, pretty great actually.
My kids have a Facetime video chat they all jump on while they game so they can see each other and talk, pretty great actually.
I would spend long hours talking to my friends on the landline growing up. These helped form deep relationships that were pretty much (atleast for me) impossible to make in the limited amount of time you met them at school. I presume something similar happens around cellphones where you miss out on a lot of discussions and have no context for a lot of the conversations that happen the next day. They really need to be collectively banned, it’s not possible to solve this at an individual level.
That is nonsense, I was at school with mobile phones before the iPhone (before touchscreens, non-Java-applet apps, 3G, etc.) and it absolutely would've been even then. I mean maybe you'd have gotten away with it being active on MSN, but it'd have been a problem for sure (you arrange to meet someone and then just go there and hope they show up at the right time and don't want to change plans?) and I think far more so today without even considering social media like Instagram & TikTok & whatever that 'everyone' is using.
(They weren't allowed actually at school though, weren't even supposed to be in your locker, so I always think it's a bit weird when it occasionally pops up debate about banning them from schools or that X school has banned them - curious when and why they allowed them, or maybe they were just always allowed to begin with?)
(They weren't allowed actually at school though, weren't even supposed to be in your locker, so I always think it's a bit weird when it occasionally pops up debate about banning them from schools or that X school has banned them - curious when and why they allowed them, or maybe they were just always allowed to begin with?)
>> then just go there and hope they show up at the right time and don't want to change plans
Why make plans in the first place then? Changing plans at the last minute is really inconsiderate behavior.
Why make plans in the first place then? Changing plans at the last minute is really inconsiderate behavior.
Because you're 12 or whatever and do have a phone and so-and-so just texted that everyone (omg, right) is actually going to be down by the river instead, are you coming?
Of course you are, but tanseydavid thinks he's meeting you in town and doesn't have a phone...
Of course you are, but tanseydavid thinks he's meeting you in town and doesn't have a phone...
Teens don't plan things this way. It's more like, a few are together somewhere, someone is coming late, and the group is a moving target.
I'm only just old enough for it, but before mobile phones (I mean, they existed, but we were schoolchildren not businesspeople, before small relatively cheap Nokias I suppose) we'd 'call on' people to see if they were in and if so did they want to do whatever/go wherever... Thinking about it now, I think mobiles probably had quite a role in changing that: we got phones and then just started texting (hey wuu2 do u wnt 2 go in2 town l8r) instead.
I imagine now it's just straight to the latter, (albeit with less txt spk and more memes & emoji) because children get phones and start making their own plans at about the same age. (And not by coincidence probably - they're arranging to meet friends and going out alone, so parent wants to be able to contact them, to stay in the loop, etc.)
I imagine now it's just straight to the latter, (albeit with less txt spk and more memes & emoji) because children get phones and start making their own plans at about the same age. (And not by coincidence probably - they're arranging to meet friends and going out alone, so parent wants to be able to contact them, to stay in the loop, etc.)
its called spontaneity, and that's a healthy thing.
if you find out about something interesting that you didn't know before, why should you not be able to change your plans to go see or do it?
hey, i just got some free tickets for that show, so how about we cancel dinner and go there?
if you find out about something interesting that you didn't know before, why should you not be able to change your plans to go see or do it?
hey, i just got some free tickets for that show, so how about we cancel dinner and go there?
Regular dumb phones were useful then and are still useful, just for coordinating. Smartphone is a superset of a GameBoy Advance now. Literally kids in my school were emulating GBA on their iPhones. There are in-betweens nowadays like a smartphone with parental controls.
obviously unaware about today's youth
Says the hot gril...
...Seriously I have a hard time seeing it your way. Can you elaborate on your rational? Change my mind?
...Seriously I have a hard time seeing it your way. Can you elaborate on your rational? Change my mind?
No. No I don't think I will.
It's practically considered child abuse these days to not give them a smartphone. I'm only slightly exaggerating. I think kids would be better off without them altogether.
Having a way to call for help or contact parents is immensely useful, even if it didn't exist when you were young. (Also, when you were young, there were probably pay phones, but those are gone now.)
Smartphones have many other very useful functions.
The real problem is social media.
Smartphones have many other very useful functions.
The real problem is social media.
What? Giving them the phone. Or not giving them the phone?
I'm not so sure. I see my 10-year-old daughter use her iPad and its very constructive, she's on screen sharing/video with her friends quite a lot, its healthy socialization. I imagine it becomes a problem when the child can't regulate their usage. But that's where we can use screentime and parental controls.
All it takes is one fateful string of recommended videos, access to Instagram (“everyone from school is on it!”) and things change in a heartbeat.
> ... it becomes a problem when the child can't regulate their usage.
That's now every child. Also, that was very much an intentionally designed effect -- it's no secret. Let that sink in. Your 10 year old is up against multi billion dollar companies who control the very tools you want to use to curb her addiction? (No, she is... We all are.)
That's now every child. Also, that was very much an intentionally designed effect -- it's no secret. Let that sink in. Your 10 year old is up against multi billion dollar companies who control the very tools you want to use to curb her addiction? (No, she is... We all are.)
Doing math on Matific is great (or similar activities). It's the exposure to Social Media that is the cesspool of the internet, where the kids are open to receive messages from anyone and everyone, and have the algorithm showing them every garbage under the sun.
People forget that the purpose of Social Media is to spend more and more time. "User Engagement" is the key.
People forget that the purpose of Social Media is to spend more and more time. "User Engagement" is the key.
Legislation is absolutely happening! Check it: https://www.compactmag.com/article/ending-big-techs-child-ex...
social media ban for kids goes into effect in Florida in 2025.
I already forbid my kids from using any social network.
They can use youtube with supervision.
Social media is poison for young minds. Older minds too but thats another issue.
I already forbid my kids from using any social network.
They can use youtube with supervision.
Social media is poison for young minds. Older minds too but thats another issue.
[deleted]
Here in my local state we banned all phones at school!
Everybody I've spoken to thinks its a great idea. Even the kids. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...
Everybody I've spoken to thinks its a great idea. Even the kids. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...
Yes, I really wish the law made it so that anyone under at least 16 (but ideally 18) is banned from using a smartphone. There’s no reason parents should have to be the “bad guy” in millions of homes across the US, we should just be able to say it’s against the law.
The parents that actually care need to get together and decide collectively on timeframes for phone use so the kids can text/social with time limits. Then enforce it with on-device parental controls.
Maybe 45 minutes before school each morning and 1 hour the evening or something.
Maybe 45 minutes before school each morning and 1 hour the evening or something.
Consider what those who aren't glued to the phone are actually missing out on. More than ever, kids are choosing not to go out and spend time with friends, instead doomscrolling, binge-watch tv and chat on instagram or whatever. That's not a bristling social life, but it does behave as a surrogate for one.
When kids hang outside of school, as was always the case, they usually live nearby. Notwithstanding that dumbphones and managed social media use are options, unless you think teens are all monsters (which would not be solved by phones anyway), it's not a lord of the flies situation of shunning people without phones.
I think there's a culture of inactive shut ins and we're acting like this should be cause for FOMO. I expect kids would be happier if they actually physically see some friends more regularly anyway.
When kids hang outside of school, as was always the case, they usually live nearby. Notwithstanding that dumbphones and managed social media use are options, unless you think teens are all monsters (which would not be solved by phones anyway), it's not a lord of the flies situation of shunning people without phones.
I think there's a culture of inactive shut ins and we're acting like this should be cause for FOMO. I expect kids would be happier if they actually physically see some friends more regularly anyway.
What do we do? Treat it as any potentially dangerous tool that you let (not give) your child use.
Learn safety, responsible usage and set limits. Let them demonstrate they can handle it before unattended use.
Learn safety, responsible usage and set limits. Let them demonstrate they can handle it before unattended use.
[deleted]
If we're to pass any sort of legislation, it shouldn't be against the kids, they're the victims of exploitation by greedy monopoly/oligopoly algorithms, we should legislate against companies like Meta, Snapchat, etc. the TikTok ban unless they sold off to an American firm that could be subject to US legislation was actually not the worst idea in the world (albeit I highly doubt the current Congress would've actually done anything constructive after the theoretical sale)
> Banning phone use on an individual basis is a recipe for social suicide.
Is it really? Or is this one of those irrational fears?
Is it really? Or is this one of those irrational fears?
I asked this question in a thread a few days ago and got downvoted. I’d probably have better luck preaching sobriety in a bar ha but I really think society needs to wake up to the toxicity of technology much like we did cigarettes.
> I really think society needs to wake up to the toxicity of technology much like we did cigarettes.
That's why I'm pretty wary of some other comments along the lines of "you just need to teach your children to think of phones as tools and regulate their screen time". I feel that's like telling kids "You just need to keep it to 3 or 4 cigarettes a day."
Sure, some kids may do OK with this (I happen to think they're really in the minority), but social media is fundamentally designed to addict people. That is literally the goal of social media companies. So I'm just a bit dubious that kids, especially young kids e.g. in middle school, have the ability to regulate that.
That's why I'm pretty wary of some other comments along the lines of "you just need to teach your children to think of phones as tools and regulate their screen time". I feel that's like telling kids "You just need to keep it to 3 or 4 cigarettes a day."
Sure, some kids may do OK with this (I happen to think they're really in the minority), but social media is fundamentally designed to addict people. That is literally the goal of social media companies. So I'm just a bit dubious that kids, especially young kids e.g. in middle school, have the ability to regulate that.
I think a lack of self-confidence and a lack of a strong group of friends is the actual issue here.
If you have both, your friends are always there to let you know how much you are loved.
If you have both, your friends are always there to let you know how much you are loved.
Soooo you just don't think that phones (with social media apps) are addictive and harmful for kids? The research on this is pretty clear.
If all the kids in the peer group have no cell phones, solving the mental health crisis would be easy. As long as some kids have access, the others will feel like they are being deprived of something fundamental, will resent their parents and will look for any opportunity to get on social media.
A technological solution is to have complete control over the computing devices we "own". But that goes against the interests of trillion dollar corporations and so we can't have that.
Like I was figuring out if there is a way to let my kid use Youtube with a select set of channels, but no. Youtube needs to keep showing suggestions on what to watch next. I would gladly pay for the ability to control what content my kid sees, but Youtube stands to make more profit by getting the kid addicted to their app.
A technological solution is to have complete control over the computing devices we "own". But that goes against the interests of trillion dollar corporations and so we can't have that.
Like I was figuring out if there is a way to let my kid use Youtube with a select set of channels, but no. Youtube needs to keep showing suggestions on what to watch next. I would gladly pay for the ability to control what content my kid sees, but Youtube stands to make more profit by getting the kid addicted to their app.
It's not just that. Some kids live in unsafe or car-centric areas, with parents who are uncaring or unable to take them to places where they can socialize in-person. Every kid goes to school, but maybe the kids at school bully them, or maybe the school is too focused on coursework and doesn't dedicate enough time for socialization, or maybe the kid is home-schooled. Especially if a ban were enacted today, some kids spent most of their life on social media, so they might have trouble adapting and socializing in-person.
Personally, I think the most likely and best solution is better social media. Currently, social media is regulated to shield kids from explicit content and predators, but it should also be regulated to shield them from negativity and mindless engagement, and to promote positivity and healthy behaviors (including not spending too much time on it). Recommendation algorithms for kids should be strictly controlled by the government; keep in mind that the government already strictly controls what kids learn in school, and it doesn't have to outright ban "non-explicit harmful" content, just down-weight it enough that kids don't find it without intentionally looking. Plus, a social media with healthier recommendations and discourse may become popular for adults as well, even though they wouldn't be locked into this version like minors (I can imagine a system that requires consent like adult ID but then lets adults stay anonymous, which could be bypassed by dedicated minors, but most wouldn't care enough to do so).
Personally, I think the most likely and best solution is better social media. Currently, social media is regulated to shield kids from explicit content and predators, but it should also be regulated to shield them from negativity and mindless engagement, and to promote positivity and healthy behaviors (including not spending too much time on it). Recommendation algorithms for kids should be strictly controlled by the government; keep in mind that the government already strictly controls what kids learn in school, and it doesn't have to outright ban "non-explicit harmful" content, just down-weight it enough that kids don't find it without intentionally looking. Plus, a social media with healthier recommendations and discourse may become popular for adults as well, even though they wouldn't be locked into this version like minors (I can imagine a system that requires consent like adult ID but then lets adults stay anonymous, which could be bypassed by dedicated minors, but most wouldn't care enough to do so).
I don't know from where came this idea that not having a certain thing will inevitably ruin child's relationship with the parent and cause a collapse of at least some part of their life, but if it was implanted - someone somewhere should have a pure gold Marketer of The Century award on their table.
Also, install Unhook Youtube - it allows reducing YT to pretty much just subscriptions and watch later.
Also, install Unhook Youtube - it allows reducing YT to pretty much just subscriptions and watch later.
Apple iOS 18 Safari is going to allow "AI" customization of any website, that might allow removal of the recommendations panel.
Another option might be a custom Youtube frontend or browser extension for filtering.
Another option might be a custom Youtube frontend or browser extension for filtering.
You can use Newpipe (it's open source), and there you may simply subscribe to the channels you want the kid to watch and they'll only watch those channels. There's nothing as home screen there but the kid can still search for a video using a query so it might just be the solution you are looking for.
Well, I didn't read the whole article, but I can confirm that I like my daughter (14) better once her allocated phone time is up each day. She only just got the phone 6 months ago, and we limit screen time pretty severely with Google Family Link, so we think we're doing ok. We have discussed trimming the screen time down even more, since school finished up. Also, she's not doing any social media at all. Still, kids are more fun when they aren't staring at a screen (in my opinion and possibly contrary to what many believe).
I think this is obvious to any parent, right? Too much screen time bad. I know it's bad for me as well, though my current bias is heavily against technology in general - I will admit that.
I think this is obvious to any parent, right? Too much screen time bad. I know it's bad for me as well, though my current bias is heavily against technology in general - I will admit that.
If she's not on social media, what is she even doing online these days?
Watching YouTube? Reading blogs about favorite subjects?
YouTube is basically as bad as any social media IMO since it has an endless stream of stimulus that's artificially easy to consume.
Watching YouTube? Reading blogs about favorite subjects?
YouTube is basically as bad as any social media IMO since it has an endless stream of stimulus that's artificially easy to consume.
Youtube has been a problem and we have had many discussions about what's worth her time and what definitely isn't. We limit the app specifically to 1 hr. per day, and just kinda keep tabs on what she's watching and talk to her about it.
Putting faith in any app to curate or restrict content in Youtube and the like; for this one I think doing the human thing of talking to her regularly and even making it clear that we will be checking out what she's doing is preferable.
Putting faith in any app to curate or restrict content in Youtube and the like; for this one I think doing the human thing of talking to her regularly and even making it clear that we will be checking out what she's doing is preferable.
Long-form video game retrospectives is my favorite
There should be a way of limiting your kids' YouTube viewing to only certain channels, so they can watch Kurzgesagt and music instruction videos (for instance), but not all the other crap. Perhaps a third-party app could offer this feature for parents.
Probably messaging their boyfriend or girlfriend, like most fourteen year olds do.
[deleted]
So I was one of the first generation to have access to instant messaging when I was less than 11. (I'm pushing 40)
I am despite what the media says, a digital native.
that being said, I don't think kids should be on social media. By that I mean instagram/tiktok/snapchat
I have been talking to my kids (10/7) about "the internet". The normal stuff: no real names, no photos, no giving away details to anyone. They have a shared iPad, but it has time limits, and it stays in the living room.
and as an adult leader for a "uniformed organisation" for kids, one of the badges is about staying safe online. Some of the shit that I hear from them leaves me a bit worried. Roblox is a fucking nest of paedophiles. Instgram isn't a place for kids, and neither is youtube.
But, the biggest issue, apart from google and facebook not having any commercial incentive to stop kids from using their stuff: is parents not talking to their kids to find out whats happening.
Who are they talking to?
How long are they spending online?
What are they watching?
You as a parent have to be involved. You can't let your kid wander alone on the internet. You need to set barriers.
You don't need to be a helicopter, but you do need to take an interest.
You also need to have a strong fucking password to stop the kids getting round the parental controls.
I am despite what the media says, a digital native.
that being said, I don't think kids should be on social media. By that I mean instagram/tiktok/snapchat
I have been talking to my kids (10/7) about "the internet". The normal stuff: no real names, no photos, no giving away details to anyone. They have a shared iPad, but it has time limits, and it stays in the living room.
and as an adult leader for a "uniformed organisation" for kids, one of the badges is about staying safe online. Some of the shit that I hear from them leaves me a bit worried. Roblox is a fucking nest of paedophiles. Instgram isn't a place for kids, and neither is youtube.
But, the biggest issue, apart from google and facebook not having any commercial incentive to stop kids from using their stuff: is parents not talking to their kids to find out whats happening.
Who are they talking to?
How long are they spending online?
What are they watching?
You as a parent have to be involved. You can't let your kid wander alone on the internet. You need to set barriers.
You don't need to be a helicopter, but you do need to take an interest.
You also need to have a strong fucking password to stop the kids getting round the parental controls.
> The normal stuff: no real names, no photos, no giving away details to anyone.
For the record, none of this has been "normal" for 15+ years. Sharing personal details - either publicly on social media or "privately" online is absolutely normal now.
For the record, none of this has been "normal" for 15+ years. Sharing personal details - either publicly on social media or "privately" online is absolutely normal now.
I wish it would still be normal
Roblox or any other specific thing isn't any different than anything else in terms of risk.
Where there are humans, there are problems. Where there are humans, there is crime. Where there are humans, there are pedophiles. The physical world is the same story.
After being sexually abused repeatedly as a kid and teen, both at school and online, don't get complacent in thinking background checks mean teachers aren't pedophiles—background checks and lists only tell you who has been caught so far.
Digital grooming is nasty, but the prioritized danger is anyone physically close.
Passwords aren't stopping teenage determination and they never have, not now devices are cheap and easy to come by, and lots of peers have drawers full of unwanted yesteryear stuff. Twenty years ago, we were using proxies, hacking WiFi APs, giving people old devices and even buying each other phone credit.
Where there are humans, there are problems. Where there are humans, there is crime. Where there are humans, there are pedophiles. The physical world is the same story.
After being sexually abused repeatedly as a kid and teen, both at school and online, don't get complacent in thinking background checks mean teachers aren't pedophiles—background checks and lists only tell you who has been caught so far.
Digital grooming is nasty, but the prioritized danger is anyone physically close.
Passwords aren't stopping teenage determination and they never have, not now devices are cheap and easy to come by, and lots of peers have drawers full of unwanted yesteryear stuff. Twenty years ago, we were using proxies, hacking WiFi APs, giving people old devices and even buying each other phone credit.
I wholeheartedly agree that background checks don't survive contact with a conniving human hell bent on doing what they want. I've also never subscribed to technical solution to social problems. I perhaps should have been more clear in my post that I was aiming for social solutions rather than purely technical.
I know I can't protect either my kids, or the kids I look after for ever. I just want to give them enough of a heads up to stop the 95% attack. As in, if I've done my job well enough, they won't be sending photos of themselves[1], or giving out home addresses, or believing that the other person is someone to be feared or obeyed.
You're also spot on about passwords. As a reformed Sysadmin, who used to work in a place with airgapped networks, I will be more than a little proud when/if my kids break part of the security. (assuming its not just social engineering my partner) I'll also be worried.
One of the teachers who I looked up to at school was acquitted of sexual misconduct with someone who I knew well. One of the worries is that someone who is a family friend(other other privileged position) does something like that to one of my children. Worse still either me missing it, or most painful of all them, not feeling able to talk to anyone about it to stop it.
Please read this as me casting judgment, minimising, solutionising, disputing or dismissing what happened to you. That is very much not my intention!
[1] perhaps a forlorn hope in the longrun
I know I can't protect either my kids, or the kids I look after for ever. I just want to give them enough of a heads up to stop the 95% attack. As in, if I've done my job well enough, they won't be sending photos of themselves[1], or giving out home addresses, or believing that the other person is someone to be feared or obeyed.
You're also spot on about passwords. As a reformed Sysadmin, who used to work in a place with airgapped networks, I will be more than a little proud when/if my kids break part of the security. (assuming its not just social engineering my partner) I'll also be worried.
One of the teachers who I looked up to at school was acquitted of sexual misconduct with someone who I knew well. One of the worries is that someone who is a family friend(other other privileged position) does something like that to one of my children. Worse still either me missing it, or most painful of all them, not feeling able to talk to anyone about it to stop it.
Please read this as me casting judgment, minimising, solutionising, disputing or dismissing what happened to you. That is very much not my intention!
[1] perhaps a forlorn hope in the longrun
The daughter was vaping. I'm not entirely clear, how did taking away a phone stop that?
And I know a large number of teens that are honor role, on sports teams, and gesticulate, all while having a phone and actively use social media.
I also know teens with depression, insomnia, and poor grades, even though they don't have a phone or social media.
That's not to say phones aren't harmful, but clearly it's not everything.
And I know a large number of teens that are honor role, on sports teams, and gesticulate, all while having a phone and actively use social media.
I also know teens with depression, insomnia, and poor grades, even though they don't have a phone or social media.
That's not to say phones aren't harmful, but clearly it's not everything.
It's a convenient scapegoat though, and the "solutions" all require less actual parenting so I guess that can be appealing.
> "It's literally impossible for me to influence my child's behavior, so we must enact legislation to ensure no kids can use these evil devices!"
> "It's literally impossible for me to influence my child's behavior, so we must enact legislation to ensure no kids can use these evil devices!"
And I say this as a person who's phone says "Today: 0 minutes" and "Daily average screen time: 20 m" (almost all 2FA and maps)
> my daughter is among the first generation of 10-to-14-year-olds active on social media
This makes sense if her daughter is presently 25 years old
This makes sense if her daughter is presently 25 years old
I clearly remember 12 year olds who were active on LiveJournal and a couple other less known social networking sites back in 2002-2003. The only difference it was done via a desktop computer rather than an iPhone.
Yep, millennial teenagers in my area were all over LiveJournal/Myspace/Xanga in the early aughts.
And if one considers messengers like ICQ/AIM (or even IRC) as a form of social media then teenagers were commonly (in my area) using social media in the late 90s.
And if one considers messengers like ICQ/AIM (or even IRC) as a form of social media then teenagers were commonly (in my area) using social media in the late 90s.
I'm 30 and I was on social media, just with school internet and not a smartphone.
I think the author is talking about scale. There were definitely kids with social medial accounts 15 years ago. But very few of them had personal smart phones that they could use in bed at 3am.
[deleted]
IMO the problem with phones for teens it that they have nothing to use them for except socialization. Adult phone addiction is a problem but phones are also tools for adults. Answering emails, calling the doctor's office, checking your credit card statement, etc. Teens have literally no use for phones except for communication/socialization. They also have abundant free time. One plan I've been thinking about for my own kid (currently 9mo old) is he's allowed to have a phone as long as he also has a job (or suitable job-like activity appropriate for a teen).
> Teens have literally no use for phones except for communication/socialization.
What do you think they're supposed to be using them for if not that? Socialization is the point. I was every bit the teenage girl annoyingly on her phone constantly but I was constantly talking to my friends / boyfriend.
So much of being a teenager is being dragged places you don't want to go and being forced to be around adults you don't care about talking about insurance or escrow or whatever. But online was a place that was mine, where my friends were.
What do you think they're supposed to be using them for if not that? Socialization is the point. I was every bit the teenage girl annoyingly on her phone constantly but I was constantly talking to my friends / boyfriend.
So much of being a teenager is being dragged places you don't want to go and being forced to be around adults you don't care about talking about insurance or escrow or whatever. But online was a place that was mine, where my friends were.
Nothing, my point is that they don't need them. You can physically socialize.
I would disagree. While I was a bit of an outlier and would use my phone primarily for tinkering, I would also use it to go down rabbit holes on wikipedia, play video games, read books and watch shows. Phones are glorified consumption devices, at the end of the day.
[deleted]
Obviously someone doesn't remember the Game Boy, iPod, Walkman, pocket TVs, camcorders, Polaroids, digital cameras et al.
Just because modernity has social nonsense baked into it by default doesn't mean that they were social experiences to begin with. Entertainment, utility and creativity were valued over social e-peen points once upon a time. Shocking, I know.
Adding this kind of friction to be able to communicate with family and peers is a recipe for a teenage dropout that's more focused on chump change just to have a phone than further education.
I left school at sixteen, I was never given pocket money. You bet having a girlfriend, cool clothes, a phone, an iPod and video games was more important to me than anything my dad had to say, especially when what we were being taught was nothing I had any interest in.
The final straw was needing a new computer to run Boinx to make stop-motion animations (my hobby at the time before CG movies really took off). Having the things you want and need is a big deal to teenage brain, especially when they're attainable without much effort and make you happy.
If a parent isn't giving resources or nurturing interests and is instead adding friction to something a teen can actually have for themselves, that parent is losing all leverage over a teenager because they can't threaten to take away pocket money and thus their source of "cool" and pleasure in life.
Kids should focus on their studies if their parents can facilitate them being able to do so.
"I wouldn't allow my kids to leave school at sixteen", in the UK at the time, they were legally adults, but also didn't stop plenty of kids dropping out at fourteen to work and get the things their parents weren't giving them. Neither parent wanted me to leave, but neither parent was relevant in any way anymore to me, they were just obstacles between me and my teenage bullshit.
Just because modernity has social nonsense baked into it by default doesn't mean that they were social experiences to begin with. Entertainment, utility and creativity were valued over social e-peen points once upon a time. Shocking, I know.
Adding this kind of friction to be able to communicate with family and peers is a recipe for a teenage dropout that's more focused on chump change just to have a phone than further education.
I left school at sixteen, I was never given pocket money. You bet having a girlfriend, cool clothes, a phone, an iPod and video games was more important to me than anything my dad had to say, especially when what we were being taught was nothing I had any interest in.
The final straw was needing a new computer to run Boinx to make stop-motion animations (my hobby at the time before CG movies really took off). Having the things you want and need is a big deal to teenage brain, especially when they're attainable without much effort and make you happy.
If a parent isn't giving resources or nurturing interests and is instead adding friction to something a teen can actually have for themselves, that parent is losing all leverage over a teenager because they can't threaten to take away pocket money and thus their source of "cool" and pleasure in life.
Kids should focus on their studies if their parents can facilitate them being able to do so.
"I wouldn't allow my kids to leave school at sixteen", in the UK at the time, they were legally adults, but also didn't stop plenty of kids dropping out at fourteen to work and get the things their parents weren't giving them. Neither parent wanted me to leave, but neither parent was relevant in any way anymore to me, they were just obstacles between me and my teenage bullshit.
Has anyone made a rate-limited phone UX? Not just measuring screen time, but pre-agreed quotas, e.g. N mins per hour during specific time periods or locations, for the entire phone, specific apps, and/or contact groups.
iOS parent controls handle this pretty ok. The time limits can be by application class (which can be customized) or individually. The controls are linked to their Apple ID, so the same permissions flow across devices: tablet, phone, watch (probably desktop too?). The child can request "more time" on an app and an alert pops up on the parents' devices (which can be obnoxious until some boundaries are set). The communication/contacts control strikes a reasonable balance too.
I think the cell enabled watch offers better mobile function than carrying around a full phone and its baggage of capability.
I think the cell enabled watch offers better mobile function than carrying around a full phone and its baggage of capability.
We went the cell enabled watch route and it’s not there yet.
Calling and location often don’t work, even though there is perfect mobile signal. Updates must be managed from a phone, so you need one anyway. Maps are not easy to use, you can’t do simple stuff like a google search or look up train times.
Calling and location often don’t work, even though there is perfect mobile signal. Updates must be managed from a phone, so you need one anyway. Maps are not easy to use, you can’t do simple stuff like a google search or look up train times.
Yeah, I have a wish that Apple would have been braver and pushed the watch at expense of the phone like they pushed the phone past the iPod. Maybe the watch form factor won't mature until a good enough LLM is squeezed into a future more capable watch processor.
Remember the days when iPhone updates had to be managed from a desktop and cell data wasn't so great? I have an appreciation for the format even if I'm not a user of it.
Remember the days when iPhone updates had to be managed from a desktop and cell data wasn't so great? I have an appreciation for the format even if I'm not a user of it.
Sometimes I wish we wouldn't limit these studies / conclusions to just children. Certainly children are more susceptible and lack greater control than adults but the negatives of high phone usage and social media propagates throughout society and adults. Of course whereas a parent can take away their daughter's phones, who's to take away ours?
My teens often tell me about how teachers (really just one teacher) in their school decry the usage of smartphones. I've told them repeatedly that the next time a teacher rants about "screen time" ask to see their iOS screen time numbers. Unfortunately (and smartly) they aren't interested in poking their teacher in the eye.
I wonder if there's a market for phones whose software can only do a few things. I mean: maps, phone, whatsapp.
Obviously in theory stock Android can do that but they don't really take child locks seriously because they have the wrong threat model for it - they think "it only has to be securish because most children aren't going to be smart enough to circumvent it and it's not serious if they do anyway", instead of "it has to be actually secure because you only need one smart child out of thousands to figure out a bypass and it is serious because it affects peoples lives".
So maybe you could have an Android distro where it literally white-lists a few apps and servers at the OS level.
Obviously in theory stock Android can do that but they don't really take child locks seriously because they have the wrong threat model for it - they think "it only has to be securish because most children aren't going to be smart enough to circumvent it and it's not serious if they do anyway", instead of "it has to be actually secure because you only need one smart child out of thousands to figure out a bypass and it is serious because it affects peoples lives".
So maybe you could have an Android distro where it literally white-lists a few apps and servers at the OS level.
Yes, the market exists and there are several competitors.
I've looked at https://sunbeamwireless.com, which runs their Android variant, BasicOS. Haven't purchased yet though. Light Phone is similar.
Gabb and Pinwheel sell phones oriented at kids, and both have OSes based on Android.
Unfortunately, as you say stock Android as well as iOS don't make effective locks. What they offer is passable for parents managing their kids' phones, although in practice kids often find ways to bypass.
It's very difficult for an adult who wants to self-regulate. There are some hacks you can do, like MDM, but it's not at all straightforward.
I'm looking to connect with people about this topic. In fact I want a business partner, although I'm also interested in people who just have input.
I've looked at https://sunbeamwireless.com, which runs their Android variant, BasicOS. Haven't purchased yet though. Light Phone is similar.
Gabb and Pinwheel sell phones oriented at kids, and both have OSes based on Android.
Unfortunately, as you say stock Android as well as iOS don't make effective locks. What they offer is passable for parents managing their kids' phones, although in practice kids often find ways to bypass.
It's very difficult for an adult who wants to self-regulate. There are some hacks you can do, like MDM, but it's not at all straightforward.
I'm looking to connect with people about this topic. In fact I want a business partner, although I'm also interested in people who just have input.
My kids are better for their iPhones. They have no access to social media and policies in place to make sure they are tools and not sources of entertainment and addiction.
Absolutes on either end of the spectrum just lead to extremism which helps no one. This headline (the article one and the HN summary) are just extremism via reductionism. You can reduce this entire thing to a point but it deprives them of their instinctive tool using and building mentality.
Absolutes on either end of the spectrum just lead to extremism which helps no one. This headline (the article one and the HN summary) are just extremism via reductionism. You can reduce this entire thing to a point but it deprives them of their instinctive tool using and building mentality.
Not being on Social Media at < 14 is extremism? The same verb used to describe terrorists?
No that’s basically the law. What is extremism is depriving them of what is an essential tool in these times.
Teach don’t preach.
Teach don’t preach.
Can you name anything that makes a smartphone essential - not preferable or convenient, but essential as you said?
I hear this argument a lot, but I'm yet to hear an essential purpose they hold for anyone.
I hear this argument a lot, but I'm yet to hear an essential purpose they hold for anyone.
Well my youngest (13 year old) daughter uses it for Google classroom scheduling at school, transport status (TFL), payments, online banking, checking weather, taking photos and editing them, tracking her running and cycling, listening to music etc...
While not essential for any of these, it's a tool which you can leverage for all of these to improve things.
Edit: not to mention the iPad+apple pencil which is just another way of creating art...
While not essential for any of these, it's a tool which you can leverage for all of these to improve things.
Edit: not to mention the iPad+apple pencil which is just another way of creating art...
Absolutely agree these things are useful, and extremely convenient to have in a single device.
However none of them are essential, and I'm not convinced any of the benefits of these conveniences outweigh ingraining this device dependance on children at critical habit forming points of their lives.
Note that the trend of how addicted to their phone they are seems to directly correlate to their exposure when they were young.
Boomers+: Barely at all
Gen X: A bit
Gen Y: A real problem
Gen Z: I'd be surprised if 5/100 can watch a full length movie without looking at their phone
If you consider at what point in life each group gained access to engaging modern tech, there is a clear correlation. Causation is a reasonable path to follow here, and it much too likely to risk young childrens exposure - in my opinion.
However none of them are essential, and I'm not convinced any of the benefits of these conveniences outweigh ingraining this device dependance on children at critical habit forming points of their lives.
Note that the trend of how addicted to their phone they are seems to directly correlate to their exposure when they were young.
Boomers+: Barely at all
Gen X: A bit
Gen Y: A real problem
Gen Z: I'd be surprised if 5/100 can watch a full length movie without looking at their phone
If you consider at what point in life each group gained access to engaging modern tech, there is a clear correlation. Causation is a reasonable path to follow here, and it much too likely to risk young childrens exposure - in my opinion.
What extremism? You’re already doing what everyone wants, which is removing kids from social media.
The article conflates that with not having a phone at all, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
The article conflates that with not having a phone at all, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
Well the article promotes an extremist position to solve a sub-issue which is the problem. It sells clicks. Then again it's The Grauniad so I expect nothing less. It's less than objective these days.
[deleted]
The thing about phones is that they make bad parenting obvious. And that's apparently terrifying to a lot of adults.
Luckily for us, we can just blame tech and sidestep any responsibility.
Luckily for us, we can just blame tech and sidestep any responsibility.
I'm always curious to understand how so many people didn't know phones and social media would be bad. I remember having "prohoetic" discussions about all this in 2008 with a bunch of privates in the Army. How people ever thought how the internet was evolving in the early 2000s was going to be only amazing has always baffled me.
Our solution has been feature flip phones and encouraging the kids to call their friends to talk instead.
Attention control seems to be a top cultivative practice. What you put your attention on, how long, etc.
Good practice delivers health, sensitivity, kindness. Bad delivers bad health, bad behavior.
Pleasure, habit and popularity is a bad guide here. You might actually have to fight for your sanity.
Good practice delivers health, sensitivity, kindness. Bad delivers bad health, bad behavior.
Pleasure, habit and popularity is a bad guide here. You might actually have to fight for your sanity.
That's always what I think when I see adults complaining that they hate their phone. It's just a portable computer, you control how and when you interact with it.
Heh, the only reason I complain about my phone is because I can't do enough things with it. Or at least not comfortably (and without requiring root, which is easier said than done depending on model). It just annoys me how bad the UX is compared to a proper computer with a keyboard and window management. I was once hospitalized and unable to move, with only my phone to pass time, and the experience was SO frustrating!
I don't use my phone a lot, all I got for entertainment is Retroarch, Lichess and a generic sudoku app I got from F-Droid, so obviously my opinion is highly subjective, but it feels like having a supercomputer that can only run MSDOS. One thing at a time in fullscreen with maybe a few passive resident processes. I know some phones let you split things in two or so, but not all of them and the implementation is never flawless or limits what apps can be split.
If you mean hating the phone as a social thing, I am a bit self-conscious about being seen using it too much or taking it out in front of someone unless warranted. I wouldn't do stuff like crossing the street or driving with my eyes glued to it. But that's a people problem and not a phone problem, I think.
I don't use my phone a lot, all I got for entertainment is Retroarch, Lichess and a generic sudoku app I got from F-Droid, so obviously my opinion is highly subjective, but it feels like having a supercomputer that can only run MSDOS. One thing at a time in fullscreen with maybe a few passive resident processes. I know some phones let you split things in two or so, but not all of them and the implementation is never flawless or limits what apps can be split.
If you mean hating the phone as a social thing, I am a bit self-conscious about being seen using it too much or taking it out in front of someone unless warranted. I wouldn't do stuff like crossing the street or driving with my eyes glued to it. But that's a people problem and not a phone problem, I think.
Well, "control" is a fuzzy zone. There's temptation, confusion, marketing... I mean, you choose which direction to swim but there's also a current to contend with. It can be a fight.
the effect of hyperconnection is especially bad for girls. they can keep leaning into it until they fall flat on their faces. boys will tend to not engage with it to that extent even if available. its interesting that human society has been a wild and ill-advised experiment every since the introduction of agriculture. we are all going to eat nothing but carbohydrates and sit around all day, whereas yesterday we ate mostly animals and spent all of our time running around from place to place. since the start, insane and dangerous experiments have been the norm. if we choose to reject the madness, reject AI namely, it will be the first time in history. an experiment in and of itself.
It's not just kids. I'm literally watching dozens of relationships of
people I know IRL breaking down... depressed and angry teenagers
fighting with parents, couples divorcing, jealousy and suspicion
tearing friendships apart. It's fucked up. Smartphones and social media
are at right at the heart of it. These are dark times to live through
and I hope to see an age when all of this is repaired and behind us,
and we can find a kinder, more mature and saner use for technology.
"I found answers via my sister in Johann Hari's book Stolen Focus, which explores how and why our attention is collapsing: "The phones we have, and the programs that run on them, were deliberately designed by the smartest people in the world to maximally grab and maximally hold our attention.""
If only they were designed by "the smartest people in the world". This is a journalistic trope. They were designed by people with social problems not to help address their problems but to feed an unhealthy addiction to computers as an escape.
If only they were designed by "the smartest people in the world". This is a journalistic trope. They were designed by people with social problems not to help address their problems but to feed an unhealthy addiction to computers as an escape.
First I read: “Taking away Advanced Dungeons and Dragons made my daughter a better person”
Taking away the iPhone may have had some benefits, but it did not make anyone a better person.
But it sounds like it did? Why are you thinking it didn't, or are you meaning it from a different angle of some sort?
Having a phone - and being depressed, etc. - doesn't make you any less of a good person.
I think what was intended was "happier, healthier" person.
I think what was intended was "happier, healthier" person.
Ahhh. Sure, the phone and depression themselves aren't really related to the good/bad/(etc) metric.
The behaviours the daughter was exhibiting though (lying, desperate attention seeking, etc) are probably why the article author frames it that way.
The behaviours the daughter was exhibiting though (lying, desperate attention seeking, etc) are probably why the article author frames it that way.
The barrel may be rotten, but the apple is not.
It'd be great if that's how things worked. ;)
Every time a parent asks me for suggestions (and they do.. a lot!) on "how can I stay in touch with my kid but not give him/her a smartphone", I suggest they switch to Apple ecosystem and get some cheap second-hand iPhone for the parent(s), and an second-hand Apple Watch 4 (or later) that has LTE and GPS. With this they can add an e-sim to the watch with unlimited minutes, and they can stay in touch with their kids 24/7, track their location, etc. Just remember to ALWAYS charge the watch when the kids get home.
I also suggest that they lock-down the settings of the kids' watch (the customisation/locking-down is very good) just add a few contacts (papa, mama, sis/bro) and that's it. Nobody else can call them, and they cannot call anyone else (except emergency services).
ps: I personally run on Android. I absolutely despise and I dropped every Apple-thing I had on the battery-gate scandal)
I also suggest that they lock-down the settings of the kids' watch (the customisation/locking-down is very good) just add a few contacts (papa, mama, sis/bro) and that's it. Nobody else can call them, and they cannot call anyone else (except emergency services).
ps: I personally run on Android. I absolutely despise and I dropped every Apple-thing I had on the battery-gate scandal)
Have you had experience with that yourself? We have apple watches with mobile service and reliability has been quite poor. Location is usually severely delayed, or it looks like our kid is going for a swim (we live near water).
It sounded like a great plan, but I’d definitely not recommend it (yet).
It sounded like a great plan, but I’d definitely not recommend it (yet).
Articles like these which blame technology as the great evil, with a “what about the children! think of the children!” bent, are biased and troubling.
The article starts by blaming then iPhone and social media and goes on to show how the child is a victim of poor parenting and divorce.
Maybe the child’s depression, anxiety, and longing for acceptance comes straight out of the broken home and not social media.
The article starts by blaming then iPhone and social media and goes on to show how the child is a victim of poor parenting and divorce.
Maybe the child’s depression, anxiety, and longing for acceptance comes straight out of the broken home and not social media.
Why do you find it troubling? The article doesn't claim that poor parenting and divorce doesn't have negative effects on a child. It claims that social media, amplified by technology, has had negative effects on his/her child. Technology is a double edged sword and good parenting is supposed to shield predatory action by social media companies.
I think this quotation captures the sentiment the best: "She assessed her worth within a system where she was simultaneously attention-addicted and attention-starved. She’d internalized an algorithm where provocative content wins"
I think this quotation captures the sentiment the best: "She assessed her worth within a system where she was simultaneously attention-addicted and attention-starved. She’d internalized an algorithm where provocative content wins"
Note: netik’s bio indicates they used to work at Twitter.
that'll do it. Thanks william
The kid's mental health improved when she gave up her phone. So there is that and also some research that justifies the causation [1].
[1] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill...
[1] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill...
It is a valid question to ask. Natural response would be to test whether rates of depression, anxiety and lack of belonging were reported lower or higher for previous cohorts.
My take is less nuanced, because I already see some addiction in my kid to screens ( I would blame my wife, but I am to blame as well ), which prompted me to crack down on it. I think there is a lot of blame to share, but I don't think parents are more to blame than a corporation with nation-state level of resources to overcome objections, force trends and so on.
My take is less nuanced, because I already see some addiction in my kid to screens ( I would blame my wife, but I am to blame as well ), which prompted me to crack down on it. I think there is a lot of blame to share, but I don't think parents are more to blame than a corporation with nation-state level of resources to overcome objections, force trends and so on.
Unlike social media/smartphone usage, divorce rates don't suddenly spike in 2010 to match the spike in childhood mental health problems. Despite social media companies best efforts, there is no reasonable alternative hypothesis for what happened globally in 2010 to cause the problem.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/07/21/blaming-social-media-for...
Maybe. But according to the author, she’s doing better without the phone.
From what I remember of middle school, having constant 24/7 contact with my classmates would have been detrimental, so I buy it.
From what I remember of middle school, having constant 24/7 contact with my classmates would have been detrimental, so I buy it.
That was exactly my impression
Dear Chat-GPT, please write an article in the style of an abusive narcissistic parent with no writing skills.
Make sure she lets shine through that her child distrusts her so much that she lies and keeps secrets. The relationship between parent and child has broken down, and the child is not to blame.
Let the reader realize in not so subtle ways that the phone isn’t the actual issue, and let them realize the author is an unreliable narrator.
Make sure she lets shine through that her child distrusts her so much that she lies and keeps secrets. The relationship between parent and child has broken down, and the child is not to blame.
Let the reader realize in not so subtle ways that the phone isn’t the actual issue, and let them realize the author is an unreliable narrator.
As soon as the author talked about the zebra stripe scars on the daughter's arm, I knew it wasn't about just the phone. As soon as the author said that their daughter went from Pink Floyd to stereotypical duck lips and peace signs, I decided they were completely full of it.
I agree 100%
It's really amazing what I don't know not being a parent...
Reaching for your phone is an example of what psychologists refer to as avoidance behaviours. We look at screens so that we don't have to deal with difficult thoughts and emotions.
Sure, without a phone that person had no other choice but to face whatever they've been avoiding. But more often than not leaving someone to their own devices when they clearly can't cope with the situation by themselves makes them look for a different source of distraction that in turn will make you wish they were "just" addicted to social media.
A person doing well mentally has no need to avoid anything. The right thing to do is help them get there, not play whack-a-mole with their coping mechanisms.