Please don’t give kids smartphones period. A smart watch is far less addictive and just as valuable to parents and kids (parents can track location, kids can still make phone calls and txt.) other suggestions are a dumb phone (think t9 txting), or just let them go phoneless.
I don't think going phoneless would be a great idea because emergencies happen and people need to communicate but society would probably be better if kids weren't glued to smartphone apps and social media from a young age. The smart watch or dumb phone idea makes sense to me though.
The emergency argument can be managed by not giving kids a smart phone with internet aceess. Easy
Don't they require smart phones to work though? All the ones I have had are all just BT devices which require a phone to do anything beyond tell the time
There are several cellular capable watches.
My Samsung watch works without a phone on Google Fi network. Watches get a free line.
On Google Fi the watch data "piggy backs" on the phone's data. You still need a phone + phone plan.
Those watches with tracking built in are certainly popular in my area, but I absolutely refuse to use it. Kidnapping just isn't a thing (the majority of kidnappings is by a trusted family member/friend), and I don't think kids should get accustomed to someone constantly looking over their shoulder. I've gotten my kids "smart" watches (fun Minecraft watches with built-in games and whatnot), and there's no tracking or internet access whatsoever.
If kids need to call, they can ask a trusted adult to borrow a phone. If I trust my kid, they can borrow my spare. Kids don't need a phone of their own until they can at least get around on their own (e.g. driver's license or parental permission to leave the neighborhood on their own), and for me, that's like 14yo. I have a 10yo, and there's no way I'm giving them a phone now or in the next year. They're really responsible, but they don't need it at all.
Curious, what smart(-ish) watches did you get? Product recommendations appropriate in this discussion imho
This Minecraft watch. There's no network access whatsoever, but it feels like a smart watch with a camera, apps, games, etc. They really liked it, but it seems to not be very durable, and battery life is pretty poor (like a day or so). But if your kids want to feel like having a smart watch, but you don't want to have all of the internet access stuff, I think it's pretty good.
Garmin makes watches specifically for kids and seem to have a decent privacy policy.
Or just give them a dumb phone.
Anyone have a recommendation for a decent kids smartwatch with cell service? I got my son a Garmin Bounce and the text and the service sucked so we returned it.
You can find older Apple Watches for fairly cheap, I paid 10 bucks a month on T-Mobile for just the watch plan.
You would need to have an iPhone in order to manage it but you can manage a watch for a kid that way. They have school mode for them so it just acts as a watch with emergency contact action at school.
Scrolling to find out what “EE” is… I can’t find anything. Can someone fill me in?
EE (formerly Everything Everywhere) is a British mobile network operator, internet service provider and a brand of BT Consumer, a division of BT Group. Supposedly the #1 network in the UK similar to Verizon in the US.
A telecom company with the hubris and arrogance to call themselves "Everything Everywhere".
Equine Enchephalitis
Erectile Encumbrance
Electronics Enonymous.
Electrical Engineers.
I will argue smartphones or any electronic is not the problem. The problem is lazy parents.
My kids all have had phones since before 10 and they're all well adjusted but to be clear I monitor their usage and I check in with my kids regularly.
I cannot hold back society or technology at the fear of my kids being left behind. What I can do is help them navigate both as they grow.
I love how quick we are to lay the blame anywhere but parents.
I strongly believe that a large part of the reason China is so strict with underage phone and game restrictions is because the parents are at work for too long to do any real parenting. Ideally parents should be the ones making those choices and actually monitoring their kids, but since I don't have kids I can't really say for myself.
the parents are at work for too long to do any real parenting
This 100%.
I'm always sus of anything the Chinese government does. I feel that governments restricting Internet usage is just a way to indoctrinate people with the media you (the state) shows them instead.
The problem here is that the systems you have to monitor usage aren't great, and kids are known for lying or omitting details to their parents.
Giving kids open-ended access to technology doesn't have to involve giving them access to the Internet without constant guidance. I would rather my kid have less digital access than her peers, than get sexually exploited because they were a child publicly online.
More and more I am seeing that the places kids go online are places I don't fully understand, but a cursory review reveals is also a hotspot for sexual predators. This seems like the perfect place for a predator to stalk my child. I don't know enough to stop them, and my kid doesn't know enough not to get exploited. By the time I find out about it, it'll probably be too late.
Giving a child an internet-connected camera and screen can become such a horrific nightmare, I think that good parenting actually has to involve being realistic and telling your kids "just because your friends have TikTok and Instagram doesn't mean you won't get grounded for it in this house", and letting kids use technology when I am in the room with them. I have seen what kids are posting online, and it's easy to assume that their parents don't care, but it's a lot more realistic to accept that kids are good at keeping secrets, and their parents don't know what they're up to.
If they want to learn about computers on their own, I'll buy them what they need to learn about all sorts of stuff that doesn't expose them directly to capitalist or sexual exploitation online. When they are old enough to defend themselves, then they can be given the trust in accessing the Internet on their own, but until then they need to explore under my watchful eye.
Giving a smartphone to a <10 year old child, and trusting that the limited monitoring tools available, and your child's honesty is enough to keep them safe from vicious exploitation is delusional and irresponsible.
This is an extremely reactionary take. I hear what you are saying but I draw the line as delusional and irresponsible unless you apply that to pretty much all parents that don't completely smother their children.
We make mistakes as we grow. We lie. We get hurt. Technology is always Pandora's box. I'd argue we have better knowledge of our kids now than we ever used to and stats show the world is safer now than it has ever been.
If you live in fear you will form your decisions from a place of fear.
I recognize a threat and I want to avoid my child being exploited.
At one point in history, the car was a new form of technology growing in popularity, and we eventually agreed that kids shouldn't drive.
This is actually a good take. Kids aren't miniature adults, they're kids. They're not helpless or useless, but neither are they fully morally and emotionally developed. They need guidance. Plenty of adults can't responsibly handle internet access. I survived early onilne porn and gore and social media, but it's not like any of it benefited me in a meaningful way.
Some folks have an attitude that's like "I touched hot stoves and I learned better", but that's far from ideal.
Get the kids a dumb phone instead. Calls and texts are more than enough in an emergency
When I went to price it out at the store, the line for a dumb phone was going to cost $30/mo more than a smart phone. It was dumb.
So get them a smartphone plan and slap the SIM in their dumbphone?
I'm in the US and can get a simple plan for $6/month for no data, 300 minutes, and unlimited texting. Unlimited minutes is $8. There's no contract, so this isn't some kind of family deal, this is just the regular price at Tello for a single line.
I personally have 1GB and 300 min for $7/month.
If the new dumb phones also came with Google Family Link for tracking then it would be a win. But they don't. As a parent, having the ability to track my kids when I know they're heading to or from somewhere is a big deal. And no, it's not an issue of trust.
Give them a phone with no play store or browser. If they get apks over mms or adb I think they've earned them
I'd argue that is still an issue of trust, but maybe more concerning society / the local neighborhood.
My kids are around that age and it's a real struggle when all of their friends have one.
There is a growing tide of data suggesting the fight is worth it, but understand it is a serious struggle.
Much like trying to get kids to eat healthy when they are surrounded by so much awful food in the US.
I wish I didn't need an Android phone for work, WhatsApp, Telegram, maps.
But I sadly do.
I wish I didn't need an iPhone for work,
(List of every app that is also available on Android).
But sadly I do.
No sane people use iPhones where I live. It was a thing of glamorous girls and people not doing actual work for some time, but now even them I don't see with iPhones.
For me personally - as it's something I need, but not something I want to invest into, nor something I like, the Android phone I use for these things (another SIM) was almost as cheap as the dumbphone I use for calls. Comparable to groceries for a week.
I don't think there are iPhones one can buy for that price, ha-ha.
Too bad?
Yup. All my friends had cell phones and I was pretty much the only one who didn't. That kind of sucked, but my friends were cool and worked around it.
If their friends won't accommodate them, well, they've shown their true colors and perhaps they should find some better friends. Having a phone isn't going to fix crappy friends.
I think there were some social blunders and connections missed because I got a decent phone later than my peers.
I got my first basic phone (a phone which barely functioned and regularly crashed doing basic things) at 16 back in 2011(?) when many in my class had gotten a basic phone by 2008. By 2010, pretty much everyone had at least a basic phone, many had smart phones.
I wouldn't write this off as an irrelevant issue in a world where so much connection is done through phones (even if you personally don't believe you were all that affected). I do think my parents decision to delay giving their shy-ish child living in a rural area a good phone (solely because they didn't have one when they were kids) was a bad decision.
Actually being able to keep up with people between classes, discuss homework, to have gotten some pretty girls numbers earlier on, etc ... that could've really changed my high school and middle school (or at least jr high) experience for the better.
I certainly don't know your situation or anything, so apologies if this comes off as tone-deaf.
And yeah, I completely appreciate that a lot of communication happens through phones. However, most of that communication is a distraction, and a lot of it is damaging. If you have a phone but nobody talks to you, that's worse than if you don't have a phone at all. Likewise, if you have a phone and use it responsibly, you'll likely get called out for "ignoring" people's messages because so many people expect a ridiculous level of engagement these days.
Calls and texts aren't really a thing any more, and most people communicate through apps instead. That means that even without a phone, there's a pretty good chance you can still be included if you have access to a computer at home. I grew up in a weird transition where people moved from IM to SMS, because IM just didn't work yet on phones yet everyone had phones. We're seeing the opposite trend these days, where now that most people have massive data plans, apps are becoming king again.
So in my mind, this means that not providing a phone doesn't cut them off, it just delays communication. That means they'll have less of a chance to become addicted to all the SM BS, while still being able to be included in things. I think that's a healthy boundary to set.
That said, absolutely none of my friends communication during HS or my communication in college was productive. We didn't "discuss homework" or anything related to school, we merely arranged hangouts and flirted, with a little gossip to round things out. I highly doubt things have changed much, because that's just what kids do. When I was young, cell phones weren't a thing, and my sister spent hours on the phone talking about nonsense with her friends. That's just how teenagers work, if they're talking to friends, they're not talking about school work.
That said, I'll certainly be paying attention as my kids get older. My oldest is around 10, and they're definitely too young for a phone (though I'm debating giving them their own PC). I have nephews and nieces who are a few years older, and I can roughly see which ones I'd be comfortable giving access to a phone, and which I'm not, and that point seems to be around 14yo. But whether I give my kids one depends on how much I trust them. We'll probably test drive a loaner phone in a year or two before deciding if they should have their own phone.
The last two prargraphs sound at least way more sensible and logical than the earlier comments.
Agreed.
Everyone saying they'd give a smartphone at best under best behaviour at age >16 are very suspect to me.
I would bet a solid 100€ they werent perfect kids to their parents either and worked around restrictions or talked long enough to be convincing or their lives were so long ago that they only remember a time with land lines and mobile calls costing 9ct per minute.
Getting a phone this late is socially crippling them.
IMO late middle school is a good starting age while giving them guidance.
At all users: Take it with a grain of salt. This is coming from someone without children but as someone that has been in school during the late 2000s and early 2010s
Well. I don't know how old you are. When I was in school we only had dumbphones. And not having a cell phone at all sucked LOL. Kids should absolutely be able to call and text, if no reason other than emergencies. Just not spend all day on socials.
Well, I grew up before smart phones were a thing, but dumb phones were absolutely a thing (the "cool" kids had the Motorola Razer, if that helps).
And yeah, not having a phone sucked. But I was able to bum a phone off my friends, and I carried some coins in case I needed to use a pay phone (another hint at my age).
Pay phones aren't really a thing anymore, but kids can absolutely ask a trusted adult (e.g. a teacher) to use their phone in an emergency. My kids also know our phone numbers, our address, and rough directions to get home, so if there's a true emergency, they can get home (e.g. get a police officer to give them a lift). We ride bikes in our neighborhood frequently enough that they can probably give turn by turn directions once they're within a few blocks of our house. But the chances of that actually happening are so remote it's really not worth planning for. We only take our kids to birthday parties (we meet the parents when we drop them off), school activities (we know their teachers), or friends houses, and we let them go on their own to the local parks. We give them a time to come home, and if they don't come home when expected, they lose their privilege to go out on their own for a bit.
So I'm not concerned at all about emergencies, and I think parents are way too worried about it. If I don't trust my kid on their own somewhere, a phone isn't going to make me feel more comfortable. In my eyes, a phone is a privilege, and privileges are earned and can absolutely be revoked.
I'll probably give my kids phones before they leave the house, but not until they earn that trust, and also not before they actually need one. My current target is 14yo w/ a dumb phone, and 16yo w/ a smart phone (for directions). Once I've given them a phone, I'll trust them completely with it (no tracking) until they violate my trust, at which point they'll lose it. That's how I'd prefer to be treated as a kid, so that's how I'll treat them.
Is it the phone, or the social media? The article only really mentions social media as the real issue.
Subsequently, does that mean social media on a computer is 100% A-OK? (this is a mobile phone carrier so it makes sense that they'd only focus on phones)
The article specifically mentions smartphones. Which smartphone can't access social media?
Computer is not necessarily "A-OK" but theyre far less likely to carry them around and be on them all day.
All smartphones can access social media. But they also have some really good (mostly intuitive) parental controls. So if you don’t want you kid on Facebook just block it.
What does it matter if the child is on a phone all day va on a computer all day? Sure you can’t really do that in class, but what about the other 16 hours of the day?
But they also have some really good (mostly intuitive) parental controls. So if you don’t want you kid on Facebook just block it.
Fair point, I don't know anything about that.
What does it matter if the child is on a phone all day va on a computer all day?
You're...joking, right? I just explained that in the comment you just replied to.
This is false information. You can limit what apps they have with safeguards with many different services. Google family, Samsung family share and Microsoft family all have limited app options where you can let through whatever you think is good enough. You can also only allow a certain amount of hours for each app on a daily basis. There are so many safeguards if you look it's not difficult.
That's what they just said.
No that isn't what they said. They said they can be at a computer all day when I said you can limit the amount of time. They also said all smartphones can access the Internet, when you can in fact limit their Internet in every way possible including what they download to even try and circumvent the limitations. I don't see how anything they said is close to what I said.
You definitely see a difference in children who are regularly given phones to keep them occupied. They're just so much more hyper active. I know a lot of teachers have been complaining about phone use in the classrooms. In Canada they just started rolling back against rules saying teachers can't confiscate phones.
In my opinion, social media is a bigger problem than smartphones in general. For me a smartphone is a just a tool that can be both incredibly useful but also very harmful.
With a bit of knowhow, you can neuter a smartphone so kids can't access social media, games, and other distracting mediums. No social media apps, no browser access, no YouTube, no games. But they can still access useful functions like calculators, the torch, phone calls and messages, etc. Android and iOS both have features allowing parents to do this.
I think that this is somewhat besides the point. Give a smartphone to a teenager, and block all social media, and one of two things is going to happen:
They don't use the phone, because the only reason they wanted it was social media.
They find a way around your social media block, because the only reason they wanted it was social media.
What age is a good age to give them one?
When they need one. And no, that's not when they say they need one, but when you decide they need one.
I'm planning on having a loaner phone when my kids are teenagers that they can share. It'll stay home unless they leave the house, and they'll be limited to how much time they can spend on it. If they earn my trust, maybe they'll get their own (again, subject to limitations). I don't see a reason why they'd need one before they can drive, but I'll play it by ear.
That said, I refuse to do any sort of tracking on their devices. If I trust them with a phone, I'll respect their privacy with it. If they violate my trust, they lose the phone. If they don't like it, they're free to get their own once they're 18, and not a day before.
At least give them dumbphones for connectivity.
They can earn that.
Yikes.
Yeah, yikes for being a parent that wants to teach their kids prudence. While they're living in my home, a phone is a privilege, not a right, and they need to prove they can be trusted with it. If they break that trust, they lose the phone.
I'm not giving them a phone because their friends have phones, I'm giving them a phone because I trust them with it and there's a reasonable reason for them to have it. I don't need to know where my child is 24/7, I just need to know that they'll be home at a given time and not break our rules when I'm not around, and I need trust for that to happen, not a tracking device.
No age. It's just especially damaging for young people.
As a 17 year old who has 3 phones (somewhat strange story behind it), giving a child a phone should be either when they need it, such as when they go out more often or other events where they need a specific use, but if not, I believe 18 to 20 is not a bad age to receive one, since young adults are more likely to need to travel to schooling such as UNI more often and generally need more info about travel routes and to be able to message parents/siblings/etc.
As for my 3 phones, one is a galaxy S4 my dad gave me as a hand-me-down, pretty much used to text my parents exclusively, then I received an oppo Reno z from a friend who didn't need it, which I currently use as a games and social media phone, then the third is one is a galaxy a20 my dad brought home and said I could take if I wanted, since there were a few of those unused at his workplace, so I now just use that as a flashlight.
You can't exist in this world without a phone anymore.
Any meaningful school relationship builds on things like messaging groups.
Just because we could do it in the early 2000s doesnt mean it's applicable today.
This would today socially cripple a student.
IMO 16, if you can trust them to be responsible enough to drive you can trust them to have a smartphone. If you can't trust them to drive then yeah they probably shouldn't have a smartphone lol
I'd say 13-14 under tighter supervision but 15 is the range where they will be made fun of for heli parents.
And they will quickly find a way around it like resetting the whole phone if nothing else.
Depends on when you think they wouldn't get smarter anyway
I feel like I had a problem socially starting jr high without a phone at all in late 00s. All your friends communicate/plan/etc over phones so not having one you're missing out on all of that.
Smartphone is debatable, but I feel like 6/7th grade kinda needs a phone of some sort in current society
Just don't do it people. Me and so many parents have horror stories. Even without social media these phone numbers get out one way or another. For us it was much more trouble than it was worth.
I haven't had a problem.
iPhone with Screen time and communication limits means I can control how much time they spend in the device and in which apps and I control who they can contact.
Don't approve any apps that allow social features.
Talk to them about the realities of the internet and the wider world.
All of this has to happen at some point. If you just hand off a phone to an 11 year old or even a 14 year old workout doing any of the above, you're still going to have issues.
Much of what is being said about tech is the same as was said about tv and video games. The only studies you're going to hear about this are the ones that confirm the societal biases.
If you don't seek counteropinions of this topic you're playing into the same fear mongering every generation of parents has had about the new thing.
Dancing, rock and roll, tv, video games, and now phones. Every time, everyone thinks this time is different and every time it hasn't been.
Dancing, rock and roll, tv, video games, and now phones. Every time, everyone thinks this time is different and every time it hasn’t been.
Dancing (with other children at dances)
Rock and Roll (just listening to it)
TV (just watching it, and maybe seeing objectionable content)
Video Games (Addiction / Inappropriate content)
Internet-connected camera-equipped smartphones (Direct access to scammers, bullies, and child pornographers)
One of these things is not like the other.
No, you don't get. Or didn't live it. Or are being purposely obtuse.
None of those qualifiers were attached to those things at the time the applicable fear mongering luddites were vilifying them. What we have right now are 21st century Tipper Gores. People engaging in moral public freakouts over tangentially related things which affirm a much larger fear of the whole (technology in this case). You see it also with how people violently and emotionally react to "AI."
Remember when D&D would turn you into a Satanist who'd go on to sexually abused children, maybe even engage in ritualist murder? Remember when similar was said for merely listening to even the radio edits of Marilyn Manson?
People pearl clutch over hypotheticals. Parents who engage with their kids and set healthy boundaries which are enforced don't often run into these problems. Hell, the arguments people make about tech right now could also apply as reasons not to let them play outside. Never know where a predator is lurking. I mean, we actually do: in your church and in your house. The two most statistically likely places for children to be preyed upon.
But let's blame the internet. Apple makes it trivial to lock things down and monitor it all. No kid is able to outsmsrt those restrictions because adults can't either.
No, what's happening is yet another hype cycle. The entire reason all these schools are banning devices this year is due to a marketing effort from Haidt's publisher. They put copies of his book into the hands of higher ranking faculty with purchasing authority for their districts. And they talk with each other. What a brilliant way to weaponize ignorance and make a buck doing so.
And it magically doesn't make bad parents into even mediocre ones. Who or what will they blame next? Definitely not the person looking back at them in the mirror every morning.
Don't give them a phone until they are prepared to see everything the Internet has. Kids can be smart and will find ways around the blocks you put in place.
The thing I tell people is that as a parent, you are going to put maybe a few hours into blocking them from getting to stuff. They are then going to spend as much time as they want trying to get through it. You can dig through concrete with a spoon if you're patient enough.
Educate them, and give them access when they're responsible enough
That's the real problem, kids being able to spend unlimited time unsupervised because they have horrible absent parents. Parents shouldnt let their kids have unrestricted time like that. That is one reason why kids suffer in school not because of phones; because their parents aren't involved to guide them in making good choices and forcing good habits.
So we take away the phones as the luddites demand. What fills the gap? Definitely not independent learning. Most definitely not suddenly mindful and present parents.
There is a lot of fear mongering and blaming, but no actual effort to fix it. Banning or removing doesn't fix it. There is a reason that, when absent parents for latchkey kids were huge problems, they didn't simply decree gangs illegal and pat themselves on the back. Communities offered alternatives. But no alternative is being offered here. All the woes are shifted onto the unholy smartphone and internet.
Ya know why predators can find success online? Because shit parents don't parent. A better use of resources would be forcing the parents to sacrifice their phones contingent on spending time with their kids, right?
They are probably smart enough to find a phone if they want one...
Smartphones cost enough that a parent can control the finances and I don't believe kids can aquire a large enough fund by themselve without at least some assistance by the parents.
And if, usually as a gift and that is probably taken in by a parent anyway
And buying that requires knowledge of amazon, knowledge of what phone is useful, knowledge to avoid a scam or faulty product, an email address, a credit card, and a device to order from.
Children are surprisingly clever and have all the time in the world, but they aren't professional pen-testers and don't have the experience needed to use online services before having access to them.
It's far more likely they get a hand-me-down device from a friend and keep it at school, especially if they know such a thing would be confiscated immediately upon discovery. Preventing this interaction would require control over the child's life nearing Amish levels, or prison levels.
They sell these at Walmart, too. It really only requires a chance sighting of it and a couple weeks allowance for a young teen or kid to end up with one of these cheap smartphones.
On Amazon you either need to buy gift cards or have a working bank account/credit card.
If your kid works around those road blocks you have more serious problems...
And btw: Are they really usable?
They sell these same cheap phones at the store, and yeah, they work fine. I assume you live way out in the suburbs somewhere where it is unheard of that a young teen might end up at a store with dozens of dollars in their pocket, but I'm being realistic. You have to be vigilant about what your kids are up to.
In many ways, I am more comfortable with my kid going to the store on their own than I am of them using TikTok, given what I know about TikTok.
Phone maybe, but not a SIM card with data. Although you can do a lot without a SIM card if your school has public WiFi I guess
Yes, don't do it. It's a bad idea. Phones are addicting and one day when we all realize this, we will have laws to prevent it.
Because all of our current laws work so well at preventing access to addictive things. /s
Last time I checked, minors are orders of magnitude less likely to be smokers or drinkers than adults. Seems like the current laws we have for age-restricting things do, in fact, work.
The rate of marijuana use went up in recreationally legal states, while the rate of marijuana use amongst minors went down, because dispensaries enforce minimum age laws that dealers don't.
The current laws allowing 13 year olds to sign a the TOS for a social media site need to be raised to match every other expectation of consent under contract law: 18 years old. For everyone saying that the parents are the ones that are supposed to be responsible, make them sign the TOS for their kids accounts, and then throw the book at them when they fail to protect their kids.
If anyone in the future ends up going to prison or losing custody of their children because they bought them a cellphone or let them use social media, we will have officially failed as a society. That is dystopian as all hell.
It is not the government's place to parent people's children for them, much less the dysfunctional government we have.
If anyone in the future ends up going to prison or losing custody of their children because they bought them a cellphone or let them use social media, we will have officially failed as a society.
I agree entirely, but do you have a response to what I said.
It is not the government's place to parent people's children for them, much less the dysfunctional government we have.
If you let a pedophile into your house, and let them rape your children, you shouldn't be allowed to have children. If it happens digitally on your watch because you didn't police your child's access to the Internet like it actually matters, you were a bad parent.
So the argument boils down to it being due to bad parents rather than evil technology, yes?
That's not the main arguments being used to ban these devices and advocate for more radical plans. Removing access to these doesn't make someone a good parent. Kids turn to other methods.
And to an earlier point in another comment: guess which cohort has explosive growth in smoking at the moment? Not people our age. Teens and young adults of legal age. Gen Z, in particular, is a huge market for that industry now. Cigars and pipes in particular. Vapes are counted separately but are wildly popular.
Banning the sale of highly regulated goods where the state is the official and only legal seller of said good in many states is one thing. We are talking about the internet here, though. And cell phones. And computers. And tablets. May as well put TVs and connected devices on the list, and definitely console platforms.
I think we all could benefit from less screen time 💻
Lucky them. I wish I didn’t need one. It’s a window to other people’s problems.
You know you don't have to doomscroll social media right? You can just, you know, not do social media.
Why did you assume I was talking about social media? Besides lemmy I really don’t do social media.
Sorry if I misunderstood your comment, it seemed like a metaphor for social media but perhaps I assumed too much. My bad!
Let's go one step further...
VRChat on the Quest is not a babysitter!
Is that a step further though? I feel like not giving kids access to VR Chat comes way before not giving them a smartphone in terms of restrictiveness or severity. It's a far more reasonable suggestion.
Both... but a Quest is mainly designed for gaming, where a smartphone is designed to do everything. The smartphone restriction is an easy one to recommend.
I don't follow. Wouldn't a limited-purpose device be easier to restrict than a general-purpose device?
Look at the Nintendo Switch. If there was ever an Internet-connected device to give your kids, it's a Switch. I have never heard of anything untoward happening to a child on Nintendo's online platform.
A Quest is an overpowered smartphone strapped to your face, with all the capabilities of such. You can restrict a smartphone too, but how many parents actually have that level of technical inclination? It's better to limit the youngest minds' times on these devices until they're a bit older, and you've had more time to teach them important life skills. Also, parents teach your kids important life skills from an early age, please.
I think we actually agree, maybe just a misunderstanding.
I don't believe that parental controls actually stop most kids from doing things they shouldn't, and I think these devices are bad for a growing mind compared to real world human experiences.
I think I misunderstood you earlier thinking you said that smartphones were easier to agree to giving children over a VR headset, because a VR headset is only for gaming. I think we both agree that they are bad.
Children will be raised initially by an expanded roomba with arms amd a babysitting AI.
The first (and only) time I played VRChat, my takeaway was, "What kind of adult would want to play a game with this many preteens in every room?"
Then I answered my own question...
Yeah, public worlds are cancer. It's best to get in with friends or groups.
That's not my point. Kids congregate in public worlds, and predatory adults know where to find them.
...and that is my original point.
EE is advising parents that children under 11 should be given old-fashioned brick or “dumb” phones that only allow them to call or text instead.
That sounds ridiculous. An 11-year-old is, what, a fifth-grader in the US?
If they have access to a computer or something in addition to their phone, okay, maybe. But for a lot of young people in 2024, their smartphone is their sophisticated electronic device. Maybe they tack on a keyboard or whatnot. But take that away, and they don't have a computer to use. A computer is just too essential of a tool to not let someone learn.
Kids used to veg out in front of the TV, where material is generally not all that fantastic and the device is noninteractive. I think that it's great that smartphones are replacing that.
I was programming when I was in first grade. I was doing computer graphics and word processing somewhere around there. Those are important skillsets to have. I made use of those. You want kids to pick those up. You do not want to push those back. I'd get a computer of whatever form into their hands at the earliest point that they can avoid destroying it.
If your concern is that you want to restrict access to pornography or something, okay, fine, whatever, set up content filtering. I think that they're probably going to get at it anyway. But that does not entail not permitting access to the computing device. That's a restriction on access to the Internet.
In May this year, MPs on the education committee urged the government to consider a total ban on smartphones for the under-16s and a statutory ban on mobile-phone use in schools as part of a crackdown on screen time for children.
That'd be, what, up to high school before you have one? And that's not "I have parents who want that", but outright "the government doesn't let anyone do that".
Wikipedia. Google Maps. The store of knowledge available from search engines. I use those all the time. You want to cut them off from that?
I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?
I mean, I'm just boggled.
I was programming when I was in first grade. I was doing computer graphics and word processing somewhere around there. Those are important skillsets to have. I made use of those. You want kids to pick those up. You do not want to push those back. I’d get a computer of whatever form into their hands at the earliest point that they can avoid destroying it.
Most kids aren't improving their skillsets. They definitely aren't programming on cell phones. I am a programmer. I have code editors that I paid for on my phone at all times. I've used them like 5 times at most.
Social media and misinformation is damaging for everyone but more so for children. Social media is what kids are mostly doing.
I agree that there can positives for using a cell phone. Their are educational software but most kids aren't doing that.
Even if they are only figuring out how to ignore clickbait, they are improving their skill sets.
Social media is "damaging", in the same way that all social activities are "damaging". The solution is not isolation, but early exposure. The last kid to get a phone is the one at greatest social disadvantage.
Firm disagree. Social media, or more specifically algorithmic short form content these days, is extremely damaging. It's different from anything that's come before and has nothing to do with connecting with your peers.
I graduated high-school in 2009 so I saw the beginning of popularized social media. Very few gained anything from participating in it. Mostly people who were good at marketing and building a following benefited.
It's different from anything that's come before and has nothing to do with connecting with your peers.
Kids have always been evil little shits who get their jollies demoralizing and torturing the weak. Social media is just a newer avenue for old sociopathy.
Social media, or more specifically algorithmic short form content
Marketing, news, and propaganda of the past never targeted people directly. It's also not just feeding them content, it's also taking and storing massive amounts of data from the user that will be used against them.
Yes, they have. Direct mailing, cold calling, lead farming, door-to-door, yes, all of it has been done, and most of it predates even the printing press. This isn't social media; this is marketing, plain and simple. And marketing is the least damaging aspect of social media: they just want to exploit you. The people who aren't after your money are the real danger.
Direct mailing, cold calling, lead farming, door-to-door
None of those compare to what is happening now. Those are playing wack a mole hoping to get a sale. What's happening now is recording everything you show a reaction to, whether enjoyable or not, and use it against the user.
A list of names, address from marketers is nothing compared to the amount of data tech companies are getting from individuals.
Just saying cold calling and door-to-door is the same as the data gathering tactics now shows your ignorance on the topic.
What's happening now is recording everything you show a reaction to, whether enjoyable or not, and use it against the user.
"Use it against the user"... For what? You make it sound nefarious, but it is just marketing. You aren't being blackmailed. People are trying to sell you stuff. They've been doing that since forever.
Again, "marketing" is not the problem with social media. The harmful part of social media is the fucking people. Especially for kids, who are trying to figure out how to get along with everyone, but haven't yet learned that most people are assholes who should be ignored.
Marketing can be really broad. You can market a shirt or you can convince someone to join a cult. And you can find out if someone is more likely to join a cult through the gathered data.
If you don't see the dangers of propaganda and misinformation, like I said:
Just saying cold calling and door-to-door is the same as the data gathering tactics now shows your ignorance on the topic.
. And you can find out if someone is more likely to join a cult through the gathered data.
Yeah. Data like "does this person respect arbitrary restrictions imposed by self-appointed authority figures?"
Parenting is "self-appointed authority figures" rather than being called "parenting" now? Lol.
Data like "can we sell make up to minors because they only follow models? Looks like they are in the path to body dysmorphia, better send the results to local plastic surgeons."
Data like is "this teenager having issues with their parents and have no friends on their profile, so that makes them an easier target to join a welcoming group?"
When parenting was still called parenting and not 'self-appointed authority" (lol), parents prevented their children from hanging out with the same groups that social media is pushing on to them.
And you think the best things for developing minds to exposing them to these groups because according to you "it is just marketing".
You can try, but you'll be teaching to deaf ears until they have seen enough to understand what the hell you're talking about.
Kinda like teaching kids about heroin or cocaine.
They should also learn not talking to strangers by putting their lives at danger.
There have been priests that taught sex education using your logic.
There have been priests that taught sex education using your logic.
The kids who "learn" from such priests are kids who haven't been exposed to proper sex ed. Generally, they've learned that sex is something that should be concealed. It's a secret that the kid isn't supposed to know about, so of course they don't tell anyone about it, because they know how to stay out of trouble.
Gatekeeping the Internet works the same way. If you're going to do that, you might as well download the sex offender registry and invite them all to the kid's birthday party.
So you want kids to understand cocaine and heroin and sex by a professional instead of a priest. If they don't then in your logic, they will fall on deaf ears.
Language is incredible. You can describe experiences that others have without actually being there or doing those things. It even works with fiction! Or horrible events like war! Or even drugs without exposing them to it!
Gatekeeping the Internet works the same way. If you’re going to do that, you might as well download the sex offender registry and invite them all to the kid’s birthday party.
I never said to prevent them from using the internet, I said social media.
I never said to prevent them from using the internet, I said social media.
You say that like there is any sort of meaningful difference.
There is a huge meaningful difference.
Again, this shows your ignorance on the topic.
I would love to hear the distinction. Please enlighten me.
Smartphones won't help you learn how computers work. They are dumbed down devices, designed to keep you on social media while maximizing exposure to ads. These things are way worse than TVs.
Tasker says you're wrong.
The kid who has done nothing more than install games from the play store is miles ahead of his phone-less peers.
And I'd say the kid who learned to start a game on daddy's PC is miles ahead of the kid who clicked on an icon in the play store.
Edit: I just saw that you mentioned access to a computer in your first post. Sorry for sounding like a dick!
set up content filtering
Then kids will just work around it.
I personally refuse to set up content filtering. My state passed a law requiring ID to view porn and use SM, and I'm willing to set up a VPN on my WiFi to work around that because I detest content filtering. I'd much rather have zero filtering and track what websites are visited so I can react appropriately (i.e. if the kid is watching porn, they probably need some proper sex ed and something to occupy their time).
That's a restriction on access to the Internet.
Sure, and I'm 100% willing to take that away from them.
My policy is, if I trust you, I trust you to not be supervised. If I don't trust you, I don't trust you at all. So either you get complete access, or you get no access.
That's how I'm planning to handle phones as well. They'll get a loaner phone when they need it, and if they earn my trust with that, they'll get their own. If they violate my trust, they lose the phone, including the loaner. Simple as that.
the government doesn’t let anyone do that
Yeah, that's not cool at all, the government shouldn't tell me how I can raise my kids.
That said, kids can still access the internet at school and at libraries, just like I did as a kid. Or they can ask to borrow the family computer. If I choose to restrict my child's access to the internet, that should 100% be my prerogative, as should me deciding to give my child a smart phone.
Hey kid, you finished your vegetables and cleaned your room, here's the car keys. Right pedal is gas and... ah, you'll figure it out. Be home by 10.
Also lol @ family computer.
Also lol @ family computer.
? The "family computer" is one of my computers (I have a laptop and a desktop, they choose) that's in an open space. I unlock it for them (usually from my phone), tell them what they are allowed to do and how long they can use it, and then let them on it with pretty much no supervision and no filtering/tracking. I don't look at their browsing history (I trust them), but if I find out they were breaking the rules, they lose that privilege. We've only had a couple of incidents (usually they're watching stupid YouTube videos we don't like), but they've largely done a good job of sticking to our rules, and I'll always explain why those rules exist. They earn computer time by reading (15 min for every 30 min they read), and they keep track of their own time (again, we don't track it, but they will get grounded from the computer if they lie).
I want them to experiment with things as much as possible, but within some safety guidelines. If they're going to stumble on something bad, I want them to do it while they're young enough to tell me about it. IMO, that's the best way for them to learn proper boundaries. For example, my kid told me about some cool jumps at the park someone made, so I went over there with them, we rode on a few, and then I told them they're totally fine to come back, but that one jump didn't look safe and they should avoid it. Now I let them go pretty much whenever they want with their friends without me or anyone else watching, provided they don't have other obligations. If they get hurt, we live a couple blocks away, so they can get home, or if someone is seriously hurt, they can send someone. My kids are pretty careful though, so chances are they would be the ones finding help.
My level of supervision scales with the danger. My kids know where they're allowed and not allowed to go, and they know they'll lose their privileges if I find out they went somewhere they're not allowed to go. I have taken away my kid's bike for that (took off the front wheel and hid it), so they know I'm serious. But they also know I'm reasonable, and if they want to expand where they're allowed to go, they talk to me and we discuss any relevant safety concerns I have (e.g. crossing busy roads, knowing directions, etc).
I try to give them more freedom than they're comfortable with, but not so much that they'll get into serious trouble so they set their own boundaries. My goal here isn't to keep them safe in the short-term, but to teach them to to make reasonable boundaries to keep them safe in the long term.
Sounds like the rules my parents had for me, not the ones I have for my kids. Not quite boomer rules, but almost. You do you, tho.
My parents didn't have "rules" so much as "expectations," and they seemed to work pretty well for us. All of us kids did well in school, had healthy social relationships, are happily married, etc. They gave us a lot of leeway, but only once we had shown we were ready for it.
That's essentially what I'm trying to build. I want my kids to see me as a counselor, not a rule-maker, but I do want them to respect my authority to step in if they veer too far outside my expectations. If my kids want to do something that we currently don't allow, they'll present their argument and I'll give my concerns (e.g. my 10yo wanted to know when they could babysit, and I told them my maturity expectations). So far it seems to be working well, we'll see how the teenage years go.
Wikipedia. Google Maps. The store of knowledge available from search engines. I use those all the time. You want to cut them off from that?
That's a bit overdramatic. Most kids have a laptop for schoolwork these days. I personally didn't get a smartphone until I started university, got a Samsung S7 then. I had no issues accessing any of those sources. These days I have a comp sci masters degree, so it definitely didn't "stunt" me in any way.
I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?
Kids reading and writing skills appear to have been declining ever since the rise of the smartphone, so I doubt they're reading anything of sufficient quality to hone those skills a bit.
Schools here have recently mostly banned smartphones, and the kids seem happier for it and their grades and concentration in school is improving. Sound like positives to me.
Agree with your points on having a pocked PC to hack with, the issue here is then with mobile and their OS makers which mindbogglingly have omitted to design a working and hardly hackable "children account mode", since what is damaging here is not what they can fiddle within their devices, nor certainly what they can read from wikipedia, but rather the unfiltered and unaccountable exposure to a profiling oriented social media storm which even adults fatigue to cope with.
I'm sure it isn't unheard of OSes having a hardware locked managed kiosk mode, because that is what smartphones basically need.
Please don’t give kids smartphones period. A smart watch is far less addictive and just as valuable to parents and kids (parents can track location, kids can still make phone calls and txt.) other suggestions are a dumb phone (think t9 txting), or just let them go phoneless.
I don't think going phoneless would be a great idea because emergencies happen and people need to communicate but society would probably be better if kids weren't glued to smartphone apps and social media from a young age. The smart watch or dumb phone idea makes sense to me though.
The emergency argument can be managed by not giving kids a smart phone with internet aceess. Easy
Don't they require smart phones to work though? All the ones I have had are all just BT devices which require a phone to do anything beyond tell the time
There are several cellular capable watches.
My Samsung watch works without a phone on Google Fi network. Watches get a free line.
On Google Fi the watch data "piggy backs" on the phone's data. You still need a phone + phone plan.
Those watches with tracking built in are certainly popular in my area, but I absolutely refuse to use it. Kidnapping just isn't a thing (the majority of kidnappings is by a trusted family member/friend), and I don't think kids should get accustomed to someone constantly looking over their shoulder. I've gotten my kids "smart" watches (fun Minecraft watches with built-in games and whatnot), and there's no tracking or internet access whatsoever.
If kids need to call, they can ask a trusted adult to borrow a phone. If I trust my kid, they can borrow my spare. Kids don't need a phone of their own until they can at least get around on their own (e.g. driver's license or parental permission to leave the neighborhood on their own), and for me, that's like 14yo. I have a 10yo, and there's no way I'm giving them a phone now or in the next year. They're really responsible, but they don't need it at all.
Curious, what smart(-ish) watches did you get? Product recommendations appropriate in this discussion imho
This Minecraft watch. There's no network access whatsoever, but it feels like a smart watch with a camera, apps, games, etc. They really liked it, but it seems to not be very durable, and battery life is pretty poor (like a day or so). But if your kids want to feel like having a smart watch, but you don't want to have all of the internet access stuff, I think it's pretty good.
Garmin makes watches specifically for kids and seem to have a decent privacy policy.
Or just give them a dumb phone.
Anyone have a recommendation for a decent kids smartwatch with cell service? I got my son a Garmin Bounce and the text and the service sucked so we returned it.
You can find older Apple Watches for fairly cheap, I paid 10 bucks a month on T-Mobile for just the watch plan.
You would need to have an iPhone in order to manage it but you can manage a watch for a kid that way. They have school mode for them so it just acts as a watch with emergency contact action at school.
Scrolling to find out what “EE” is… I can’t find anything. Can someone fill me in?
A telecom company with the hubris and arrogance to call themselves "Everything Everywhere".
Equine Enchephalitis
Erectile Encumbrance
Electronics Enonymous.
Electrical Engineers.
I will argue smartphones or any electronic is not the problem. The problem is lazy parents.
My kids all have had phones since before 10 and they're all well adjusted but to be clear I monitor their usage and I check in with my kids regularly.
I cannot hold back society or technology at the fear of my kids being left behind. What I can do is help them navigate both as they grow.
I love how quick we are to lay the blame anywhere but parents.
I strongly believe that a large part of the reason China is so strict with underage phone and game restrictions is because the parents are at work for too long to do any real parenting. Ideally parents should be the ones making those choices and actually monitoring their kids, but since I don't have kids I can't really say for myself.
This 100%.
I'm always sus of anything the Chinese government does. I feel that governments restricting Internet usage is just a way to indoctrinate people with the media you (the state) shows them instead.
The problem here is that the systems you have to monitor usage aren't great, and kids are known for lying or omitting details to their parents.
Giving kids open-ended access to technology doesn't have to involve giving them access to the Internet without constant guidance. I would rather my kid have less digital access than her peers, than get sexually exploited because they were a child publicly online.
More and more I am seeing that the places kids go online are places I don't fully understand, but a cursory review reveals is also a hotspot for sexual predators. This seems like the perfect place for a predator to stalk my child. I don't know enough to stop them, and my kid doesn't know enough not to get exploited. By the time I find out about it, it'll probably be too late.
Giving a child an internet-connected camera and screen can become such a horrific nightmare, I think that good parenting actually has to involve being realistic and telling your kids "just because your friends have TikTok and Instagram doesn't mean you won't get grounded for it in this house", and letting kids use technology when I am in the room with them. I have seen what kids are posting online, and it's easy to assume that their parents don't care, but it's a lot more realistic to accept that kids are good at keeping secrets, and their parents don't know what they're up to.
If they want to learn about computers on their own, I'll buy them what they need to learn about all sorts of stuff that doesn't expose them directly to capitalist or sexual exploitation online. When they are old enough to defend themselves, then they can be given the trust in accessing the Internet on their own, but until then they need to explore under my watchful eye.
Giving a smartphone to a <10 year old child, and trusting that the limited monitoring tools available, and your child's honesty is enough to keep them safe from vicious exploitation is delusional and irresponsible.
This is an extremely reactionary take. I hear what you are saying but I draw the line as delusional and irresponsible unless you apply that to pretty much all parents that don't completely smother their children.
We make mistakes as we grow. We lie. We get hurt. Technology is always Pandora's box. I'd argue we have better knowledge of our kids now than we ever used to and stats show the world is safer now than it has ever been.
If you live in fear you will form your decisions from a place of fear.
How the fuck is this Reactionary?
I recognize a threat and I want to avoid my child being exploited.
At one point in history, the car was a new form of technology growing in popularity, and we eventually agreed that kids shouldn't drive.
This is actually a good take. Kids aren't miniature adults, they're kids. They're not helpless or useless, but neither are they fully morally and emotionally developed. They need guidance. Plenty of adults can't responsibly handle internet access. I survived early onilne porn and gore and social media, but it's not like any of it benefited me in a meaningful way.
Some folks have an attitude that's like "I touched hot stoves and I learned better", but that's far from ideal.
Get the kids a dumb phone instead. Calls and texts are more than enough in an emergency
When I went to price it out at the store, the line for a dumb phone was going to cost $30/mo more than a smart phone. It was dumb.
So get them a smartphone plan and slap the SIM in their dumbphone?
I'm in the US and can get a simple plan for $6/month for no data, 300 minutes, and unlimited texting. Unlimited minutes is $8. There's no contract, so this isn't some kind of family deal, this is just the regular price at Tello for a single line.
I personally have 1GB and 300 min for $7/month.
If the new dumb phones also came with Google Family Link for tracking then it would be a win. But they don't. As a parent, having the ability to track my kids when I know they're heading to or from somewhere is a big deal. And no, it's not an issue of trust.
Give them a phone with no play store or browser. If they get apks over mms or adb I think they've earned them
I'd argue that is still an issue of trust, but maybe more concerning society / the local neighborhood.
My kids are around that age and it's a real struggle when all of their friends have one.
There is a growing tide of data suggesting the fight is worth it, but understand it is a serious struggle.
Much like trying to get kids to eat healthy when they are surrounded by so much awful food in the US.
I wish I didn't need an Android phone for work, WhatsApp, Telegram, maps.
But I sadly do.
I wish I didn't need an iPhone for work, (List of every app that is also available on Android).
But sadly I do.
No sane people use iPhones where I live. It was a thing of glamorous girls and people not doing actual work for some time, but now even them I don't see with iPhones.
For me personally - as it's something I need, but not something I want to invest into, nor something I like, the Android phone I use for these things (another SIM) was almost as cheap as the dumbphone I use for calls. Comparable to groceries for a week.
I don't think there are iPhones one can buy for that price, ha-ha.
Too bad?
Yup. All my friends had cell phones and I was pretty much the only one who didn't. That kind of sucked, but my friends were cool and worked around it.
If their friends won't accommodate them, well, they've shown their true colors and perhaps they should find some better friends. Having a phone isn't going to fix crappy friends.
I think there were some social blunders and connections missed because I got a decent phone later than my peers.
I got my first basic phone (a phone which barely functioned and regularly crashed doing basic things) at 16 back in 2011(?) when many in my class had gotten a basic phone by 2008. By 2010, pretty much everyone had at least a basic phone, many had smart phones.
I wouldn't write this off as an irrelevant issue in a world where so much connection is done through phones (even if you personally don't believe you were all that affected). I do think my parents decision to delay giving their shy-ish child living in a rural area a good phone (solely because they didn't have one when they were kids) was a bad decision.
Actually being able to keep up with people between classes, discuss homework, to have gotten some pretty girls numbers earlier on, etc ... that could've really changed my high school and middle school (or at least jr high) experience for the better.
I certainly don't know your situation or anything, so apologies if this comes off as tone-deaf.
And yeah, I completely appreciate that a lot of communication happens through phones. However, most of that communication is a distraction, and a lot of it is damaging. If you have a phone but nobody talks to you, that's worse than if you don't have a phone at all. Likewise, if you have a phone and use it responsibly, you'll likely get called out for "ignoring" people's messages because so many people expect a ridiculous level of engagement these days.
Calls and texts aren't really a thing any more, and most people communicate through apps instead. That means that even without a phone, there's a pretty good chance you can still be included if you have access to a computer at home. I grew up in a weird transition where people moved from IM to SMS, because IM just didn't work yet on phones yet everyone had phones. We're seeing the opposite trend these days, where now that most people have massive data plans, apps are becoming king again.
So in my mind, this means that not providing a phone doesn't cut them off, it just delays communication. That means they'll have less of a chance to become addicted to all the SM BS, while still being able to be included in things. I think that's a healthy boundary to set.
That said, absolutely none of my friends communication during HS or my communication in college was productive. We didn't "discuss homework" or anything related to school, we merely arranged hangouts and flirted, with a little gossip to round things out. I highly doubt things have changed much, because that's just what kids do. When I was young, cell phones weren't a thing, and my sister spent hours on the phone talking about nonsense with her friends. That's just how teenagers work, if they're talking to friends, they're not talking about school work.
That said, I'll certainly be paying attention as my kids get older. My oldest is around 10, and they're definitely too young for a phone (though I'm debating giving them their own PC). I have nephews and nieces who are a few years older, and I can roughly see which ones I'd be comfortable giving access to a phone, and which I'm not, and that point seems to be around 14yo. But whether I give my kids one depends on how much I trust them. We'll probably test drive a loaner phone in a year or two before deciding if they should have their own phone.
The last two prargraphs sound at least way more sensible and logical than the earlier comments.
Agreed.
Everyone saying they'd give a smartphone at best under best behaviour at age >16 are very suspect to me.
I would bet a solid 100€ they werent perfect kids to their parents either and worked around restrictions or talked long enough to be convincing or their lives were so long ago that they only remember a time with land lines and mobile calls costing 9ct per minute.
Getting a phone this late is socially crippling them.
IMO late middle school is a good starting age while giving them guidance.
At all users: Take it with a grain of salt. This is coming from someone without children but as someone that has been in school during the late 2000s and early 2010s
Well. I don't know how old you are. When I was in school we only had dumbphones. And not having a cell phone at all sucked LOL. Kids should absolutely be able to call and text, if no reason other than emergencies. Just not spend all day on socials.
Well, I grew up before smart phones were a thing, but dumb phones were absolutely a thing (the "cool" kids had the Motorola Razer, if that helps).
And yeah, not having a phone sucked. But I was able to bum a phone off my friends, and I carried some coins in case I needed to use a pay phone (another hint at my age).
Pay phones aren't really a thing anymore, but kids can absolutely ask a trusted adult (e.g. a teacher) to use their phone in an emergency. My kids also know our phone numbers, our address, and rough directions to get home, so if there's a true emergency, they can get home (e.g. get a police officer to give them a lift). We ride bikes in our neighborhood frequently enough that they can probably give turn by turn directions once they're within a few blocks of our house. But the chances of that actually happening are so remote it's really not worth planning for. We only take our kids to birthday parties (we meet the parents when we drop them off), school activities (we know their teachers), or friends houses, and we let them go on their own to the local parks. We give them a time to come home, and if they don't come home when expected, they lose their privilege to go out on their own for a bit.
So I'm not concerned at all about emergencies, and I think parents are way too worried about it. If I don't trust my kid on their own somewhere, a phone isn't going to make me feel more comfortable. In my eyes, a phone is a privilege, and privileges are earned and can absolutely be revoked.
I'll probably give my kids phones before they leave the house, but not until they earn that trust, and also not before they actually need one. My current target is 14yo w/ a dumb phone, and 16yo w/ a smart phone (for directions). Once I've given them a phone, I'll trust them completely with it (no tracking) until they violate my trust, at which point they'll lose it. That's how I'd prefer to be treated as a kid, so that's how I'll treat them.
Is it the phone, or the social media? The article only really mentions social media as the real issue.
Subsequently, does that mean social media on a computer is 100% A-OK? (this is a mobile phone carrier so it makes sense that they'd only focus on phones)
The article specifically mentions smartphones. Which smartphone can't access social media?
Computer is not necessarily "A-OK" but theyre far less likely to carry them around and be on them all day.
All smartphones can access social media. But they also have some really good (mostly intuitive) parental controls. So if you don’t want you kid on Facebook just block it.
What does it matter if the child is on a phone all day va on a computer all day? Sure you can’t really do that in class, but what about the other 16 hours of the day?
Fair point, I don't know anything about that.
You're...joking, right? I just explained that in the comment you just replied to.
This is false information. You can limit what apps they have with safeguards with many different services. Google family, Samsung family share and Microsoft family all have limited app options where you can let through whatever you think is good enough. You can also only allow a certain amount of hours for each app on a daily basis. There are so many safeguards if you look it's not difficult.
That's what they just said.
No that isn't what they said. They said they can be at a computer all day when I said you can limit the amount of time. They also said all smartphones can access the Internet, when you can in fact limit their Internet in every way possible including what they download to even try and circumvent the limitations. I don't see how anything they said is close to what I said.
Both.
You definitely see a difference in children who are regularly given phones to keep them occupied. They're just so much more hyper active. I know a lot of teachers have been complaining about phone use in the classrooms. In Canada they just started rolling back against rules saying teachers can't confiscate phones.
In my opinion, social media is a bigger problem than smartphones in general. For me a smartphone is a just a tool that can be both incredibly useful but also very harmful.
With a bit of knowhow, you can neuter a smartphone so kids can't access social media, games, and other distracting mediums. No social media apps, no browser access, no YouTube, no games. But they can still access useful functions like calculators, the torch, phone calls and messages, etc. Android and iOS both have features allowing parents to do this.
I think that this is somewhat besides the point. Give a smartphone to a teenager, and block all social media, and one of two things is going to happen:
What age is a good age to give them one?
When they need one. And no, that's not when they say they need one, but when you decide they need one.
I'm planning on having a loaner phone when my kids are teenagers that they can share. It'll stay home unless they leave the house, and they'll be limited to how much time they can spend on it. If they earn my trust, maybe they'll get their own (again, subject to limitations). I don't see a reason why they'd need one before they can drive, but I'll play it by ear.
That said, I refuse to do any sort of tracking on their devices. If I trust them with a phone, I'll respect their privacy with it. If they violate my trust, they lose the phone. If they don't like it, they're free to get their own once they're 18, and not a day before.
At least give them dumbphones for connectivity.
They can earn that.
Yikes.
Yeah, yikes for being a parent that wants to teach their kids prudence. While they're living in my home, a phone is a privilege, not a right, and they need to prove they can be trusted with it. If they break that trust, they lose the phone.
I'm not giving them a phone because their friends have phones, I'm giving them a phone because I trust them with it and there's a reasonable reason for them to have it. I don't need to know where my child is 24/7, I just need to know that they'll be home at a given time and not break our rules when I'm not around, and I need trust for that to happen, not a tracking device.
No age. It's just especially damaging for young people.
As a 17 year old who has 3 phones (somewhat strange story behind it), giving a child a phone should be either when they need it, such as when they go out more often or other events where they need a specific use, but if not, I believe 18 to 20 is not a bad age to receive one, since young adults are more likely to need to travel to schooling such as UNI more often and generally need more info about travel routes and to be able to message parents/siblings/etc.
As for my 3 phones, one is a galaxy S4 my dad gave me as a hand-me-down, pretty much used to text my parents exclusively, then I received an oppo Reno z from a friend who didn't need it, which I currently use as a games and social media phone, then the third is one is a galaxy a20 my dad brought home and said I could take if I wanted, since there were a few of those unused at his workplace, so I now just use that as a flashlight.
You can't exist in this world without a phone anymore.
Any meaningful school relationship builds on things like messaging groups.
Just because we could do it in the early 2000s doesnt mean it's applicable today.
This would today socially cripple a student.
IMO 16, if you can trust them to be responsible enough to drive you can trust them to have a smartphone. If you can't trust them to drive then yeah they probably shouldn't have a smartphone lol
I'd say 13-14 under tighter supervision but 15 is the range where they will be made fun of for heli parents.
And they will quickly find a way around it like resetting the whole phone if nothing else.
Depends on when you think they wouldn't get smarter anyway
I feel like I had a problem socially starting jr high without a phone at all in late 00s. All your friends communicate/plan/etc over phones so not having one you're missing out on all of that.
Smartphone is debatable, but I feel like 6/7th grade kinda needs a phone of some sort in current society
Just don't do it people. Me and so many parents have horror stories. Even without social media these phone numbers get out one way or another. For us it was much more trouble than it was worth.
I haven't had a problem.
iPhone with Screen time and communication limits means I can control how much time they spend in the device and in which apps and I control who they can contact.
Don't approve any apps that allow social features.
Talk to them about the realities of the internet and the wider world.
All of this has to happen at some point. If you just hand off a phone to an 11 year old or even a 14 year old workout doing any of the above, you're still going to have issues.
Much of what is being said about tech is the same as was said about tv and video games. The only studies you're going to hear about this are the ones that confirm the societal biases.
If you don't seek counter opinions of this topic you're playing into the same fear mongering every generation of parents has had about the new thing.
Dancing, rock and roll, tv, video games, and now phones. Every time, everyone thinks this time is different and every time it hasn't been.
One of these things is not like the other.
No, you don't get. Or didn't live it. Or are being purposely obtuse.
None of those qualifiers were attached to those things at the time the applicable fear mongering luddites were vilifying them. What we have right now are 21st century Tipper Gores. People engaging in moral public freakouts over tangentially related things which affirm a much larger fear of the whole (technology in this case). You see it also with how people violently and emotionally react to "AI."
Remember when D&D would turn you into a Satanist who'd go on to sexually abused children, maybe even engage in ritualist murder? Remember when similar was said for merely listening to even the radio edits of Marilyn Manson?
People pearl clutch over hypotheticals. Parents who engage with their kids and set healthy boundaries which are enforced don't often run into these problems. Hell, the arguments people make about tech right now could also apply as reasons not to let them play outside. Never know where a predator is lurking. I mean, we actually do: in your church and in your house. The two most statistically likely places for children to be preyed upon.
But let's blame the internet. Apple makes it trivial to lock things down and monitor it all. No kid is able to outsmsrt those restrictions because adults can't either.
No, what's happening is yet another hype cycle. The entire reason all these schools are banning devices this year is due to a marketing effort from Haidt's publisher. They put copies of his book into the hands of higher ranking faculty with purchasing authority for their districts. And they talk with each other. What a brilliant way to weaponize ignorance and make a buck doing so.
And it magically doesn't make bad parents into even mediocre ones. Who or what will they blame next? Definitely not the person looking back at them in the mirror every morning.
Don't give them a phone until they are prepared to see everything the Internet has. Kids can be smart and will find ways around the blocks you put in place.
The thing I tell people is that as a parent, you are going to put maybe a few hours into blocking them from getting to stuff. They are then going to spend as much time as they want trying to get through it. You can dig through concrete with a spoon if you're patient enough.
Educate them, and give them access when they're responsible enough
That's the real problem, kids being able to spend unlimited time unsupervised because they have horrible absent parents. Parents shouldnt let their kids have unrestricted time like that. That is one reason why kids suffer in school not because of phones; because their parents aren't involved to guide them in making good choices and forcing good habits.
So we take away the phones as the luddites demand. What fills the gap? Definitely not independent learning. Most definitely not suddenly mindful and present parents.
There is a lot of fear mongering and blaming, but no actual effort to fix it. Banning or removing doesn't fix it. There is a reason that, when absent parents for latchkey kids were huge problems, they didn't simply decree gangs illegal and pat themselves on the back. Communities offered alternatives. But no alternative is being offered here. All the woes are shifted onto the unholy smartphone and internet.
Ya know why predators can find success online? Because shit parents don't parent. A better use of resources would be forcing the parents to sacrifice their phones contingent on spending time with their kids, right?
They are probably smart enough to find a phone if they want one...
Smartphones cost enough that a parent can control the finances and I don't believe kids can aquire a large enough fund by themselve without at least some assistance by the parents.
And if, usually as a gift and that is probably taken in by a parent anyway
You can buy an Android Tracphone on Amazon for $25: https://a.co/d/5Xb3DqX
You can buy an unlocked Android phone for $44: https://a.co/d/0hTu3Me
And buying that requires knowledge of amazon, knowledge of what phone is useful, knowledge to avoid a scam or faulty product, an email address, a credit card, and a device to order from.
Children are surprisingly clever and have all the time in the world, but they aren't professional pen-testers and don't have the experience needed to use online services before having access to them.
It's far more likely they get a hand-me-down device from a friend and keep it at school, especially if they know such a thing would be confiscated immediately upon discovery. Preventing this interaction would require control over the child's life nearing Amish levels, or prison levels.
They sell these at Walmart, too. It really only requires a chance sighting of it and a couple weeks allowance for a young teen or kid to end up with one of these cheap smartphones.
On Amazon you either need to buy gift cards or have a working bank account/credit card.
If your kid works around those road blocks you have more serious problems...
And btw: Are they really usable?
They sell these same cheap phones at the store, and yeah, they work fine. I assume you live way out in the suburbs somewhere where it is unheard of that a young teen might end up at a store with dozens of dollars in their pocket, but I'm being realistic. You have to be vigilant about what your kids are up to.
In many ways, I am more comfortable with my kid going to the store on their own than I am of them using TikTok, given what I know about TikTok.
If you call the outer rim of the main city "way out in the suburbs"... Sure
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vPoEP3hS1yGNsfSH9
Phone maybe, but not a SIM card with data. Although you can do a lot without a SIM card if your school has public WiFi I guess
Yes, don't do it. It's a bad idea. Phones are addicting and one day when we all realize this, we will have laws to prevent it.
Because all of our current laws work so well at preventing access to addictive things. /s
Last time I checked, minors are orders of magnitude less likely to be smokers or drinkers than adults. Seems like the current laws we have for age-restricting things do, in fact, work.
The rate of marijuana use went up in recreationally legal states, while the rate of marijuana use amongst minors went down, because dispensaries enforce minimum age laws that dealers don't.
The current laws allowing 13 year olds to sign a the TOS for a social media site need to be raised to match every other expectation of consent under contract law: 18 years old. For everyone saying that the parents are the ones that are supposed to be responsible, make them sign the TOS for their kids accounts, and then throw the book at them when they fail to protect their kids.
If anyone in the future ends up going to prison or losing custody of their children because they bought them a cellphone or let them use social media, we will have officially failed as a society. That is dystopian as all hell.
It is not the government's place to parent people's children for them, much less the dysfunctional government we have.
I agree entirely, but do you have a response to what I said.
If you let a pedophile into your house, and let them rape your children, you shouldn't be allowed to have children. If it happens digitally on your watch because you didn't police your child's access to the Internet like it actually matters, you were a bad parent.
So the argument boils down to it being due to bad parents rather than evil technology, yes?
That's not the main arguments being used to ban these devices and advocate for more radical plans. Removing access to these doesn't make someone a good parent. Kids turn to other methods.
And to an earlier point in another comment: guess which cohort has explosive growth in smoking at the moment? Not people our age. Teens and young adults of legal age. Gen Z, in particular, is a huge market for that industry now. Cigars and pipes in particular. Vapes are counted separately but are wildly popular.
Banning the sale of highly regulated goods where the state is the official and only legal seller of said good in many states is one thing. We are talking about the internet here, though. And cell phones. And computers. And tablets. May as well put TVs and connected devices on the list, and definitely console platforms.
I think we all could benefit from less screen time 💻
Lucky them. I wish I didn’t need one. It’s a window to other people’s problems.
You know you don't have to doomscroll social media right? You can just, you know, not do social media.
Why did you assume I was talking about social media? Besides lemmy I really don’t do social media.
Sorry if I misunderstood your comment, it seemed like a metaphor for social media but perhaps I assumed too much. My bad!
Let's go one step further...
VRChat on the Quest is not a babysitter!
Is that a step further though? I feel like not giving kids access to VR Chat comes way before not giving them a smartphone in terms of restrictiveness or severity. It's a far more reasonable suggestion.
Both... but a Quest is mainly designed for gaming, where a smartphone is designed to do everything. The smartphone restriction is an easy one to recommend.
I don't follow. Wouldn't a limited-purpose device be easier to restrict than a general-purpose device?
Look at the Nintendo Switch. If there was ever an Internet-connected device to give your kids, it's a Switch. I have never heard of anything untoward happening to a child on Nintendo's online platform.
A Quest is an overpowered smartphone strapped to your face, with all the capabilities of such. You can restrict a smartphone too, but how many parents actually have that level of technical inclination? It's better to limit the youngest minds' times on these devices until they're a bit older, and you've had more time to teach them important life skills. Also, parents teach your kids important life skills from an early age, please.
I think we actually agree, maybe just a misunderstanding.
I don't believe that parental controls actually stop most kids from doing things they shouldn't, and I think these devices are bad for a growing mind compared to real world human experiences.
I think I misunderstood you earlier thinking you said that smartphones were easier to agree to giving children over a VR headset, because a VR headset is only for gaming. I think we both agree that they are bad.
Children will be raised initially by an expanded roomba with arms amd a babysitting AI.
The first (and only) time I played VRChat, my takeaway was, "What kind of adult would want to play a game with this many preteens in every room?"
Then I answered my own question...
Yeah, public worlds are cancer. It's best to get in with friends or groups.
That's not my point. Kids congregate in public worlds, and predatory adults know where to find them.
...and that is my original point.
That sounds ridiculous. An 11-year-old is, what, a fifth-grader in the US?
If they have access to a computer or something in addition to their phone, okay, maybe. But for a lot of young people in 2024, their smartphone is their sophisticated electronic device. Maybe they tack on a keyboard or whatnot. But take that away, and they don't have a computer to use. A computer is just too essential of a tool to not let someone learn.
Kids used to veg out in front of the TV, where material is generally not all that fantastic and the device is noninteractive. I think that it's great that smartphones are replacing that.
I was programming when I was in first grade. I was doing computer graphics and word processing somewhere around there. Those are important skillsets to have. I made use of those. You want kids to pick those up. You do not want to push those back. I'd get a computer of whatever form into their hands at the earliest point that they can avoid destroying it.
If your concern is that you want to restrict access to pornography or something, okay, fine, whatever, set up content filtering. I think that they're probably going to get at it anyway. But that does not entail not permitting access to the computing device. That's a restriction on access to the Internet.
That'd be, what, up to high school before you have one? And that's not "I have parents who want that", but outright "the government doesn't let anyone do that".
Wikipedia. Google Maps. The store of knowledge available from search engines. I use those all the time. You want to cut them off from that?
I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?
I mean, I'm just boggled.
Most kids aren't improving their skillsets. They definitely aren't programming on cell phones. I am a programmer. I have code editors that I paid for on my phone at all times. I've used them like 5 times at most.
Social media and misinformation is damaging for everyone but more so for children. Social media is what kids are mostly doing.
I agree that there can positives for using a cell phone. Their are educational software but most kids aren't doing that.
Even if they are only figuring out how to ignore clickbait, they are improving their skill sets.
Social media is "damaging", in the same way that all social activities are "damaging". The solution is not isolation, but early exposure. The last kid to get a phone is the one at greatest social disadvantage.
Firm disagree. Social media, or more specifically algorithmic short form content these days, is extremely damaging. It's different from anything that's come before and has nothing to do with connecting with your peers.
I graduated high-school in 2009 so I saw the beginning of popularized social media. Very few gained anything from participating in it. Mostly people who were good at marketing and building a following benefited.
Kids have always been evil little shits who get their jollies demoralizing and torturing the weak. Social media is just a newer avenue for old sociopathy.
Again, nothing particularly novel. Marketing, news, propaganda.
Marketing, news, and propaganda of the past never targeted people directly. It's also not just feeding them content, it's also taking and storing massive amounts of data from the user that will be used against them.
Yes, they have. Direct mailing, cold calling, lead farming, door-to-door, yes, all of it has been done, and most of it predates even the printing press. This isn't social media; this is marketing, plain and simple. And marketing is the least damaging aspect of social media: they just want to exploit you. The people who aren't after your money are the real danger.
None of those compare to what is happening now. Those are playing wack a mole hoping to get a sale. What's happening now is recording everything you show a reaction to, whether enjoyable or not, and use it against the user.
A list of names, address from marketers is nothing compared to the amount of data tech companies are getting from individuals.
Just saying cold calling and door-to-door is the same as the data gathering tactics now shows your ignorance on the topic.
"Use it against the user"... For what? You make it sound nefarious, but it is just marketing. You aren't being blackmailed. People are trying to sell you stuff. They've been doing that since forever.
Again, "marketing" is not the problem with social media. The harmful part of social media is the fucking people. Especially for kids, who are trying to figure out how to get along with everyone, but haven't yet learned that most people are assholes who should be ignored.
Marketing can be really broad. You can market a shirt or you can convince someone to join a cult. And you can find out if someone is more likely to join a cult through the gathered data.
If you don't see the dangers of propaganda and misinformation, like I said:
Yeah. Data like "does this person respect arbitrary restrictions imposed by self-appointed authority figures?"
Parenting is "self-appointed authority figures" rather than being called "parenting" now? Lol.
Data like "can we sell make up to minors because they only follow models? Looks like they are in the path to body dysmorphia, better send the results to local plastic surgeons."
Data like is "this teenager having issues with their parents and have no friends on their profile, so that makes them an easier target to join a welcoming group?"
When parenting was still called parenting and not 'self-appointed authority" (lol), parents prevented their children from hanging out with the same groups that social media is pushing on to them.
And you think the best things for developing minds to exposing them to these groups because according to you "it is just marketing".
You can still teach and prepare without exposing.
You can try, but you'll be teaching to deaf ears until they have seen enough to understand what the hell you're talking about.
Kinda like teaching kids about heroin or cocaine.
They should also learn not talking to strangers by putting their lives at danger.
There have been priests that taught sex education using your logic.
The kids who "learn" from such priests are kids who haven't been exposed to proper sex ed. Generally, they've learned that sex is something that should be concealed. It's a secret that the kid isn't supposed to know about, so of course they don't tell anyone about it, because they know how to stay out of trouble.
Gatekeeping the Internet works the same way. If you're going to do that, you might as well download the sex offender registry and invite them all to the kid's birthday party.
So you want kids to understand cocaine and heroin and sex by a professional instead of a priest. If they don't then in your logic, they will fall on deaf ears.
Language is incredible. You can describe experiences that others have without actually being there or doing those things. It even works with fiction! Or horrible events like war! Or even drugs without exposing them to it!
I never said to prevent them from using the internet, I said social media.
You say that like there is any sort of meaningful difference.
There is a huge meaningful difference.
Again, this shows your ignorance on the topic.
I would love to hear the distinction. Please enlighten me.
Smartphones won't help you learn how computers work. They are dumbed down devices, designed to keep you on social media while maximizing exposure to ads. These things are way worse than TVs.
Tasker says you're wrong.
The kid who has done nothing more than install games from the play store is miles ahead of his phone-less peers.
And I'd say the kid who learned to start a game on daddy's PC is miles ahead of the kid who clicked on an icon in the play store.
Edit: I just saw that you mentioned access to a computer in your first post. Sorry for sounding like a dick!
Then kids will just work around it.
I personally refuse to set up content filtering. My state passed a law requiring ID to view porn and use SM, and I'm willing to set up a VPN on my WiFi to work around that because I detest content filtering. I'd much rather have zero filtering and track what websites are visited so I can react appropriately (i.e. if the kid is watching porn, they probably need some proper sex ed and something to occupy their time).
Sure, and I'm 100% willing to take that away from them.
My policy is, if I trust you, I trust you to not be supervised. If I don't trust you, I don't trust you at all. So either you get complete access, or you get no access.
That's how I'm planning to handle phones as well. They'll get a loaner phone when they need it, and if they earn my trust with that, they'll get their own. If they violate my trust, they lose the phone, including the loaner. Simple as that.
Yeah, that's not cool at all, the government shouldn't tell me how I can raise my kids.
That said, kids can still access the internet at school and at libraries, just like I did as a kid. Or they can ask to borrow the family computer. If I choose to restrict my child's access to the internet, that should 100% be my prerogative, as should me deciding to give my child a smart phone.
Hey kid, you finished your vegetables and cleaned your room, here's the car keys. Right pedal is gas and... ah, you'll figure it out. Be home by 10.
Also lol @ family computer.
? The "family computer" is one of my computers (I have a laptop and a desktop, they choose) that's in an open space. I unlock it for them (usually from my phone), tell them what they are allowed to do and how long they can use it, and then let them on it with pretty much no supervision and no filtering/tracking. I don't look at their browsing history (I trust them), but if I find out they were breaking the rules, they lose that privilege. We've only had a couple of incidents (usually they're watching stupid YouTube videos we don't like), but they've largely done a good job of sticking to our rules, and I'll always explain why those rules exist. They earn computer time by reading (15 min for every 30 min they read), and they keep track of their own time (again, we don't track it, but they will get grounded from the computer if they lie).
I want them to experiment with things as much as possible, but within some safety guidelines. If they're going to stumble on something bad, I want them to do it while they're young enough to tell me about it. IMO, that's the best way for them to learn proper boundaries. For example, my kid told me about some cool jumps at the park someone made, so I went over there with them, we rode on a few, and then I told them they're totally fine to come back, but that one jump didn't look safe and they should avoid it. Now I let them go pretty much whenever they want with their friends without me or anyone else watching, provided they don't have other obligations. If they get hurt, we live a couple blocks away, so they can get home, or if someone is seriously hurt, they can send someone. My kids are pretty careful though, so chances are they would be the ones finding help.
My level of supervision scales with the danger. My kids know where they're allowed and not allowed to go, and they know they'll lose their privileges if I find out they went somewhere they're not allowed to go. I have taken away my kid's bike for that (took off the front wheel and hid it), so they know I'm serious. But they also know I'm reasonable, and if they want to expand where they're allowed to go, they talk to me and we discuss any relevant safety concerns I have (e.g. crossing busy roads, knowing directions, etc).
I try to give them more freedom than they're comfortable with, but not so much that they'll get into serious trouble so they set their own boundaries. My goal here isn't to keep them safe in the short-term, but to teach them to to make reasonable boundaries to keep them safe in the long term.
Sounds like the rules my parents had for me, not the ones I have for my kids. Not quite boomer rules, but almost. You do you, tho.
My parents didn't have "rules" so much as "expectations," and they seemed to work pretty well for us. All of us kids did well in school, had healthy social relationships, are happily married, etc. They gave us a lot of leeway, but only once we had shown we were ready for it.
That's essentially what I'm trying to build. I want my kids to see me as a counselor, not a rule-maker, but I do want them to respect my authority to step in if they veer too far outside my expectations. If my kids want to do something that we currently don't allow, they'll present their argument and I'll give my concerns (e.g. my 10yo wanted to know when they could babysit, and I told them my maturity expectations). So far it seems to be working well, we'll see how the teenage years go.
That's a bit overdramatic. Most kids have a laptop for schoolwork these days. I personally didn't get a smartphone until I started university, got a Samsung S7 then. I had no issues accessing any of those sources. These days I have a comp sci masters degree, so it definitely didn't "stunt" me in any way.
Kids reading and writing skills appear to have been declining ever since the rise of the smartphone, so I doubt they're reading anything of sufficient quality to hone those skills a bit.
Schools here have recently mostly banned smartphones, and the kids seem happier for it and their grades and concentration in school is improving. Sound like positives to me.
Agree with your points on having a pocked PC to hack with, the issue here is then with mobile and their OS makers which mindbogglingly have omitted to design a working and hardly hackable "children account mode", since what is damaging here is not what they can fiddle within their devices, nor certainly what they can read from wikipedia, but rather the unfiltered and unaccountable exposure to a profiling oriented social media storm which even adults fatigue to cope with.
I'm sure it isn't unheard of OSes having a hardware locked managed kiosk mode, because that is what smartphones basically need.
Make parents less entitled. Problem solved.
ME and CE warn against children under 16 handling firearms.