3 ms·

well, I am not telling everyone should do the same as me. I just don't want someone telling me that I should not do it. Because that's the final goal of such m

well, I am not telling everyone should do the same as me. I just don't want someone telling me that I should not do it. Because that's the final goal of such movements: start with "voluntary pledges", move into social stigmatization of dissidents, capture organizational rule, and then, finally, the law. The same script as the prohibition. It is an inexorable and fairly predictable movement, probably a cultural heritage from Calvinism.

gnicholas 3y ago
This is a fair concern. I have thought about bringing this to the attention of our school board, so that they can publicize it. But I wouldn't want it to be done in a heavy-handed way that implied that 'good parents' wait until 8th. We need to recognize that different kids may have different needs based on how they get to/from school or extracurriculars, for example. But in the US, I don't see there being much of a risk that kids having smartphones would be stigmatized...the current rate of adoption is quite high, and it's seen as a sign of wealth/status.
npunt 3y ago
I respect that you want to make that call for your kids, I'm not in favor of one size fits all solutions. What you're describing here tho is a textbook slippery slope argument [1] in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet. Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem. Personally, I see this as 'antithesis' to the smartphone's 'thesis', and we will probably find a synthesis somewhere in between as the dust settles. fwiw, "If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you" and (paraphrasing) 'this is not the correct way out of the problem' is what you said, which sounds a lot like you're implying others should do the same as you. You wrote a long and thought out enough comment to add nuance but you didn't, so its hard not to assume thats what you meant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I don’t read that as implying that conclusion, but rather closer to “if you’re not getting the outcome you want, you should change something” versus “you should do what I’m doing”.
- geocar 3y ago
  > Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem. Actually, "we" have banned all of those things, and continue to do so. Do you know about promise rings? Kids kill themselves because they get raped after being told their whole life that being impure means their parents love them less. This is just another thing parents get together and organise -- see, it doesn't need to end in prohibition to cause harm, it just takes parents organising to define wrongly what wisdom means to a child. > in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet. That's not what I see. I see a group of people, some well-intentioned but some others who are not, and they are organising to restrict the ability for children to learn things and to communicate with others. The well-intentioned need to be made aware that their intentions are not good enough and that children will be harmed and the future made worse because of this. Sure, some of those people just want to ban "addictive games" or "targeted feeds", but others want to read and approve every message in and out of the house so they can behave differently in public than they do in private, and you can't let them do this. Don't you see? It's slippery on both sides! That's why there needs to be a better way.
lelanthran 3y ago
> Because that's the final goal of such movements: start with "voluntary pledges", move into social stigmatization of dissidents, capture organizational rule, and then, finally, the law. This is the first I've heard of voluntary pledges ending in prohibition via law. Do you have any examples?
- rob74 3y ago
  They gave one - the US Prohibition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Development_of_the_prohibition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...)
  - prepend 3y ago
    I think that’s a bad example because it’s 100 years old and was reversed and, hopefully, is the last time the US does this. There are tons of “virtues” that aren’t resulting in laws- exercise is good, sugar is bad, coke is bad, etc etc Saying we shouldn’t encourage voluntary pledges to help our kids because it might be mandatory is probably not a good idea. The tangible benefit from the pledge seems more likely than the low risk of some future mandatory regulation.
    - cataphract 3y ago
      Easy to find in the context of child rearing. Beating children was common, started being socially stigmatized and finally became considered child abuse. A more recent example: the ban on plastic straws. Lots of restaurants were shunning them before they became illegal in several jurisdictions
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        I mean, going with your 'it is bad so let's stop doing it' examples, we could add slavery, death penalty for heresy...
      - gffrd 3y ago
        Yeah, “don’t beat children” seems like a pretty good thing to have advanced as law. So the argument against is “that’s for me to decide!” and “some people are beaten and turn out fine!”?
slantedview 3y ago
> probably a cultural heritage There's also a cultural heritage of using manufactured fear of top down rules to prevent good things from taking shape.

gnicholas 3y ago

This is a fair concern. I have thought about bringing this to the attention of our school board, so that they can publicize it. But I wouldn't want it to be done in a heavy-handed way that implied that 'good parents' wait until 8th. We need to recognize that different kids may have different needs based on how they get to/from school or extracurriculars, for example. But in the US, I don't see there being much of a risk that kids having smartphones would be stigmatized...the current rate of adoption is quite high, and it's seen as a sign of wealth/status.

npunt 3y ago

I respect that you want to make that call for your kids, I'm not in favor of one size fits all solutions. What you're describing here tho is a textbook slippery slope argument [1] in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet. Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem. Personally, I see this as 'antithesis' to the smartphone's 'thesis', and we will probably find a synthesis somewhere in between as the dust settles. fwiw, "If your kid is addicted to screens, it is on you" and (paraphrasing) 'this is not the correct way out of the problem' is what you said, which sounds a lot like you're implying others should do the same as you. You wrote a long and thought out enough comment to add nuance but you didn't, so its hard not to assume thats what you meant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

sokoloff 3y ago
I don’t read that as implying that conclusion, but rather closer to “if you’re not getting the outcome you want, you should change something” versus “you should do what I’m doing”.
geocar 3y ago
> Perhaps it may lead to prohibition, but perhaps it may just lead to OS developers building better controls than the terribly weak ones we have today. Movements raise awareness, and there's lots of room for spaces in-between. After all, we never banned TVs, books, or games, and they were all in this class of problem. Actually, "we" have banned all of those things, and continue to do so. Do you know about promise rings? Kids kill themselves because they get raped after being told their whole life that being impure means their parents love them less. This is just another thing parents get together and organise -- see, it doesn't need to end in prohibition to cause harm, it just takes parents organising to define wrongly what wisdom means to a child. > in reaction to a small movement suggesting some restraint around an incredibly powerful force affecting most people on the planet. That's not what I see. I see a group of people, some well-intentioned but some others who are not, and they are organising to restrict the ability for children to learn things and to communicate with others. The well-intentioned need to be made aware that their intentions are not good enough and that children will be harmed and the future made worse because of this. Sure, some of those people just want to ban "addictive games" or "targeted feeds", but others want to read and approve every message in and out of the house so they can behave differently in public than they do in private, and you can't let them do this. Don't you see? It's slippery on both sides! That's why there needs to be a better way.

lelanthran 3y ago

> Because that's the final goal of such movements: start with "voluntary pledges", move into social stigmatization of dissidents, capture organizational rule, and then, finally, the law. This is the first I've heard of voluntary pledges ending in prohibition via law. Do you have any examples?

rob74 3y ago
They gave one - the US Prohibition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Development_of_the_prohibition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...)
- prepend 3y ago
  I think that’s a bad example because it’s 100 years old and was reversed and, hopefully, is the last time the US does this. There are tons of “virtues” that aren’t resulting in laws- exercise is good, sugar is bad, coke is bad, etc etc Saying we shouldn’t encourage voluntary pledges to help our kids because it might be mandatory is probably not a good idea. The tangible benefit from the pledge seems more likely than the low risk of some future mandatory regulation.
  - cataphract 3y ago
    Easy to find in the context of child rearing. Beating children was common, started being socially stigmatized and finally became considered child abuse. A more recent example: the ban on plastic straws. Lots of restaurants were shunning them before they became illegal in several jurisdictions
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      I mean, going with your 'it is bad so let's stop doing it' examples, we could add slavery, death penalty for heresy...
    - gffrd 3y ago
      Yeah, “don’t beat children” seems like a pretty good thing to have advanced as law. So the argument against is “that’s for me to decide!” and “some people are beaten and turn out fine!”?

slantedview 3y ago

> probably a cultural heritage There's also a cultural heritage of using manufactured fear of top down rules to prevent good things from taking shape.