6 ms·

Few deny that a drinking age is necessary. We also need a smart phone age. It's quite obvious that many teens are addicted to their phones and the mostly useles

Few deny that a drinking age is necessary. We also need a smart phone age. It's quite obvious that many teens are addicted to their phones and the mostly useless content they consume there.

nitwit005 3y ago
> Few deny that a drinking age is necessary. Because of drunk driving. If that was not an issue, we certainly wouldn't have a drinking age of 21 in the US. Several states still allow your family to serve their children alcohol, which is closer to the example of letting your kid use the internet.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  I've honestly never heard those two being linked before. That would seem to imply that Canada, with a drinking age of 18, would you have a a higher drunk driving rate than the US, and I wonder if that's the case.
  - supertimor 3y ago
    In most of Canada the drinking age is 19 (only a few provinces are 18), but it’s also slightly harder to get your drivers license in Canada. You’re required to take a written test and then two driving tests in order to receive a full license.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      Sure, OK, but that's still at least two extra years. We didn't used to have the two driving tests, and in Alberta we don't anymore - you transition off GDL after a set time without a test, but all the GDLs were instituted relatively recently, so we should be able to look at data 20-30 years ago to see data matching that claim, right?
- lonelyasacloud 3y ago
  In the UK the restriction is around the sale and was set to 18 in 1923 and had nothing to do with drunk driving. The restriction was because of concerns around minors being too young and naïve to fully understand the full implications of their actions. Which is why consumption is/was allowed at home on the basis that responsible adults will help children to learn to handle alcohol sensibly while stopping them doing anything too stupid ... at least that's the theory anyway. Similar rules apply to driving, voting, smoking etc in most places. And as it is possible to live a perfectly meaningful life without being bombarded by TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube etc, it's really hard to understand why similar should not apply to Social Media.
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    The UK has the same concept, where it's legal for young people that are at least 5 years old to drink on private premises.
cynicalsecurity 3y ago
Cool, I've always wanted to live in the North Korea (not).
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Alternatively, we could get better at killing off businesses that capitalize on bad dopamine hygiene. Being over the likely smartphone age doesn't give me superpowers.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Few deny that a drinking age is necessary. That's only because teetotalers never really went away. Even after the repeal of Prohibition, they still existed and eventually morphed into MADD. In Europe drinking ages are pretty relaxed. France was serving wine to school children. So yeh, I deny it. And that I'm alone in doing it has more to do with ovine tendencies of humanity, than anyone actually giving it much actual thought.
samr71 3y ago
I deny a drinking age is necessary. From what it sounds like, the kids should be out there drinking more!
- dbbk 3y ago
  The drinking age is also entirely irrelevant to teens because it just means they drink at house parties rather than bars.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    It also means they get arrested and the older brother who bought the case of beer could face jail time. Stupid laws that have harmed far more people than they’ve helped.
    - dbbk 3y ago
      I have never once heard of this happening
- Aeolun 3y ago
  I certainly think a drinking age below the driving age is appropriate. Either by increasing driving, or lowering the drinking age.
  - usr1106 3y ago
    Driving is different. It's a lot about harming others. Drinking and smartphone's is primarily about harming the users themselves.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - scotty79 3y ago
      They are connected. Drinking makes driving less safe. Driving makes drinking easier. And smartphone use gives reasons to drink.
Longhanks 3y ago
Except with drinking, there's at least many adults that can effectively consider the risks of drinking. With smartphone usage, I'd argue that adults are just as bad, if not worse, in judging their own usage. I fail to see how this is anything but blaming the youth (or, modern speech "ageism").
- snvzz 3y ago
  Parent isn't blaming the youth, but rather, just pointing at the cause. Absolutely, adults do pretty badly on this. They also consume alcohol, and do other stupid shit. Yet, the kids should be protected from this. This is the parent post's point!
- scotty79 3y ago
  Still, older smartphone users seem to be more psychologically resilient to them at least when it comes to anxiety and depression.
EGreg 3y ago
I interviewed a lawmaker from Utah on a panel last year, and I specifically asked about their new law and how they plan to enforce it without requiring ID from everyone: https://socialmedia.utah.gov/ https://socialmedia.utah.gov/ Because in the UK, doing this even just for porn sites creates a slippery slope: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/05/pornography-websites-will-have-to-check-users-ages-under-draft-guidelines https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/05/pornography-...
- x19C0jRXDZ 3y ago
  They could pass legislation that requires all network routers to clearly register devices as adult-use or child-use instead of the ID thing.
carabiner 3y ago
6 years ago: Social Media is the New Smoking https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851057
ChatGTP 3y ago
You have to ask if the phone is to blame, or is it what we’re hiding from them by confiscating the phone ?
fasterik 3y ago
Previous generations had the same problem with television. We also have this problem with video games, gambling, junk food, pornography, etc. Behavioral addictions are usually a coping mechanism for underlying problems. I don't think we should have the state banning all of these things. It's the responsibility of individuals to engage in self-reflection, moderate their own behavior, and if they're under a certain age, for the parents to set boundaries and teach them healthy habits.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Eh, so there are a number of oddities with your statements here that don't reflect the reality of what actually happened. > I don't think we should have the state banning all of these things. The issue here on your part is one of understanding hard power versus soft power. Looking at TV from a holistic perspective, the state has banned a lot of what we'd consider harmful behavior. Over the air programming is relatively tame, and content we consider harmful is more gated and behind paywalls. For the average video game the condition is the same. You have Sony and Microsoft gating the consoles. You have steam gating much of the PC world, and outside of that you have the credit card companies gating making money of more controversial items. An area we have the opposite problem is the one of junk food. This entire just self regulate while companies reap record profits selling you purposefully addictive food is working out "fucking great"... for the companies that is, of course for the ever increasing burden of obesity on the country, things aren't going so well.
  - fasterik 3y ago
    The post I was responding to was advocating for a "smart phone age", i.e. the state banning smartphone use for people under a certain age like we have for alcohol and other hard drugs. All of your examples are examples of regulations, not bans on a particular product. The video game example doesn't even involve the state; all you mentioned are private companies. I'm not opposed to all regulations. I just don't believe we should have the state deciding when people can or can't use a computer, which is what a smartphone really is. It's up to parents to decide up to a certain age, and after that people have autonomy and can make their own decisions.
bufio 3y ago
Adults don't seem to know any better. It's going to take more than age restrictions to halt -- let alone reverse -- the damage.

Few deny that a drinking age is necessary. We also need a smart phone age. It's quite obvious that many teens are addicted to their phones and the mostly useless content they consume there.

nitwit005 3y ago

> Few deny that a drinking age is necessary. Because of drunk driving. If that was not an issue, we certainly wouldn't have a drinking age of 21 in the US. Several states still allow your family to serve their children alcohol, which is closer to the example of letting your kid use the internet.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
I've honestly never heard those two being linked before. That would seem to imply that Canada, with a drinking age of 18, would you have a a higher drunk driving rate than the US, and I wonder if that's the case.
- supertimor 3y ago
  In most of Canada the drinking age is 19 (only a few provinces are 18), but it’s also slightly harder to get your drivers license in Canada. You’re required to take a written test and then two driving tests in order to receive a full license.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    Sure, OK, but that's still at least two extra years. We didn't used to have the two driving tests, and in Alberta we don't anymore - you transition off GDL after a set time without a test, but all the GDLs were instituted relatively recently, so we should be able to look at data 20-30 years ago to see data matching that claim, right?
lonelyasacloud 3y ago
In the UK the restriction is around the sale and was set to 18 in 1923 and had nothing to do with drunk driving. The restriction was because of concerns around minors being too young and naïve to fully understand the full implications of their actions. Which is why consumption is/was allowed at home on the basis that responsible adults will help children to learn to handle alcohol sensibly while stopping them doing anything too stupid ... at least that's the theory anyway. Similar rules apply to driving, voting, smoking etc in most places. And as it is possible to live a perfectly meaningful life without being bombarded by TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube etc, it's really hard to understand why similar should not apply to Social Media.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  The UK has the same concept, where it's legal for young people that are at least 5 years old to drink on private premises.

cynicalsecurity 3y ago

Cool, I've always wanted to live in the North Korea (not).

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

Alternatively, we could get better at killing off businesses that capitalize on bad dopamine hygiene. Being over the likely smartphone age doesn't give me superpowers.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> Few deny that a drinking age is necessary. That's only because teetotalers never really went away. Even after the repeal of Prohibition, they still existed and eventually morphed into MADD. In Europe drinking ages are pretty relaxed. France was serving wine to school children. So yeh, I deny it. And that I'm alone in doing it has more to do with ovine tendencies of humanity, than anyone actually giving it much actual thought.

samr71 3y ago

I deny a drinking age is necessary. From what it sounds like, the kids should be out there drinking more!

dbbk 3y ago
The drinking age is also entirely irrelevant to teens because it just means they drink at house parties rather than bars.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  It also means they get arrested and the older brother who bought the case of beer could face jail time. Stupid laws that have harmed far more people than they’ve helped.
  - dbbk 3y ago
    I have never once heard of this happening
Aeolun 3y ago
I certainly think a drinking age below the driving age is appropriate. Either by increasing driving, or lowering the drinking age.
- usr1106 3y ago
  Driving is different. It's a lot about harming others. Drinking and smartphone's is primarily about harming the users themselves.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - scotty79 3y ago
    They are connected. Drinking makes driving less safe. Driving makes drinking easier. And smartphone use gives reasons to drink.

Longhanks 3y ago

Except with drinking, there's at least many adults that can effectively consider the risks of drinking. With smartphone usage, I'd argue that adults are just as bad, if not worse, in judging their own usage. I fail to see how this is anything but blaming the youth (or, modern speech "ageism").

snvzz 3y ago
Parent isn't blaming the youth, but rather, just pointing at the cause. Absolutely, adults do pretty badly on this. They also consume alcohol, and do other stupid shit. Yet, the kids should be protected from this. This is the parent post's point!
scotty79 3y ago
Still, older smartphone users seem to be more psychologically resilient to them at least when it comes to anxiety and depression.

EGreg 3y ago

I interviewed a lawmaker from Utah on a panel last year, and I specifically asked about their new law and how they plan to enforce it without requiring ID from everyone: https://socialmedia.utah.gov/ https://socialmedia.utah.gov/ Because in the UK, doing this even just for porn sites creates a slippery slope: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/05/pornography-websites-will-have-to-check-users-ages-under-draft-guidelines https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/05/pornography-...

x19C0jRXDZ 3y ago
They could pass legislation that requires all network routers to clearly register devices as adult-use or child-use instead of the ID thing.

carabiner 3y ago

6 years ago: Social Media is the New Smoking https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851057

ChatGTP 3y ago

You have to ask if the phone is to blame, or is it what we’re hiding from them by confiscating the phone ?

fasterik 3y ago

Previous generations had the same problem with television. We also have this problem with video games, gambling, junk food, pornography, etc. Behavioral addictions are usually a coping mechanism for underlying problems. I don't think we should have the state banning all of these things. It's the responsibility of individuals to engage in self-reflection, moderate their own behavior, and if they're under a certain age, for the parents to set boundaries and teach them healthy habits.

pixl97 3y ago
Eh, so there are a number of oddities with your statements here that don't reflect the reality of what actually happened. > I don't think we should have the state banning all of these things. The issue here on your part is one of understanding hard power versus soft power. Looking at TV from a holistic perspective, the state has banned a lot of what we'd consider harmful behavior. Over the air programming is relatively tame, and content we consider harmful is more gated and behind paywalls. For the average video game the condition is the same. You have Sony and Microsoft gating the consoles. You have steam gating much of the PC world, and outside of that you have the credit card companies gating making money of more controversial items. An area we have the opposite problem is the one of junk food. This entire just self regulate while companies reap record profits selling you purposefully addictive food is working out "fucking great"... for the companies that is, of course for the ever increasing burden of obesity on the country, things aren't going so well.
- fasterik 3y ago
  The post I was responding to was advocating for a "smart phone age", i.e. the state banning smartphone use for people under a certain age like we have for alcohol and other hard drugs. All of your examples are examples of regulations, not bans on a particular product. The video game example doesn't even involve the state; all you mentioned are private companies. I'm not opposed to all regulations. I just don't believe we should have the state deciding when people can or can't use a computer, which is what a smartphone really is. It's up to parents to decide up to a certain age, and after that people have autonomy and can make their own decisions.

bufio 3y ago

Adults don't seem to know any better. It's going to take more than age restrictions to halt -- let alone reverse -- the damage.