19 ms·

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively affecting their development. I highly recommend the writings of Jonathan Haidt - he not only has great arguments but also has a lot of data to back up his conclusions. Kids don't need more tech, they need less of it (and FWIW, most adults, too).

wepple 2y ago
> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! It turns out times change. Before you think I’m disagreeing with the entirety of your comment, my own kids are the most free-range in-the-dirt kids I know. But it’s location-dependent. I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals.
- NullPrefix 2y ago
  >And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! Me and a lot of people wear them purely out of fear of being robbed by the state
  - forgotusername6 2y ago
    I met a guy who didn't wear his seatbelt. He was a delivery driver and in a collision at 20mph. His head went through the windscreen and it scalped him from the eyes up. He had a scar all the way across from ear to ear. He couldn't shut his eyes for months. He wears his seatbelt now.
    - NullPrefix 2y ago
      So? Obesity is a way worse toll on the human body than a scarred face, but we don't issue fines for people who enter McD's Other people have their own bodies and they do not belong to you
      - daedrdev 2y ago
        I would rather we don't have to spend precious emergency responder time on preventable injuries and deaths that occur at much higher rates by people not wearing seatbelts. If we can require you wear glasses to drive, we can require you wear a seatbelt as well. When someone dies in an accident because they didn't wear a seatbelt, there is another driver who now has to live with the fact that they killed someone.
        NullPrefix 2y ago
        Your answer does not refute anything that I said. Because judging from your reasoning, we should ban McDonald's and other bad food, so that people would not get heart attacks and die, so that we wouldn't waste the precious time of first responders, when they could rather attend to other people who actually want to live - those who don't eat poison
      - tzs 2y ago
        If I'm in McDonald's and a fat person enters that does not increase my chances of gaining weight. If I'm driving and a driver not wearing a seatbelt enters the road it does increase my chances of being in an accident because if something happens that makes them have to swerve sharply, such as a large animal leaping into the road in front of them, a seatbelt increases the chances they will be able to remain in control during that maneuver.
        NullPrefix 2y ago
        According to the CDC in the US every year 800k people suffer from a heart attack. It could happen while driving. While it does not increase your chance of gaining weight, it increases your chance of getting in a car accident, because that other person might be driving while having a heart attack
- swatcoder 2y ago
  The purpose of cars is to get people from place to place. That purpose isn't hampered by wearing a seatbelt. There's not even a compromise involved. It's all upside. The purpose of childhood is produce future adults. That purpose isn't fully served when kids get too far removed from choices, risks, and consequences. Yes, we also need to make sure they stay alive, but survival can't be the only metric parents optimize for or they'll just produce confused old kids trying to live adult lives. (`Big`, but for real and without a magical fix in act 3.)
  - locococo 2y ago
    What are you smoking? No choice is removed from anyone. Survival is the primary objective, what do you think it is? Limiting electronic device usage?
- daymanstep 2y ago
  > I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals. Is this based on statistical reasoning? Would you really rather leave your kid with say, a wild boar, than with a person randomly chosen out of a city's population?
  - Loughla 2y ago
    I think you missed the point a little or are being overly pedantic. I trust the wildlife where I live, because I know the dangerous stuff isn't here.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! No, they weren't, which is why this is a poor analogy. We discovered that seatbelts could save an enormous number of lives with minimal impact on individuals, so we mandated them. With child safety it's difficult to get comparable numbers (overall crime spiked in the 90s, so it's difficult to say whether kids were less safe because they had less tracking or just that overall crime was higher then), a big reason experts give for the reduction in crime affecting kids is they're simply inside a whole lot more. They'd be even safer if we just put them in a plastic bubble I guess.
  - wepple 2y ago
    > No, they weren't Yea they were. The model T was plenty safe simply because it wasn’t fast enough to be a significant danger. The point is, claiming that “we used to do X and it was fine” is a weak argument. Times change.
enragedcacti 2y ago
For better or for worse the ship has definitely sailed on the laissez-faire "be home before sunset" parenting of past generations. Assuming that, its probably a net positive if a product like this can give a parent who would otherwise be full helicopter enough assurance to let their kid have more freedom and independence. Especially if its in lieu of a smartphone.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > For better or for worse the ship has definitely sailed on the laissez-faire "be home before sunset" parenting of past generations. It's only "sailed" because (some) parents demand to know where their kid is at all times. While I think it's difficult for any individual parent to, say, forbid social media for too long lest they ostracize their kid, saying "I won't track my kids" is a choice any parent can make. I just pity the kids of these helicopter parents. The youth mental health crisis is no accident.
  - enragedcacti 2y ago
    If only all social problems could be solved so easily. Theft? It only happens because (some) people keep stealing. They should just stop. In the absence of people just doing what I think is right instantly and without question, I pity the child whose parents solve this anxiety by trapping them in the house 16 hours a day.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      I don’t understand your example. Theft is complicated to solve because the one stealing gets a benefit from doing it. To solve that you need to change the cost/benefit balance for everyone. To solve the over anxious parent problem you just need to get up to two people to chill out. It provides an immediate benefit for them (they will be chill) while it also provides them a long term benefit (a well adjusted offspring). What is the supposed paralel here? Or what should be my takeaway from your comparision be?
      - 2y ago
TomJansen 2y ago
I agree with this 1000%. Kids need to be free and explore things on their own. Why are we living in a world where we think that kids do not deserve privacy? Or where we think that we cannot trust our children?
- Loughla 2y ago
  It's less about the children and more about the adults. Most parents that I know are scared that their children will be victims of violent crime. They may trust their kids explicitly and implicitly, but do not trust the world. I blame 24 hour news, to be honest.
  - NoPicklez 2y ago
    Pretty much this, my mother would always say I'm not worried about you, I'm worried about others. This went for most things during childhood, walking home from school, driving a car etc This has gone all the way back to around 2007 as a free roaming kid
  - kelnos 2y ago
    The sad thing is that constantly tracking the child won't help with these problems. If someone wants to murder a child, a tracker watch isn't going to stop them. If someone wants to kidnap a child, a tracker watch is going to be ripped off and discarded (along with a smartphone, if they have one).
- cwalv 2y ago
  What age of kids are you talking about? How much privacy do you think a 6yo deserves?
  - aceazzameen 2y ago
    100% privacy from an ad tech company. And at least in my case, I've been able to teach my young kids to navigate outdoors, communication, and proper safety without the use of tech.
reaperducer 2y ago
Kids don't need more tech, they need less of it (and FWIW, most adults, too). There was a "looking back" piece of WGN-TV last week about a 10-year-old and a 14-year-old who rode their horses from Missouri to New York City to meet Roosevelt. Alone. All they had with them was canteens, and a map. Then they bought a car with the money they raised along the way, and drove home to Missouri. Alone. Today you can't get an adult to sit on a chair for 30 minutes without them using a phone, a water bottle, or both as a pacifier.
- qwerpy 2y ago
  > using a phone, a water bottle, or both as a pacifier I slowly put my phone down in shame after reading this. But I really love this sentence because of how true it is. Why is it always a phone and a water bottle?
  - spondylosaurus 2y ago
    Well, it sounds like those kids on their horses had canteens too...
  - vundercind 2y ago
    All those recommendations about whatever crazy-high amount of water you’re supposed to have in a day. If you want to even get close, it’s either a few chug-sessions per day, or else carrying water to sip constantly. … also, it probably helps replace cigarettes as an oral fixation, which is what everyone used to use.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      You don't actually need that much water if you are sitting in an air-conditioned office.
      - Nasrudith 2y ago
        Dry-mouth is a very common side effect for medications and it can even stick around after you stop taking the medications. It may be a personal bias due to medication use but I think it is 'need vs want' at that point. You may not suffer dehydration with dry mouth but it is uncomfortable.
Rebuff5007 2y ago
Having kids solely use a smart watch with some amount of connectedness (GPS, phone calls, a game or two) seems healthier and considerably "less tech" than a full on smartphone.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  It's a lesser of evils. Still I'm not convinced it's necessary.
nytesky 2y ago
In principle I agree we don’t need to track our kids. But when I was I a free range kid in the 80s, there were pay phones at every corner, I carried coins and a calling card so could reach my parents. Now they have to interact with an adult somewhere to use their personal phone. And the adult has to trust this isn’t a ruffian looking to swipe his phone for kicks. But a cell capable watch for $200 is pretty compelling; the Apple SE is sync only right, so equivalent apple watch is $350+?
- nicoburns 2y ago
  Why not give them a cell phone but not install tracking software on it?
  - faeriechangling 2y ago
    It’s not strapped to their wrist so it’s easier to lose for starters.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      Yes but presumably this is a convenience for older kids and we're not expecting toddlers to roam about anywhere, gps or otherwise. They're capable of taking responsibility for a device.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        There are a huge range of kids between toddlers and teenagers, and a huge range of variation in levels of responsibility between different children of the same age. Some kids are totally trustworthy when it comes to roaming but at the same time completely flaky when it comes to keeping track of expensive personal belongings. And, needless to say, if you conscientiously avoid location tracking on the device then you can't use tracking to find it when it's inevitably misplaced.
      - faeriechangling 2y ago
        There is a rather strong correlation between the type of kid who would most benefit from this device, and the type of kid who is most likely to irresponsibly lose a phone. I'm imagining a child with ADHD who compulsively elopes.
mateus1 2y ago
I don’t buy that tracking kids is necessary or increases their safety. This seems to be an American phenomenon.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  I guess you have to feel safe in your own neighborhood to not feel like you need to do this. Can totally see how that doesn’t work very well in the US.
- locococo 2y ago
  I grew up in europe, and I had two instances where I came close to being abducted as a kid. You are naive if you think parents are overreacting. once you become the statistic the statistic is meaningless to you
  - mateus1 2y ago
    I know crime exists, I just don’t think it is so prevalent that we should poison our lives with paranoia and lack of privacy. I’d rather my kids raised on freedom and self reliance. But these are personal preferences, I’m not imposing this on anybody.
    - locococo 2y ago
      Sure there are trade offs, and your position is understandable. Self reliance and freedom are important but I don't see the value in not being able to call for help when help is needed. As a parent you can still make the decision to not pick your child up if they are tired and want to be picked up.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I don't see how a wristwatch tracker would have helped, though. Nowadays I'm sure potential kidnappers are well aware that kids often have some kind of tracking device on them (smartwatch, smartphone, AirTag, etc.), and will quickly get rid of any such devices before taking an abducted child with them.
sharadov 2y ago
Gave my 11 year old an apple watch, not so that I can track him, but just so that he can call me when he needs me ( there are times when he's at practice and am running late to pick him up or sometimes he just plain loses track of time because of his ADHD ). And, he can set timers and alarms to keep track of his schedule. My kids are pretty free-range, riding their bikes to/fro from school and hanging out at their friend's places. I did not want a phone because it's way too distracting
- septic-liqueur 2y ago
  Dumb phone?
  - nicksergeant 2y ago
    What’s nice about a smart watch is that it’s basically a dumb phone that’s hard to lose. Great for kids.
    - lll-o-lll 2y ago
      Exactly this. It’s strapped to his arm. Airtags in the rest of his things also helps him find his lost items. It’s an enabler! Smartwatch is better than dumb phone in nearly every way. Can phone? Check. Has GPS? Check. Can route public transport? Check. No tiktok? Check! Good battery life. No check :( I work around that last one with a keychain battery charger. This is not a substitute for teaching your kid what to do when lost (or watch is lost or nicked), but it gives them tremendous freedom. My son can navigate the world on his own now, all thanks to a bit of techno-magic on his wrist.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Asking an 11-year-old with ADHD to keep track of a dumb phone is just asking for trouble. The watch straps to their arm and can't be set down somewhere and forgotten.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
stickfigure 2y ago
I can only guess you (and most of the other naysayers in this thread) don't have young children. My wife and I have been looking for something exactly like this for our 6yo. I lost him on a ski slope once over a year ago and I think he's still traumatized. He recently was afraid of going on a class trip because he was afraid of getting lost. This isn't for teenagers. It's for kids that are still attached to mama/papa. It's not necessarily even for everyday. But field trips, amusement parks, big crowded events, hell even shopping malls? I remember many times as a kid having my parents call out on the PA system when I got lost in a department store.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  I thought the same, Ski resorts are classic places for kids to get lost, from now on, my kid will always have an AirTag in their pocket when on the ski resort.
- ssgodderidge 2y ago
  Agreed- just because you have these devices on hand doesn’t make you a helicopter parent. It’s just like having food storage doesn’t make you paranoid. You’re just prepared.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  I get this, I have an uncanny memory of my youth and have clear memories of the fear that ran through me when I realized I didn't know where Mom was. However, I think this belief that humans evolved to be so sensitive to childhood trauma is incredibly over sensationalized. I'm no worse off in life despite getting lost a few times. Your kid will be fine.
  - locococo 2y ago
    Parents have a lot to contend with as it is. Making live easier by preventing the temporary loss of a child and the anxiety for both parties is a benefit. If anything this gives kids more freedom, anyone not understand this should have a set of kids first.
candiddevmike 2y ago
The South Park episode Not Suitable for Children touches on this a lot too. Companies are foaming at the mouths to get advertising in front of kids and tracking them to understand what their habits are is really gross.
- Fricken 2y ago
  I remember the 80s when Saturday morning cartoons were a long series of toy commercials interspersed with shorter toy commercials. I got to be the target demographic. It was the best!
  - justsomehnguy 2y ago
    It doesn't changed at all, at least where I saw it last year. Paw Patrol was (is?) still the rage.
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  As my sibling comment points out, society is already pretty effective at advertising to children. I have strong doubts that Google (or others) would derive much useful-for-advertising data about “habits” of children from a smart watch. Especially not data that cannot be acquired elsewhere, easier. That’s to say nothing of the slowly growing body of laws that would prevent this. I think it’s very plausible that Google thinks $230+$10/mo is already a great business opportunity. I’m guessing the better “prize” is keeping kids from getting their first iPhone in school - most teenagers greatly prefer iPhones.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > I’m guessing the better “prize” is keeping kids from getting their first iPhone in school - most teenagers greatly prefer iPhones. This is what I was thinking -- get the kids into Google's ecosystem earlier, because maybe they'll stay there as they get older. That alone is worth a lot to them.
thinkingkong 2y ago
Its weird the types of sacrifices we expect kids to make with regards to survival. Like when a school shooting happens we wouldnt event consider banning assault rifles. Those kids dont survive. But if having a tracker on your kid marginally increases their chance for survival in the rarest of circumstances it’s totally out of the question to not have it.
- canadianfella 2y ago
  [dead]
- eks391 2y ago
  Do you know what an 'assault' rifle is? I only heard that term used by people who want them banned, who usually think this means automatic weapons, like the other commonly misused term machine gun. The correct term that 'assault' has become an umbrella for is semi-automatic. That means 1 bullet shot for every 1 time the trigger is pulled. There are technically other guns, like pump-action, that require literal pumping of bullets into the chamber between each shot, or even powder guns which are extremely dangerous due to their inaccuracy and jamming (read jamming as: higher probability to explode during use) 'Assault' is used to try to demonify 'bad' guns but really at that point you might as well ban all guns, because the few remaining are useless. Just be anti-gun instead of anti 'assault' rifle so you aren't pretending to support 'good' guns
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Not the person you're replying to, but I fully support repealing the 2nd amendment and strictly regulating gun ownership, up to and including total bans on certain classes of firearms, magazines, and ammunition. I would also personally have no problem with a total ban on any kind of firearm ownership, but I don't think the evidence supports that a total ban would make us meaningfully safer than more targeted restrictions and regulations. But for the guns we might allow in my fantasy of a US with sane gun laws, every gun owner should be required to take both a safety course and general training course, and complete a practical skills exam before being licensed (yes, licensed) to own a firearm. That training should have to be repeated (perhaps an abbreviated version) at some reasonable interval, such as every year or two. Regarding your nitpicking of what "assault" means, that's irrelevant. But to discuss it anyway: "assault weapon" has not become an umbrella for any semi-auto weapon. Semi-auto pistols, for example, are not what people are talking about when they want "assault" weapons banned. For people who don't really know much about guns, "assault weapon" means "a type of gun that someone in the military on a TV show or movie might have slung across their chest". An imprecise definition, to be sure, but in general I'd agree that no random civilian has any need for such a weapon. And any civilian who believes they have an actual need for such a weapon probably should not be trusted with one. I do know people who own some of these types of guns. They're responsible, train, and treat the weapons with the respect and care they are due. But I still don't think they should have them.
canadianfella 2y ago
[dead]
tqi 2y ago
"This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous" What are the dangers?
- 9dev 2y ago
  Chilling effects, for example. Children know they are under permanent surveillance, and will act accordingly - like not doing something in anticipation of admonition. The parents on the other hand have an always-available magic mirror to show them what their children are doing. Depending on your desire for control, this may very easily lead to checking in ever-shorter time intervals.
- dlivingston 2y ago
  Jonathan Haidt explains it best: https://youtu.be/hVEhtix7yWU https://youtu.be/hVEhtix7yWU
  - tqi 2y ago
    Pop psychology has not exactly had a great track record, and I don't see why we should give credence to Haidt just because his "research" aligns with our priors...
    - dlivingston 2y ago
      A few things: He's a psychologist proper at NYU, not some random journalist. Psychology as a whole has suffered a reputational crisis. You should listen to his claims and evaluate them independently, since they directly address your request for evidence. Finally, the knocking of "pop science" books really grinds my gears. They are not inherently bad just because they are geared for a mass market. Technical subjects have layers of depth, and there is value in a high-level overview of some field.
      - tqi 2y ago
        > He's a psychologist proper at NYU, not some random journalist. > Psychology as a whole has suffered a reputational crisis. Given the latter I don't see how the former makes his claims more credible? > You should listen to his claims and evaluate them independently, since they directly address your request for evidence. I am familiar with his work, and find the quality of his evidence indistinguishable for the myriad of other pop psych just-so-stories that this forum generally shits on. > Finally, the knocking of "pop science" books really grinds my gears. They are not inherently bad just because they are geared for a mass market. Technical subjects have layers of depth, and there is value in a high-level overview of some field. To be clear, I knocked "Pop psychology" not "pop science". Most pop science books are distillations of research for mass audiences. Most "Pop psychology" books are philosophy disguised as science. EDIT: And to be clear, I have no reason to be particularly skeptical of Haidt. I just think that the incentives for a psychologist who is writing for a mass audience lead them to choose the most simple and attention grabbing narrative possible, and map any evidence they can find back to that narrative and disregard the rest.
faeriechangling 2y ago
I was about 3 years ahead of my peers in spatial reasoning and behind them socially. When I was a kid leaving me alone meant I was likely to wander long distances end up in a pool and drown. If anything I see this as enabling parents to keep their kids on a longer leash so to speak.
- locococo 2y ago
  this is exactly the case. Kids gain more freedom not less
- kelnos 2y ago
  So... how is a GPS-tracker watch going to save you from drowning? It's not like your parents are going to be able to cover that distance quickly enough to save you.
  - faeriechangling 2y ago
    Finding me faster
tonetegeatinst 2y ago
Wouldn't this be a COPA violation?
GuB-42 2y ago
But it can be seen the other way. Tracking can give kids more freedom, because you can let them roam where they could get lost. For example, you can take them on vacation in a safe but unfamiliar place and let them do as they want. If they get lost, just use the tracker to find them. You don't even need to go for them immediately, you can let them try to figure it out by themselves and only go if it becomes really problematic. What would have been an unacceptable risk without a tracker becomes possible. When I was a kid, my parents would have given a lot for such a tracker as I had the uncanny ability to lose them in the most remote places. highlights include central London (not my country, didn't speak English) and in a forest on a mountain with a thunderstorm approaching. I survived, but maybe a tracker could have saved my parents some sanity, they still talk to me about it, more than 30 years later.
- godelski 2y ago
  As a kid my parents put me in Boy Scouts. Guess what was a frequent occurrence? Sending pairs of kids out to go do tasks like collecting firewood. Every once in awhile kids would get "lost" (not know where they are but not actually far away or in any reasonable danger). This even happened to me more than once. But being lost and figuring it out was necessary to learn the skills of how to navigate. today I have a very good sense of direction and this is not common among my peers. I think while this sounds like a good idea, it actually hinders the learning process. Struggling is necessary in the learning experience, but you just don't want too much struggle (there's a balance). I think if your kids are old enough that you're comfortable letting them navigate an area on their own, they are old enough to "fend for themselves" in this way. Just make sure they have your phone number and know the name of the hotel or some clear landmark (even in a foreign land you can often stumble about your confusion and say a landmark and people will be able to give you directions. Most of the time). I think it is better for both the kids and parents. Kids need to learn independence, parents need to learn to trust their kids and that they can be independent (that is the goal after all, right?). I know it is hard as a parent but that is something that needs to be learned too, for the betterment of kids.
  - GuB-42 2y ago
    Boy scouts can afford to lose kids because there is a group of people who know the place very well and are trained to deal with such a situation. Which is I think not only common but expected. A tracker can reproduce this experience without the help of an boy scout camp. It is just about how the tracker is used. It can be used for constant, intrusive monitoring, or it can be used for emergencies only. It is just a tool, it also doesn't have to be used 24/7.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
What is the danger of having an information source available to you, versus not having one available to you? Are you imagining a scenario where, maybe, a kid is walking by a house, but the tracking shows the kid IN the house. And then the parent who is watching every minute of their 10 year old's walk down the street takes their gun and kills the "pedos" and tries to rescue their kids? Maybe that seems hyperbolic, but I really cannot imagine how this is dangerous. Or is it the idea that parents will let their kids do more dangerous stuff since they think if they can track them, then it's okay?
- dbish 2y ago
  Would you want to be tracked 24/7? Your argument is basically the nothing to hide fallacy
dotBen 2y ago
No, cars didn't have seat belts for a long time - generations of people drove without them. When they introduced them a lot of people complained. Now you would have to be an idiot to argue against seat belts. "Kids" is a very broad term - I don't think tracking older teenagers is appropriate but tracking a toddler (prob too young for this) through to teens is perfectly reasonable. Many people track their partners, family, etc via Apple and Google sharing locations. It's not that kids need less tech, it's that they need less screen time. Arguably this watch isn't screen time.
khazhoux 2y ago
> This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. This topic is always so alarmist. I have kids and a spouse. We all have Find My and Location Sharing on our phones. I don't FrEaK oUt that my kids are going to die if I'm not tracking their every movement. But it's nice to glance at Find My app and see if the kids are still hanging out at Starbucks or they got to school on time. It's convenient to see which corner of the park they're at when I need to go pick them up. I can see if my wife's still at Whole Foods and send her a message to pick up baru nuts. They can see if I'm still at work or headed home. This idea of helicopter parents vs free-range glory is a false dichotomy.
- jagged-chisel 2y ago
  I think the important part is whether the children are affected by the tracking. Is it a big deal if they don’t have service and you can’t Find them for a couple hours? Mine are grown now, but I’ve always told them: I’m not worried about where you are, I want to know where to go when something happens and you need a rescue. I want them to have the peace of mind that, if needed, the safety net is within reach. When I was a teen, my parents were in reach if I was in reach of a [wired] phone, but I didn’t always know how to tell them where I was at that moment. Providing a safety net while allowing freedom boosts self confidence.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    > I think the important part is whether the children are affected by the tracking I have no reason to think they're impacted by me knowing where they are. They're confident, run around for hours, and are growing up just fine. So what if their parents can look up their location... big deal. Pushing the alarmist argument, though: should I just take away their cell phones, to give them the same experience I had growing up? I didn't ever have even a dime for a phone booth.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > I didn't ever have even a dime for a phone booth. Neither did I, but I knew how to place a collect call and my mom knew that if she got a collect call while I was away it was most likely me.
demosthanos 2y ago
I agree with you in principle, but in practice the number of parents who let their kids do things independently is vanishingly small, and the absence of other parents who let their kids roam is a real danger to those of us who do. If a smart watch makes more parents comfortable letting their pre-teen kids outside of the house alone, that's a net win for everyone over the status quo where those kids are physically chaperoned 24/7.
gehwartzen 2y ago
I grew up pretty unsupervised to run round town since I was around 7 or 8 growing up and definitely want the same for my son. He's 8 now and I got him an apple watch as I don't want him to have a large screen to distract him from the world but still be able to call/text his friends or get in touch w us in an emergency. I do not ever monitor his location (and told him as much) unless he reaches out to me and allows me to for help. As with all things it's a tool and will depend on how the parents use it. If I break his trust by spying on him, well, thats on me and of course a rather difficult one to rebuild. I also told him if he ever wants to turn off location services we can do that but he's okey with it for now.
cwalv 2y ago
I'm completely dependent on my phone to remind me of when it's time for a meeting, or sometimes even the route to get back home when I drove to the present location. I once thought I should try harder to deal without these things. But where does it end? Should I shun electricity? I agree that should work to push the boundaries of what's comfortable/safe, but being disgusted at the idea of a kids wearing a smartwatch seems like an arbitrary point to draw the line, and even a bit hypocritical.
partiallypro 2y ago
Seems to me that such devices could actually help give kids -more- freedom. Let's not act like kids are outside playing like they were in the 80s/90s. Helicopter parents sort of ruined that (along with neighborhoods no longer being bikeable/walkable.) So, this kinda seems like a device that could give kids a longer leash. Parents can know they are safe/where they are while also giving the kid more freedom to just be a kid.
- hgomersall 2y ago
  Except it doesn't in any way deal with the actual real danger in our neighbourhoods, the one that keeps me awake at night, of cars.
  - partiallypro 2y ago
    I agree with you that unwalkable neighborhoods are a concern, but they aren't the -only- concern.
- kelnos 2y ago
  If true, that's sad, because it just further exposes the irrationality of these sorts of parents. This sort of tracking is not going to save the kid from being kidnapped or getting hit by a car. A little pulsing blue dot on a map does not tell the parent that the kid is safe.
pard68 2y ago
My sister is in her twenties. About the time she was in high school these tracking apps became available. My mother used it to keep an eye on her. Fast forward almost a decade, she freaks out if my mother isn't checking in on her now. It's quite disgusting. I am glad to be about 10 years older and have entirely missed this plague.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Watch out for HN commenters who cannot distinguish between the idea of (a) a wrist watch that allows parents to track their children with no obligation to share this information with anyone, and (b) a wrist watch than allows Google to track and collect data on peoples' children and share some but not all of the data with the childrens' parents.
pavelstoev 2y ago
I strongly disagree with your comment. First of all, ALL kids must survive, not most. Safety and safety of knowing are two different things. Lastly, this tech looks a lot less intrusive than the current another watch that everyone is getting for their kids — this one appears to have more activity-engaging features.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > First of all, ALL kids must survive, not most. I don't think anyone would really want to live in a world where we've done what's necessary such that literally all kids survive the various accidents and perils they might face out in the world. Such a world would be sanitized into oblivion. This is just a variation on the "security vs. freedom" stuff. You can have perfect security if you don't allow for any freedom. But hopefully we can agree that a world with no freedom isn't one we want to live in. But sure, let's step back from the extreme that you introduced. Are the downsides of pervasive 24/7 tracking and surveillance worth the (possible and as-yet unproven) increase in good outcomes? I can see that many people here seem to think it is, but I don't agree.
aceazzameen 2y ago
I hate this. I have kids and many of their friends have Verizon watches where their parents can track their kids. My wife and I are not a fan of the constant tracking. Our kids go out and play and come back for regular check-ins if they're out for a while. I know where they are without knowing exactly where they are. Normally I'd be fine if some parents want to know their own kids every move, but now I'm afraid we're raising a new generation that is used to having zero privacy. This won't be good.
colechristensen 2y ago
Basically every person i know in their mid-20s has a small group of people they have always on location sharing with. Usually a partner, a couple of close friends, and a parent or two. They don’t see it as any sort of problem to share this information. I get the tech focused millennial paranoia about this but when it gets down to it you have nothing to fear if the people you share that with actually respect you and your privacy.
- dbish 2y ago
  This is a great example that’s actually not a good thing. The lack of paranoia is going to allow many others to track you for their own purposes like companies and governments and just allow privacy erosion to happen passively. “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” os pretty similar to “you have nothing to fear if someone else chooses not to look”
- kelnos 2y ago
  And the reason this is the case is because pervasive tracking and privacy invasion has become normalized during the formative years of these people's lives. It's not just sad, but actively scary.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    My mom and best friend knowing where I am is not scary. What exactly am I supposed to be afraid of?
potterken 2y ago
[dead]
aiauthoritydev 2y ago
I subscribe to the "Taking Children Seriously" movement. My position is that there is no reason to track kids 100% of the times, however if the kids do not mind, I do not see why this can be a good watch.
rapnie 2y ago
> Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. I agree with your entire comment. And apart from the parents that feel they need to watch their kids every move, what always astounds me is how little consideration is given to exactly what tech they slap around their kids' wrist. "Oh, look it is Google, our familiar cozy uncle, so all is hunky-dory". No, it is not! Google is an advertisement company. The biggest on the planet. Ads are their raison d'etre, core business. And learning as much as possible from your kid at the youngest age is part of their business model. Not to protect them, but to turn them into mindless consumers that click the most ads. And to use all that juicy data about your kids life in any other shady way they can think of, where some cold hard cash may end up on their balance sheet. It is ridiculous.
- aceazzameen 2y ago
  This is exactly how I see it. And when kids grow up having their whole life being tracked, they'll have no problem as adults when Uncle Google or some other entity knows everything about them 24/7. To be fair, Google's already achieved that with most adults.
mklepaczewski 2y ago
> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. Did they? The problem with this sort of claim is that it often turns out to be false. "We didn't have X and somehow we survived" often omits the fact that mortality in given demographics has dropped significantly since then. The people making this statement are survivors, and the ones who haven't survived don't speak up. Can someone back up this claim with data? My (very) quick search brought up only infant mortality rates.
- iiio8 2y ago
  The proof obligation is the other way around. You need to show that constant surveillance actually makes a difference, on a population level. Otherwise your claim is the empty one.
  - mklepaczewski 2y ago
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Injury-death-rates-for-children-and-adolescents-aged-10-19-years-by-intent-United_fig1_325550092 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Injury-death-rates-for-c... Unfortunately, I only had time to do a quick search, but it shows that mortality has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. I imagine it was only higher 40-60 years ago. This doesn't prove that more surveillance brings mortality down, but it shows that the "we survived just fine" argument is shaky at best. I think parental supervision correlates with the survivability of offspring in general, not only in the human species. Also, the more present and engaged parents are, the better the children are. This is supported by research on children raised by single parents, parents working multiple jobs and shifts.
    - iiio8 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - mklepaczewski 2y ago
        I was referring to the claim that "we haven't had X and we survived" in general. I wasn't trying to prove that higher levels of surveillance increase survivability. However, yes, that argument makes sense to me. It may mess up kids in other ways, but my gut feeling is that it does decrease child's chances of dying.
sebtron 2y ago
I am wondering if we are raising a generation of people find it completely normal to be tracked all the time. How can we complain when our governmets do the same to us?
- iiio8 2y ago
  I wonder that too, but I think you are at least one generation too late with this. Your average phone already tracks where you go, with whom you interact, what you search for online. It asks you "how was this restaurant?" and reminds you what you did last year at this time. There is a miniscule minority of folks who care and disable as much of that as they can, but the vast majority doesn't know how and doesn't care. I even know lots of people who work in the industry and just don't bother disabling any of this because they claim it's all unavoidable anyway, and they are probably right. Oh and they had that attitude already 10-15 years ago. So, this is already a thing if the past. And we are at a point were even if your devices are not tracking you then everything around you is. Each Tesla parked on the roadside films you when you walk by. Each phone close by tracks that your phone is close by. And nobody cares. Heck, people argue it's for the better, imagine somebody getting raped, so good we have lots of cameras close by to find the bad guy! As if society is any safer for it than 30 years ago
  - loteck 2y ago
    Sorry but this is just fatalistic nonsense. A generation ago people did not have anything like the current evolution of surveillance technology. The small number of people who care about ubiquitous surveillance right now are early adopters, not a dying breed.
hatsix 2y ago
Please explain how you think it's dangerous. I asked my boomer mother about whether she'd have liked to have had a gps on me when I was a kid in the 80s. She said she would have loved it. she worked until 5 and there was no "after school care" in our small town... she kept our pantry full of chips and soda and our video games new so that we'd be home when she got home, rather than out somewhere else with our friends. To her, the lack of near constant panic attacks would be a godsend, and she wouldn't have felt so bad about using video games as childcare. As a parent, my concern isn't about my kid being abducted... an air tag in their pocket would be more discreet. It's about letting them explore with a safety net. Go for longer bike rides, knowing that if it gets too dark, I can pick them up... that's not risk averse. The level of risk for every generation has been dramatically lower since the 1920s. Both of my parents lost an older sibling... loss happened at the family level in the 50s. in the 80s, I maybe had one or two kids in my class that had experienced loss... a tractor accident or gun accident... but now there's been one child that died in the past three years at my son's school. Risk had bigger consequences 60 years ago. Our kids are better off for it.
- dbish 2y ago
  It teaches the wrong thing to both parent and child. Parent gets hooked on surveillance rather than trusting their kid to be independent. The “safety net” is actually a mental crutch imho. Child thinks 24/7 surveillance is ok or resents their parent as they get older since they are always being watched. Not to mention that tracking is unlikely to really save a kid in a life or death situation that is any reasonable level of risk (like a car accident).
gotski 2y ago
I'm currently waiting for my kid to arrive on a bus that may or may not be running late. With regards to tracking, it would be really handy to be able to check their location to get a sense of how long I'll be waiting (and how late I'll be for my next appointment). I mean, reliable public transport and a good bus tracker app would be better, but probably not realistic in my city.
- kelnos 2y ago
  You could just call or text to ask the kid, rather than require that they submit to 24/7 real-time surveillance. "Really handy" doesn't seem to justify that.
crucialfelix 2y ago
One of my favorite Black Mirror episodes, Directed by Jodie Foster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) > Arkangel, an implanted technology which allows Marie to track Sara's location, current vision and hearing
lawgimenez 2y ago
My kid is non verbal with autism, this would be great for parents who has kids with special needs. Maybe you should try to be open minded perhaps.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Maybe you shouldn't assume that GP is talking about niche cases such as your example, but is instead talking about the kind of helicopter parent that would love something like this. Maybe assume the more charitable explanation that nearly everyone knows that pretty much every "rule" has exceptions, and nothing is absolute.
silisili 2y ago
Absolutely agreed. Google is by far the worst offender in my house, so I've blocked it completely outside of search and email. But those are next. YouTube is where the real sinister stuff lay. I walked in one day to see my kid watching childish cartoons, but talking about abortion, child death, foster homes and divorce, etc. And not in like an educational way, but in a 'mommy doesn't love daddy anymore so got an abortion and now is going to send me to a foster home.' Obviously I was mortified and angry, and asked why she searched this weird shit and she said it was recommended so just watched it. And she was right, it was recommended. It's completely full of garbage topics pretending to be child stuff. There's even one huge channel that appears to be Russian softcore porn making dubbed child content. Sorry for the rant, but do not trust your children to Google or any other big tech company.
flurdy 2y ago
Totally agree. Then at the same time, we have put Airtags in their school bags... (with their consent)
robertlagrant 2y ago
> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. They did. Generations also survived without a polio vaccine. This isn't an argument. > But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively affecting their development I see it the other way round. My kid's a bit too young to go off on his own or with friends, but it's not far off. If anything I'd say a watch like this makes me think he can go off younger than without it. The main problem is it's a Google watch, so I don't know how long it'll work for. And I don't care about games or payments; just a simple phone call/SMS service (locked down to certain contacts) with GPS pings I can see on my phone. And push to talk with friends would be cool, and probably send it viral.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

wepple 2y ago

> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! It turns out times change. Before you think I’m disagreeing with the entirety of your comment, my own kids are the most free-range in-the-dirt kids I know. But it’s location-dependent. I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals.

NullPrefix 2y ago
>And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! Me and a lot of people wear them purely out of fear of being robbed by the state
- forgotusername6 2y ago
  I met a guy who didn't wear his seatbelt. He was a delivery driver and in a collision at 20mph. His head went through the windscreen and it scalped him from the eyes up. He had a scar all the way across from ear to ear. He couldn't shut his eyes for months. He wears his seatbelt now.
  - NullPrefix 2y ago
    So? Obesity is a way worse toll on the human body than a scarred face, but we don't issue fines for people who enter McD's Other people have their own bodies and they do not belong to you
    - daedrdev 2y ago
      I would rather we don't have to spend precious emergency responder time on preventable injuries and deaths that occur at much higher rates by people not wearing seatbelts. If we can require you wear glasses to drive, we can require you wear a seatbelt as well. When someone dies in an accident because they didn't wear a seatbelt, there is another driver who now has to live with the fact that they killed someone.
      - NullPrefix 2y ago
        Your answer does not refute anything that I said. Because judging from your reasoning, we should ban McDonald's and other bad food, so that people would not get heart attacks and die, so that we wouldn't waste the precious time of first responders, when they could rather attend to other people who actually want to live - those who don't eat poison
    - tzs 2y ago
      If I'm in McDonald's and a fat person enters that does not increase my chances of gaining weight. If I'm driving and a driver not wearing a seatbelt enters the road it does increase my chances of being in an accident because if something happens that makes them have to swerve sharply, such as a large animal leaping into the road in front of them, a seatbelt increases the chances they will be able to remain in control during that maneuver.
      - NullPrefix 2y ago
        According to the CDC in the US every year 800k people suffer from a heart attack. It could happen while driving. While it does not increase your chance of gaining weight, it increases your chance of getting in a car accident, because that other person might be driving while having a heart attack
swatcoder 2y ago
The purpose of cars is to get people from place to place. That purpose isn't hampered by wearing a seatbelt. There's not even a compromise involved. It's all upside. The purpose of childhood is produce future adults. That purpose isn't fully served when kids get too far removed from choices, risks, and consequences. Yes, we also need to make sure they stay alive, but survival can't be the only metric parents optimize for or they'll just produce confused old kids trying to live adult lives. (`Big`, but for real and without a magical fix in act 3.)
- locococo 2y ago
  What are you smoking? No choice is removed from anyone. Survival is the primary objective, what do you think it is? Limiting electronic device usage?
daymanstep 2y ago
> I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals. Is this based on statistical reasoning? Would you really rather leave your kid with say, a wild boar, than with a person randomly chosen out of a city's population?
- Loughla 2y ago
  I think you missed the point a little or are being overly pedantic. I trust the wildlife where I live, because I know the dangerous stuff isn't here.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! No, they weren't, which is why this is a poor analogy. We discovered that seatbelts could save an enormous number of lives with minimal impact on individuals, so we mandated them. With child safety it's difficult to get comparable numbers (overall crime spiked in the 90s, so it's difficult to say whether kids were less safe because they had less tracking or just that overall crime was higher then), a big reason experts give for the reduction in crime affecting kids is they're simply inside a whole lot more. They'd be even safer if we just put them in a plastic bubble I guess.
- wepple 2y ago
  > No, they weren't Yea they were. The model T was plenty safe simply because it wasn’t fast enough to be a significant danger. The point is, claiming that “we used to do X and it was fine” is a weak argument. Times change.

enragedcacti 2y ago

For better or for worse the ship has definitely sailed on the laissez-faire "be home before sunset" parenting of past generations. Assuming that, its probably a net positive if a product like this can give a parent who would otherwise be full helicopter enough assurance to let their kid have more freedom and independence. Especially if its in lieu of a smartphone.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> For better or for worse the ship has definitely sailed on the laissez-faire "be home before sunset" parenting of past generations. It's only "sailed" because (some) parents demand to know where their kid is at all times. While I think it's difficult for any individual parent to, say, forbid social media for too long lest they ostracize their kid, saying "I won't track my kids" is a choice any parent can make. I just pity the kids of these helicopter parents. The youth mental health crisis is no accident.
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  If only all social problems could be solved so easily. Theft? It only happens because (some) people keep stealing. They should just stop. In the absence of people just doing what I think is right instantly and without question, I pity the child whose parents solve this anxiety by trapping them in the house 16 hours a day.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    I don’t understand your example. Theft is complicated to solve because the one stealing gets a benefit from doing it. To solve that you need to change the cost/benefit balance for everyone. To solve the over anxious parent problem you just need to get up to two people to chill out. It provides an immediate benefit for them (they will be chill) while it also provides them a long term benefit (a well adjusted offspring). What is the supposed paralel here? Or what should be my takeaway from your comparision be?
    - 2y ago

TomJansen 2y ago

I agree with this 1000%. Kids need to be free and explore things on their own. Why are we living in a world where we think that kids do not deserve privacy? Or where we think that we cannot trust our children?

Loughla 2y ago
It's less about the children and more about the adults. Most parents that I know are scared that their children will be victims of violent crime. They may trust their kids explicitly and implicitly, but do not trust the world. I blame 24 hour news, to be honest.
- NoPicklez 2y ago
  Pretty much this, my mother would always say I'm not worried about you, I'm worried about others. This went for most things during childhood, walking home from school, driving a car etc This has gone all the way back to around 2007 as a free roaming kid
- kelnos 2y ago
  The sad thing is that constantly tracking the child won't help with these problems. If someone wants to murder a child, a tracker watch isn't going to stop them. If someone wants to kidnap a child, a tracker watch is going to be ripped off and discarded (along with a smartphone, if they have one).
cwalv 2y ago
What age of kids are you talking about? How much privacy do you think a 6yo deserves?
- aceazzameen 2y ago
  100% privacy from an ad tech company. And at least in my case, I've been able to teach my young kids to navigate outdoors, communication, and proper safety without the use of tech.

reaperducer 2y ago

Kids don't need more tech, they need less of it (and FWIW, most adults, too). There was a "looking back" piece of WGN-TV last week about a 10-year-old and a 14-year-old who rode their horses from Missouri to New York City to meet Roosevelt. Alone. All they had with them was canteens, and a map. Then they bought a car with the money they raised along the way, and drove home to Missouri. Alone. Today you can't get an adult to sit on a chair for 30 minutes without them using a phone, a water bottle, or both as a pacifier.

qwerpy 2y ago
> using a phone, a water bottle, or both as a pacifier I slowly put my phone down in shame after reading this. But I really love this sentence because of how true it is. Why is it always a phone and a water bottle?
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  Well, it sounds like those kids on their horses had canteens too...
- vundercind 2y ago
  All those recommendations about whatever crazy-high amount of water you’re supposed to have in a day. If you want to even get close, it’s either a few chug-sessions per day, or else carrying water to sip constantly. … also, it probably helps replace cigarettes as an oral fixation, which is what everyone used to use.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    You don't actually need that much water if you are sitting in an air-conditioned office.
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      Dry-mouth is a very common side effect for medications and it can even stick around after you stop taking the medications. It may be a personal bias due to medication use but I think it is 'need vs want' at that point. You may not suffer dehydration with dry mouth but it is uncomfortable.

Rebuff5007 2y ago

Having kids solely use a smart watch with some amount of connectedness (GPS, phone calls, a game or two) seems healthier and considerably "less tech" than a full on smartphone.

slothtrop 2y ago
It's a lesser of evils. Still I'm not convinced it's necessary.

nytesky 2y ago

In principle I agree we don’t need to track our kids. But when I was I a free range kid in the 80s, there were pay phones at every corner, I carried coins and a calling card so could reach my parents. Now they have to interact with an adult somewhere to use their personal phone. And the adult has to trust this isn’t a ruffian looking to swipe his phone for kicks. But a cell capable watch for $200 is pretty compelling; the Apple SE is sync only right, so equivalent apple watch is $350+?

nicoburns 2y ago
Why not give them a cell phone but not install tracking software on it?
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  It’s not strapped to their wrist so it’s easier to lose for starters.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    Yes but presumably this is a convenience for older kids and we're not expecting toddlers to roam about anywhere, gps or otherwise. They're capable of taking responsibility for a device.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      There are a huge range of kids between toddlers and teenagers, and a huge range of variation in levels of responsibility between different children of the same age. Some kids are totally trustworthy when it comes to roaming but at the same time completely flaky when it comes to keeping track of expensive personal belongings. And, needless to say, if you conscientiously avoid location tracking on the device then you can't use tracking to find it when it's inevitably misplaced.
    - faeriechangling 2y ago
      There is a rather strong correlation between the type of kid who would most benefit from this device, and the type of kid who is most likely to irresponsibly lose a phone. I'm imagining a child with ADHD who compulsively elopes.

mateus1 2y ago

I don’t buy that tracking kids is necessary or increases their safety. This seems to be an American phenomenon.

Aeolun 2y ago
I guess you have to feel safe in your own neighborhood to not feel like you need to do this. Can totally see how that doesn’t work very well in the US.
locococo 2y ago
I grew up in europe, and I had two instances where I came close to being abducted as a kid. You are naive if you think parents are overreacting. once you become the statistic the statistic is meaningless to you
- mateus1 2y ago
  I know crime exists, I just don’t think it is so prevalent that we should poison our lives with paranoia and lack of privacy. I’d rather my kids raised on freedom and self reliance. But these are personal preferences, I’m not imposing this on anybody.
  - locococo 2y ago
    Sure there are trade offs, and your position is understandable. Self reliance and freedom are important but I don't see the value in not being able to call for help when help is needed. As a parent you can still make the decision to not pick your child up if they are tired and want to be picked up.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I don't see how a wristwatch tracker would have helped, though. Nowadays I'm sure potential kidnappers are well aware that kids often have some kind of tracking device on them (smartwatch, smartphone, AirTag, etc.), and will quickly get rid of any such devices before taking an abducted child with them.

sharadov 2y ago

Gave my 11 year old an apple watch, not so that I can track him, but just so that he can call me when he needs me ( there are times when he's at practice and am running late to pick him up or sometimes he just plain loses track of time because of his ADHD ). And, he can set timers and alarms to keep track of his schedule. My kids are pretty free-range, riding their bikes to/fro from school and hanging out at their friend's places. I did not want a phone because it's way too distracting

septic-liqueur 2y ago
Dumb phone?
- nicksergeant 2y ago
  What’s nice about a smart watch is that it’s basically a dumb phone that’s hard to lose. Great for kids.
  - lll-o-lll 2y ago
    Exactly this. It’s strapped to his arm. Airtags in the rest of his things also helps him find his lost items. It’s an enabler! Smartwatch is better than dumb phone in nearly every way. Can phone? Check. Has GPS? Check. Can route public transport? Check. No tiktok? Check! Good battery life. No check :( I work around that last one with a keychain battery charger. This is not a substitute for teaching your kid what to do when lost (or watch is lost or nicked), but it gives them tremendous freedom. My son can navigate the world on his own now, all thanks to a bit of techno-magic on his wrist.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Asking an 11-year-old with ADHD to keep track of a dumb phone is just asking for trouble. The watch straps to their arm and can't be set down somewhere and forgotten.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago

stickfigure 2y ago

I can only guess you (and most of the other naysayers in this thread) don't have young children. My wife and I have been looking for something exactly like this for our 6yo. I lost him on a ski slope once over a year ago and I think he's still traumatized. He recently was afraid of going on a class trip because he was afraid of getting lost. This isn't for teenagers. It's for kids that are still attached to mama/papa. It's not necessarily even for everyday. But field trips, amusement parks, big crowded events, hell even shopping malls? I remember many times as a kid having my parents call out on the PA system when I got lost in a department store.

bamboozled 2y ago
I thought the same, Ski resorts are classic places for kids to get lost, from now on, my kid will always have an AirTag in their pocket when on the ski resort.
ssgodderidge 2y ago
Agreed- just because you have these devices on hand doesn’t make you a helicopter parent. It’s just like having food storage doesn’t make you paranoid. You’re just prepared.
Workaccount2 2y ago
I get this, I have an uncanny memory of my youth and have clear memories of the fear that ran through me when I realized I didn't know where Mom was. However, I think this belief that humans evolved to be so sensitive to childhood trauma is incredibly over sensationalized. I'm no worse off in life despite getting lost a few times. Your kid will be fine.
- locococo 2y ago
  Parents have a lot to contend with as it is. Making live easier by preventing the temporary loss of a child and the anxiety for both parties is a benefit. If anything this gives kids more freedom, anyone not understand this should have a set of kids first.

candiddevmike 2y ago

The South Park episode Not Suitable for Children touches on this a lot too. Companies are foaming at the mouths to get advertising in front of kids and tracking them to understand what their habits are is really gross.

Fricken 2y ago
I remember the 80s when Saturday morning cartoons were a long series of toy commercials interspersed with shorter toy commercials. I got to be the target demographic. It was the best!
- justsomehnguy 2y ago
  It doesn't changed at all, at least where I saw it last year. Paw Patrol was (is?) still the rage.
vineyardmike 2y ago
As my sibling comment points out, society is already pretty effective at advertising to children. I have strong doubts that Google (or others) would derive much useful-for-advertising data about “habits” of children from a smart watch. Especially not data that cannot be acquired elsewhere, easier. That’s to say nothing of the slowly growing body of laws that would prevent this. I think it’s very plausible that Google thinks $230+$10/mo is already a great business opportunity. I’m guessing the better “prize” is keeping kids from getting their first iPhone in school - most teenagers greatly prefer iPhones.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > I’m guessing the better “prize” is keeping kids from getting their first iPhone in school - most teenagers greatly prefer iPhones. This is what I was thinking -- get the kids into Google's ecosystem earlier, because maybe they'll stay there as they get older. That alone is worth a lot to them.

thinkingkong 2y ago

Its weird the types of sacrifices we expect kids to make with regards to survival. Like when a school shooting happens we wouldnt event consider banning assault rifles. Those kids dont survive. But if having a tracker on your kid marginally increases their chance for survival in the rarest of circumstances it’s totally out of the question to not have it.

canadianfella 2y ago
[dead]
eks391 2y ago
Do you know what an 'assault' rifle is? I only heard that term used by people who want them banned, who usually think this means automatic weapons, like the other commonly misused term machine gun. The correct term that 'assault' has become an umbrella for is semi-automatic. That means 1 bullet shot for every 1 time the trigger is pulled. There are technically other guns, like pump-action, that require literal pumping of bullets into the chamber between each shot, or even powder guns which are extremely dangerous due to their inaccuracy and jamming (read jamming as: higher probability to explode during use) 'Assault' is used to try to demonify 'bad' guns but really at that point you might as well ban all guns, because the few remaining are useless. Just be anti-gun instead of anti 'assault' rifle so you aren't pretending to support 'good' guns
- kelnos 2y ago
  Not the person you're replying to, but I fully support repealing the 2nd amendment and strictly regulating gun ownership, up to and including total bans on certain classes of firearms, magazines, and ammunition. I would also personally have no problem with a total ban on any kind of firearm ownership, but I don't think the evidence supports that a total ban would make us meaningfully safer than more targeted restrictions and regulations. But for the guns we might allow in my fantasy of a US with sane gun laws, every gun owner should be required to take both a safety course and general training course, and complete a practical skills exam before being licensed (yes, licensed) to own a firearm. That training should have to be repeated (perhaps an abbreviated version) at some reasonable interval, such as every year or two. Regarding your nitpicking of what "assault" means, that's irrelevant. But to discuss it anyway: "assault weapon" has not become an umbrella for any semi-auto weapon. Semi-auto pistols, for example, are not what people are talking about when they want "assault" weapons banned. For people who don't really know much about guns, "assault weapon" means "a type of gun that someone in the military on a TV show or movie might have slung across their chest". An imprecise definition, to be sure, but in general I'd agree that no random civilian has any need for such a weapon. And any civilian who believes they have an actual need for such a weapon probably should not be trusted with one. I do know people who own some of these types of guns. They're responsible, train, and treat the weapons with the respect and care they are due. But I still don't think they should have them.

canadianfella 2y ago

[dead]

tqi 2y ago

"This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous" What are the dangers?

9dev 2y ago
Chilling effects, for example. Children know they are under permanent surveillance, and will act accordingly - like not doing something in anticipation of admonition. The parents on the other hand have an always-available magic mirror to show them what their children are doing. Depending on your desire for control, this may very easily lead to checking in ever-shorter time intervals.
dlivingston 2y ago
Jonathan Haidt explains it best: https://youtu.be/hVEhtix7yWU https://youtu.be/hVEhtix7yWU
- tqi 2y ago
  Pop psychology has not exactly had a great track record, and I don't see why we should give credence to Haidt just because his "research" aligns with our priors...
  - dlivingston 2y ago
    A few things: He's a psychologist proper at NYU, not some random journalist. Psychology as a whole has suffered a reputational crisis. You should listen to his claims and evaluate them independently, since they directly address your request for evidence. Finally, the knocking of "pop science" books really grinds my gears. They are not inherently bad just because they are geared for a mass market. Technical subjects have layers of depth, and there is value in a high-level overview of some field.
    - tqi 2y ago
      > He's a psychologist proper at NYU, not some random journalist. > Psychology as a whole has suffered a reputational crisis. Given the latter I don't see how the former makes his claims more credible? > You should listen to his claims and evaluate them independently, since they directly address your request for evidence. I am familiar with his work, and find the quality of his evidence indistinguishable for the myriad of other pop psych just-so-stories that this forum generally shits on. > Finally, the knocking of "pop science" books really grinds my gears. They are not inherently bad just because they are geared for a mass market. Technical subjects have layers of depth, and there is value in a high-level overview of some field. To be clear, I knocked "Pop psychology" not "pop science". Most pop science books are distillations of research for mass audiences. Most "Pop psychology" books are philosophy disguised as science. EDIT: And to be clear, I have no reason to be particularly skeptical of Haidt. I just think that the incentives for a psychologist who is writing for a mass audience lead them to choose the most simple and attention grabbing narrative possible, and map any evidence they can find back to that narrative and disregard the rest.

faeriechangling 2y ago

I was about 3 years ahead of my peers in spatial reasoning and behind them socially. When I was a kid leaving me alone meant I was likely to wander long distances end up in a pool and drown. If anything I see this as enabling parents to keep their kids on a longer leash so to speak.

locococo 2y ago
this is exactly the case. Kids gain more freedom not less
kelnos 2y ago
So... how is a GPS-tracker watch going to save you from drowning? It's not like your parents are going to be able to cover that distance quickly enough to save you.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  Finding me faster

tonetegeatinst 2y ago

Wouldn't this be a COPA violation?

GuB-42 2y ago

But it can be seen the other way. Tracking can give kids more freedom, because you can let them roam where they could get lost. For example, you can take them on vacation in a safe but unfamiliar place and let them do as they want. If they get lost, just use the tracker to find them. You don't even need to go for them immediately, you can let them try to figure it out by themselves and only go if it becomes really problematic. What would have been an unacceptable risk without a tracker becomes possible. When I was a kid, my parents would have given a lot for such a tracker as I had the uncanny ability to lose them in the most remote places. highlights include central London (not my country, didn't speak English) and in a forest on a mountain with a thunderstorm approaching. I survived, but maybe a tracker could have saved my parents some sanity, they still talk to me about it, more than 30 years later.

godelski 2y ago
As a kid my parents put me in Boy Scouts. Guess what was a frequent occurrence? Sending pairs of kids out to go do tasks like collecting firewood. Every once in awhile kids would get "lost" (not know where they are but not actually far away or in any reasonable danger). This even happened to me more than once. But being lost and figuring it out was necessary to learn the skills of how to navigate. today I have a very good sense of direction and this is not common among my peers. I think while this sounds like a good idea, it actually hinders the learning process. Struggling is necessary in the learning experience, but you just don't want too much struggle (there's a balance). I think if your kids are old enough that you're comfortable letting them navigate an area on their own, they are old enough to "fend for themselves" in this way. Just make sure they have your phone number and know the name of the hotel or some clear landmark (even in a foreign land you can often stumble about your confusion and say a landmark and people will be able to give you directions. Most of the time). I think it is better for both the kids and parents. Kids need to learn independence, parents need to learn to trust their kids and that they can be independent (that is the goal after all, right?). I know it is hard as a parent but that is something that needs to be learned too, for the betterment of kids.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  Boy scouts can afford to lose kids because there is a group of people who know the place very well and are trained to deal with such a situation. Which is I think not only common but expected. A tracker can reproduce this experience without the help of an boy scout camp. It is just about how the tracker is used. It can be used for constant, intrusive monitoring, or it can be used for emergencies only. It is just a tool, it also doesn't have to be used 24/7.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

What is the danger of having an information source available to you, versus not having one available to you? Are you imagining a scenario where, maybe, a kid is walking by a house, but the tracking shows the kid IN the house. And then the parent who is watching every minute of their 10 year old's walk down the street takes their gun and kills the "pedos" and tries to rescue their kids? Maybe that seems hyperbolic, but I really cannot imagine how this is dangerous. Or is it the idea that parents will let their kids do more dangerous stuff since they think if they can track them, then it's okay?

dbish 2y ago
Would you want to be tracked 24/7? Your argument is basically the nothing to hide fallacy

dotBen 2y ago

No, cars didn't have seat belts for a long time - generations of people drove without them. When they introduced them a lot of people complained. Now you would have to be an idiot to argue against seat belts. "Kids" is a very broad term - I don't think tracking older teenagers is appropriate but tracking a toddler (prob too young for this) through to teens is perfectly reasonable. Many people track their partners, family, etc via Apple and Google sharing locations. It's not that kids need less tech, it's that they need less screen time. Arguably this watch isn't screen time.

khazhoux 2y ago

> This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. This topic is always so alarmist. I have kids and a spouse. We all have Find My and Location Sharing on our phones. I don't FrEaK oUt that my kids are going to die if I'm not tracking their every movement. But it's nice to glance at Find My app and see if the kids are still hanging out at Starbucks or they got to school on time. It's convenient to see which corner of the park they're at when I need to go pick them up. I can see if my wife's still at Whole Foods and send her a message to pick up baru nuts. They can see if I'm still at work or headed home. This idea of helicopter parents vs free-range glory is a false dichotomy.

jagged-chisel 2y ago
I think the important part is whether the children are affected by the tracking. Is it a big deal if they don’t have service and you can’t Find them for a couple hours? Mine are grown now, but I’ve always told them: I’m not worried about where you are, I want to know where to go when something happens and you need a rescue. I want them to have the peace of mind that, if needed, the safety net is within reach. When I was a teen, my parents were in reach if I was in reach of a [wired] phone, but I didn’t always know how to tell them where I was at that moment. Providing a safety net while allowing freedom boosts self confidence.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  > I think the important part is whether the children are affected by the tracking I have no reason to think they're impacted by me knowing where they are. They're confident, run around for hours, and are growing up just fine. So what if their parents can look up their location... big deal. Pushing the alarmist argument, though: should I just take away their cell phones, to give them the same experience I had growing up? I didn't ever have even a dime for a phone booth.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > I didn't ever have even a dime for a phone booth. Neither did I, but I knew how to place a collect call and my mom knew that if she got a collect call while I was away it was most likely me.

demosthanos 2y ago

I agree with you in principle, but in practice the number of parents who let their kids do things independently is vanishingly small, and the absence of other parents who let their kids roam is a real danger to those of us who do. If a smart watch makes more parents comfortable letting their pre-teen kids outside of the house alone, that's a net win for everyone over the status quo where those kids are physically chaperoned 24/7.

gehwartzen 2y ago

I grew up pretty unsupervised to run round town since I was around 7 or 8 growing up and definitely want the same for my son. He's 8 now and I got him an apple watch as I don't want him to have a large screen to distract him from the world but still be able to call/text his friends or get in touch w us in an emergency. I do not ever monitor his location (and told him as much) unless he reaches out to me and allows me to for help. As with all things it's a tool and will depend on how the parents use it. If I break his trust by spying on him, well, thats on me and of course a rather difficult one to rebuild. I also told him if he ever wants to turn off location services we can do that but he's okey with it for now.

cwalv 2y ago

I'm completely dependent on my phone to remind me of when it's time for a meeting, or sometimes even the route to get back home when I drove to the present location. I once thought I should try harder to deal without these things. But where does it end? Should I shun electricity? I agree that should work to push the boundaries of what's comfortable/safe, but being disgusted at the idea of a kids wearing a smartwatch seems like an arbitrary point to draw the line, and even a bit hypocritical.

partiallypro 2y ago

Seems to me that such devices could actually help give kids -more- freedom. Let's not act like kids are outside playing like they were in the 80s/90s. Helicopter parents sort of ruined that (along with neighborhoods no longer being bikeable/walkable.) So, this kinda seems like a device that could give kids a longer leash. Parents can know they are safe/where they are while also giving the kid more freedom to just be a kid.

hgomersall 2y ago
Except it doesn't in any way deal with the actual real danger in our neighbourhoods, the one that keeps me awake at night, of cars.
- partiallypro 2y ago
  I agree with you that unwalkable neighborhoods are a concern, but they aren't the -only- concern.
kelnos 2y ago
If true, that's sad, because it just further exposes the irrationality of these sorts of parents. This sort of tracking is not going to save the kid from being kidnapped or getting hit by a car. A little pulsing blue dot on a map does not tell the parent that the kid is safe.

pard68 2y ago

My sister is in her twenties. About the time she was in high school these tracking apps became available. My mother used it to keep an eye on her. Fast forward almost a decade, she freaks out if my mother isn't checking in on her now. It's quite disgusting. I am glad to be about 10 years older and have entirely missed this plague.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

Watch out for HN commenters who cannot distinguish between the idea of (a) a wrist watch that allows parents to track their children with no obligation to share this information with anyone, and (b) a wrist watch than allows Google to track and collect data on peoples' children and share some but not all of the data with the childrens' parents.

pavelstoev 2y ago

I strongly disagree with your comment. First of all, ALL kids must survive, not most. Safety and safety of knowing are two different things. Lastly, this tech looks a lot less intrusive than the current another watch that everyone is getting for their kids — this one appears to have more activity-engaging features.

kelnos 2y ago
> First of all, ALL kids must survive, not most. I don't think anyone would really want to live in a world where we've done what's necessary such that literally all kids survive the various accidents and perils they might face out in the world. Such a world would be sanitized into oblivion. This is just a variation on the "security vs. freedom" stuff. You can have perfect security if you don't allow for any freedom. But hopefully we can agree that a world with no freedom isn't one we want to live in. But sure, let's step back from the extreme that you introduced. Are the downsides of pervasive 24/7 tracking and surveillance worth the (possible and as-yet unproven) increase in good outcomes? I can see that many people here seem to think it is, but I don't agree.

aceazzameen 2y ago

I hate this. I have kids and many of their friends have Verizon watches where their parents can track their kids. My wife and I are not a fan of the constant tracking. Our kids go out and play and come back for regular check-ins if they're out for a while. I know where they are without knowing exactly where they are. Normally I'd be fine if some parents want to know their own kids every move, but now I'm afraid we're raising a new generation that is used to having zero privacy. This won't be good.

colechristensen 2y ago

Basically every person i know in their mid-20s has a small group of people they have always on location sharing with. Usually a partner, a couple of close friends, and a parent or two. They don’t see it as any sort of problem to share this information. I get the tech focused millennial paranoia about this but when it gets down to it you have nothing to fear if the people you share that with actually respect you and your privacy.

dbish 2y ago
This is a great example that’s actually not a good thing. The lack of paranoia is going to allow many others to track you for their own purposes like companies and governments and just allow privacy erosion to happen passively. “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” os pretty similar to “you have nothing to fear if someone else chooses not to look”
kelnos 2y ago
And the reason this is the case is because pervasive tracking and privacy invasion has become normalized during the formative years of these people's lives. It's not just sad, but actively scary.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  My mom and best friend knowing where I am is not scary. What exactly am I supposed to be afraid of?

potterken 2y ago

[dead]

aiauthoritydev 2y ago

I subscribe to the "Taking Children Seriously" movement. My position is that there is no reason to track kids 100% of the times, however if the kids do not mind, I do not see why this can be a good watch.

rapnie 2y ago

> Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. I agree with your entire comment. And apart from the parents that feel they need to watch their kids every move, what always astounds me is how little consideration is given to exactly what tech they slap around their kids' wrist. "Oh, look it is Google, our familiar cozy uncle, so all is hunky-dory". No, it is not! Google is an advertisement company. The biggest on the planet. Ads are their raison d'etre, core business. And learning as much as possible from your kid at the youngest age is part of their business model. Not to protect them, but to turn them into mindless consumers that click the most ads. And to use all that juicy data about your kids life in any other shady way they can think of, where some cold hard cash may end up on their balance sheet. It is ridiculous.

aceazzameen 2y ago
This is exactly how I see it. And when kids grow up having their whole life being tracked, they'll have no problem as adults when Uncle Google or some other entity knows everything about them 24/7. To be fair, Google's already achieved that with most adults.

mklepaczewski 2y ago

> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. Did they? The problem with this sort of claim is that it often turns out to be false. "We didn't have X and somehow we survived" often omits the fact that mortality in given demographics has dropped significantly since then. The people making this statement are survivors, and the ones who haven't survived don't speak up. Can someone back up this claim with data? My (very) quick search brought up only infant mortality rates.

iiio8 2y ago
The proof obligation is the other way around. You need to show that constant surveillance actually makes a difference, on a population level. Otherwise your claim is the empty one.
- mklepaczewski 2y ago
  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Injury-death-rates-for-children-and-adolescents-aged-10-19-years-by-intent-United_fig1_325550092 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Injury-death-rates-for-c... Unfortunately, I only had time to do a quick search, but it shows that mortality has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. I imagine it was only higher 40-60 years ago. This doesn't prove that more surveillance brings mortality down, but it shows that the "we survived just fine" argument is shaky at best. I think parental supervision correlates with the survivability of offspring in general, not only in the human species. Also, the more present and engaged parents are, the better the children are. This is supported by research on children raised by single parents, parents working multiple jobs and shifts.
  - iiio8 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mklepaczewski 2y ago
      I was referring to the claim that "we haven't had X and we survived" in general. I wasn't trying to prove that higher levels of surveillance increase survivability. However, yes, that argument makes sense to me. It may mess up kids in other ways, but my gut feeling is that it does decrease child's chances of dying.

sebtron 2y ago

I am wondering if we are raising a generation of people find it completely normal to be tracked all the time. How can we complain when our governmets do the same to us?

iiio8 2y ago
I wonder that too, but I think you are at least one generation too late with this. Your average phone already tracks where you go, with whom you interact, what you search for online. It asks you "how was this restaurant?" and reminds you what you did last year at this time. There is a miniscule minority of folks who care and disable as much of that as they can, but the vast majority doesn't know how and doesn't care. I even know lots of people who work in the industry and just don't bother disabling any of this because they claim it's all unavoidable anyway, and they are probably right. Oh and they had that attitude already 10-15 years ago. So, this is already a thing if the past. And we are at a point were even if your devices are not tracking you then everything around you is. Each Tesla parked on the roadside films you when you walk by. Each phone close by tracks that your phone is close by. And nobody cares. Heck, people argue it's for the better, imagine somebody getting raped, so good we have lots of cameras close by to find the bad guy! As if society is any safer for it than 30 years ago
- loteck 2y ago
  Sorry but this is just fatalistic nonsense. A generation ago people did not have anything like the current evolution of surveillance technology. The small number of people who care about ubiquitous surveillance right now are early adopters, not a dying breed.

hatsix 2y ago

Please explain how you think it's dangerous. I asked my boomer mother about whether she'd have liked to have had a gps on me when I was a kid in the 80s. She said she would have loved it. she worked until 5 and there was no "after school care" in our small town... she kept our pantry full of chips and soda and our video games new so that we'd be home when she got home, rather than out somewhere else with our friends. To her, the lack of near constant panic attacks would be a godsend, and she wouldn't have felt so bad about using video games as childcare. As a parent, my concern isn't about my kid being abducted... an air tag in their pocket would be more discreet. It's about letting them explore with a safety net. Go for longer bike rides, knowing that if it gets too dark, I can pick them up... that's not risk averse. The level of risk for every generation has been dramatically lower since the 1920s. Both of my parents lost an older sibling... loss happened at the family level in the 50s. in the 80s, I maybe had one or two kids in my class that had experienced loss... a tractor accident or gun accident... but now there's been one child that died in the past three years at my son's school. Risk had bigger consequences 60 years ago. Our kids are better off for it.

dbish 2y ago
It teaches the wrong thing to both parent and child. Parent gets hooked on surveillance rather than trusting their kid to be independent. The “safety net” is actually a mental crutch imho. Child thinks 24/7 surveillance is ok or resents their parent as they get older since they are always being watched. Not to mention that tracking is unlikely to really save a kid in a life or death situation that is any reasonable level of risk (like a car accident).

gotski 2y ago

I'm currently waiting for my kid to arrive on a bus that may or may not be running late. With regards to tracking, it would be really handy to be able to check their location to get a sense of how long I'll be waiting (and how late I'll be for my next appointment). I mean, reliable public transport and a good bus tracker app would be better, but probably not realistic in my city.

kelnos 2y ago
You could just call or text to ask the kid, rather than require that they submit to 24/7 real-time surveillance. "Really handy" doesn't seem to justify that.

crucialfelix 2y ago

One of my favorite Black Mirror episodes, Directed by Jodie Foster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) > Arkangel, an implanted technology which allows Marie to track Sara's location, current vision and hearing

lawgimenez 2y ago

My kid is non verbal with autism, this would be great for parents who has kids with special needs. Maybe you should try to be open minded perhaps.

kelnos 2y ago
Maybe you shouldn't assume that GP is talking about niche cases such as your example, but is instead talking about the kind of helicopter parent that would love something like this. Maybe assume the more charitable explanation that nearly everyone knows that pretty much every "rule" has exceptions, and nothing is absolute.

silisili 2y ago

Absolutely agreed. Google is by far the worst offender in my house, so I've blocked it completely outside of search and email. But those are next. YouTube is where the real sinister stuff lay. I walked in one day to see my kid watching childish cartoons, but talking about abortion, child death, foster homes and divorce, etc. And not in like an educational way, but in a 'mommy doesn't love daddy anymore so got an abortion and now is going to send me to a foster home.' Obviously I was mortified and angry, and asked why she searched this weird shit and she said it was recommended so just watched it. And she was right, it was recommended. It's completely full of garbage topics pretending to be child stuff. There's even one huge channel that appears to be Russian softcore porn making dubbed child content. Sorry for the rant, but do not trust your children to Google or any other big tech company.

flurdy 2y ago

Totally agree. Then at the same time, we have put Airtags in their school bags... (with their consent)

robertlagrant 2y ago

> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. They did. Generations also survived without a polio vaccine. This isn't an argument. > But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively affecting their development I see it the other way round. My kid's a bit too young to go off on his own or with friends, but it's not far off. If anything I'd say a watch like this makes me think he can go off younger than without it. The main problem is it's a Google watch, so I don't know how long it'll work for. And I don't care about games or payments; just a simple phone call/SMS service (locked down to certain contacts) with GPS pings I can see on my phone. And push to talk with friends would be cool, and probably send it viral.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]