6 ms·

There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo

by rapind 1y ago

There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost. This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. When left up to the parents individually it's an absolute disaster. These are just some specific examples of where I the nanny state can be beneficial. For most things in general though I'd also prefer people govern themselves (and their kids) whenever possible.

Terr_ 1y ago
> This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. Agreed on the classroom angle, there are many reasons (e.g. cheating, concentration) to treat the availability of devices in a uniform way there. > If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids A focus on the handheld device also makes it easier to handle other related concerns that can't really be solved any other way, like "no social-media after bedtime."
iteria 1y ago
So does being vegetarian or vegan. So does being not the dominant culture in any aspect of life. That's a decision for parents to make and honestly "they'll be left out" is such a crap parenting take. Especially since it's a bunch of parents together who don't want their kid to have access thinking this together. If they actually talked to each each or just made a stand so people could see, we wouldn't even have this so called social cost. I'm seeing this as a parent in real time. I'm actually changing my kid's friend's parent behaviors by simply being like, "Cool. But my kid isn't/is going to do that" I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it.
- rapind 1y ago
  > I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it. It's always been the case. We've just become so individualistic, at least in some western cultures, that we rail against it. There's even an old saying "It takes a village to raise a child".
- redczar 1y ago
  Your points only make sense in the absence of bad and/neglectful parents. For many decades it was required to prove age in order to consume porn. Porn on the internet ought to have the same requirement. I don’t know the best way to implement it but since the industry isn’t trying to find a solution then government should impose one.
  - RHSeeger 1y ago
    Then the government should come up with a good way to prove age that does not negatively impact privacy. It shouldn't be possible for "who is viewing what porn (or other thing)" to be accidentally leaked; because it should be possible to not store the "who" part.
    - redczar 1y ago
      Such a proof does not exist. It is already the case that your porn viewing habits can be leaked. It’s just that at present the one storing the information is not the government.
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        Can they? It seems highly unlikely to me that most web site operators are colluding with my VPN provider to unmask me. (Yes fingerprinting is a huge issue but the implications of that get fairly complicated.)
        redczar 1y ago
        Years ago Google released anonymized browsing data to researchers. The researchers were able to determine who did the searches. I imagine a state actor can already determine almost everyone’s online activity.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        There's definitely some critical information missing there. I don't think you could individually identify me if all you had to go on was the text and timestamp of the searches I made within the past 24 hours. At least yesterday I didn't even look up any local businesses on maps. State actor and porn site operator are two very different things. Pointing to the former in this context reads like a non sequitur to me.
RHSeeger 1y ago
It's important to teach our children that different people have different restrictions. Some of my daughter's friends have no phone. One of them has no phone, but does have a tablet. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are ostracized by the group. I mean, I've seen them hanging out at our house and other places.
- shortrounddev2 1y ago
  Just curious, how old are they? I'm planning on having kids and I'm afraid of how to answer the smart phone question. I imagine that it could start to be an issue by 12 or 13
  - viraptor 1y ago
    Not even close. Some peers will have effectively their phone at 6 or lower. https://www.waituntil8th.org/ https://www.waituntil8th.org/ tries to promote delaying till 8yo. It may start being an issue as soon as they get to primary school.
    - nkohari 1y ago
      The website you linked encourages waiting until 8th grade (ie. about 14 years old), not 8 years old.
      - viraptor 1y ago
        That's what I get for posting while tired...
  - RHSeeger 1y ago
    My daughter is 13 and has a phone for a number of years, and she got it later than some friends, earlier than others. I know that's not a lot of info, but it gives you some idea of the range _I_ saw.
- rapind 1y ago
  > To the best of my knowledge, none of them are ostracized by the group. Yes, in my experience it isn't as severe as "Ostracized", but definitely a bit "left out" occasionally, especially when friends are all doing "snap streaks" and swap BFFs (as they do) etc. So at least in my area, a girl at 12+ will miss out on some social peer activities if she does not have a phone. End of the world? Probably not, but I guess it depends on your community's local culture. Also, the valley probably isn't a great baseline for comparison. I'm not recommending anything. I just think we tend to ignore the nuance.
lupusreal 1y ago
> This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. This was the absolute norm in the 00s when cellphones became common and cheap enough for teens to often have one. If you were seen with a phone out it would be confiscated. At some point schools apparently just gave up and only a few are starting to rediscover the policy as though it's a novel idea. What the fuck happened? When exactly did this transition happen?
- bc569a80a344f9c 1y ago
  > When exactly did this transition happen? In the late 2000s, as a response to a parental demand for communication and safety following high-profile school emergencies, especially school shootings.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Crazy. Compromising the quality of education for everybody every school day so that on rare occasions a very small number of students might be able to call their parents (who will be powerless to help over the phone.)
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      Yea I’m a parent and “what if there’s an emergency” is one of the silliest excuses to allow students to have phones. If there’s an emergency, the school is already going to have called the police. What the hell am I going to do if my kid calls me? I’ll tell her to hang up the phone and follow whatever emergency procedure they have.
anon84873628 1y ago
In other words it is a multi-agent coordination problem from game theory. You can have an outside force change the rules, or you can figure out how to collaborate/compete within the game.

by rapind 1y ago

Terr_ 1y ago

> This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. Agreed on the classroom angle, there are many reasons (e.g. cheating, concentration) to treat the availability of devices in a uniform way there. > If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids A focus on the handheld device also makes it easier to handle other related concerns that can't really be solved any other way, like "no social-media after bedtime."

iteria 1y ago

So does being vegetarian or vegan. So does being not the dominant culture in any aspect of life. That's a decision for parents to make and honestly "they'll be left out" is such a crap parenting take. Especially since it's a bunch of parents together who don't want their kid to have access thinking this together. If they actually talked to each each or just made a stand so people could see, we wouldn't even have this so called social cost. I'm seeing this as a parent in real time. I'm actually changing my kid's friend's parent behaviors by simply being like, "Cool. But my kid isn't/is going to do that" I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it.

rapind 1y ago
> I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it. It's always been the case. We've just become so individualistic, at least in some western cultures, that we rail against it. There's even an old saying "It takes a village to raise a child".
redczar 1y ago
Your points only make sense in the absence of bad and/neglectful parents. For many decades it was required to prove age in order to consume porn. Porn on the internet ought to have the same requirement. I don’t know the best way to implement it but since the industry isn’t trying to find a solution then government should impose one.
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  Then the government should come up with a good way to prove age that does not negatively impact privacy. It shouldn't be possible for "who is viewing what porn (or other thing)" to be accidentally leaked; because it should be possible to not store the "who" part.
  - redczar 1y ago
    Such a proof does not exist. It is already the case that your porn viewing habits can be leaked. It’s just that at present the one storing the information is not the government.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Can they? It seems highly unlikely to me that most web site operators are colluding with my VPN provider to unmask me. (Yes fingerprinting is a huge issue but the implications of that get fairly complicated.)
      - redczar 1y ago
        Years ago Google released anonymized browsing data to researchers. The researchers were able to determine who did the searches. I imagine a state actor can already determine almost everyone’s online activity.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        There's definitely some critical information missing there. I don't think you could individually identify me if all you had to go on was the text and timestamp of the searches I made within the past 24 hours. At least yesterday I didn't even look up any local businesses on maps. State actor and porn site operator are two very different things. Pointing to the former in this context reads like a non sequitur to me.

RHSeeger 1y ago

It's important to teach our children that different people have different restrictions. Some of my daughter's friends have no phone. One of them has no phone, but does have a tablet. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are ostracized by the group. I mean, I've seen them hanging out at our house and other places.

shortrounddev2 1y ago
Just curious, how old are they? I'm planning on having kids and I'm afraid of how to answer the smart phone question. I imagine that it could start to be an issue by 12 or 13
- viraptor 1y ago
  Not even close. Some peers will have effectively their phone at 6 or lower. https://www.waituntil8th.org/ https://www.waituntil8th.org/ tries to promote delaying till 8yo. It may start being an issue as soon as they get to primary school.
  - nkohari 1y ago
    The website you linked encourages waiting until 8th grade (ie. about 14 years old), not 8 years old.
    - viraptor 1y ago
      That's what I get for posting while tired...
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  My daughter is 13 and has a phone for a number of years, and she got it later than some friends, earlier than others. I know that's not a lot of info, but it gives you some idea of the range _I_ saw.
rapind 1y ago
> To the best of my knowledge, none of them are ostracized by the group. Yes, in my experience it isn't as severe as "Ostracized", but definitely a bit "left out" occasionally, especially when friends are all doing "snap streaks" and swap BFFs (as they do) etc. So at least in my area, a girl at 12+ will miss out on some social peer activities if she does not have a phone. End of the world? Probably not, but I guess it depends on your community's local culture. Also, the valley probably isn't a great baseline for comparison. I'm not recommending anything. I just think we tend to ignore the nuance.

lupusreal 1y ago

> This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. This was the absolute norm in the 00s when cellphones became common and cheap enough for teens to often have one. If you were seen with a phone out it would be confiscated. At some point schools apparently just gave up and only a few are starting to rediscover the policy as though it's a novel idea. What the fuck happened? When exactly did this transition happen?

bc569a80a344f9c 1y ago
> When exactly did this transition happen? In the late 2000s, as a response to a parental demand for communication and safety following high-profile school emergencies, especially school shootings.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Crazy. Compromising the quality of education for everybody every school day so that on rare occasions a very small number of students might be able to call their parents (who will be powerless to help over the phone.)
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Yea I’m a parent and “what if there’s an emergency” is one of the silliest excuses to allow students to have phones. If there’s an emergency, the school is already going to have called the police. What the hell am I going to do if my kid calls me? I’ll tell her to hang up the phone and follow whatever emergency procedure they have.

anon84873628 1y ago

In other words it is a multi-agent coordination problem from game theory. You can have an outside force change the rules, or you can figure out how to collaborate/compete within the game.