6 ms·

I suspect they don't really; once you give a teen a smartphone your control over what websites they visit ends. (you will reply "don't do that then") But also

• Emanation 5mo ago
  So does grounding a kid, so I guess parents shouldn't do that either unless all parents collectively agree to ground their children.
  • jraph 5mo ago
    That's not remotely comparable. Grounding is very temporary. (not arguing in favor of social media, I'm pretty much against them, but I'm quite interested in how to deal with their existence)
  • Dylan16807 5mo ago
    Are you arguing that if something is fine as a deliberate punishment it's fine full-time? If that's not your point I can't figure it out.
• goodcanadian 5mo ago
  Also, it is arguably dangerous to not let your teen have a phone in a time when payphones (and to a great extent landlines) no longer exist.
  • bluGill 5mo ago
    Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone. I don't want my kids to be someplace where there are not some responsible adults around (drunk adults are not responsible) Note that I agree with your point overall. My kids have phones for times when they are away and might need to contact me. I'm just saying it isn't as bad as it sounds.
    • onion2k 5mo ago
      Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone. This isn't very compatible with also teaching children that they can't trust the majority of adults, and that every stranger is a potential danger.
      • rel_ic 5mo ago
        Good point - folks should stop teaching them that. If your kid is really in a sea of dangerous adults their phone won't save them anyway.
      • subscribed 5mo ago
        That trope is pretty dangerous in itself (there WILL be time they have to rely on the unrelated adult), and I'm pretty adamant on teaching my kids that the vast majority of adults can be trusted, instead trying to instill Tricky People in them: https://fitzroyelc.com.au/the-tricky-people-lesson-you-need-to-teach-your-kids/ https://fitzroyelc.com.au/the-tricky-people-lesson-you-need-...
        • bluGill 5mo ago
          Thanks for that, it is a much better idea/link than the common stranger danger. It also matches better to what other groups (schools, scouts) that I know of are teaching kids.
    • szszrk 5mo ago
      > Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone. that's not even true for adults. Why would you assume it's true for kids?
      • bluGill 5mo ago
        It is close enough to true where I live anyway. I don't know your situation.
      • 5mo ago
  • akramachamarei 5mo ago
    Dumbphones are still a thing
    • tombot 5mo ago
      I really don’t know why there isn’t a brand that’s capitalising on this. Messaging, calls, maps, notes but no way to take or view images. Marketed simply from a global brand.
      • delusional 5mo ago
        Because of the ostracization problem. Kids are ruthless, and failure to conform is swiftly punished.
        • smelendez 5mo ago
          Images are also a huge part of messaging. For memes obviously, but also other communication (here’s the flyer for the event, look what the teacher wrote on my exam, should I get this gift for mom, look what my significant other sent me — what do you think I should say?), etc.
        • esseph 5mo ago
          > Because of the ostracization problem. Kids are ruthless, and failure to conform is swiftly punished. Shocker, but those are probably not the people you are going to give a shit about after you leave school.
          • wizzwizz4 5mo ago
            Shocker, but a lot of psychological damage can be done before you leave school. Do children really not have value, except as far as they become adults?
            • esseph 5mo ago
              > Do children really not have value, except as far as they become adults? Of course they do, which is why any sane (imo) parent wouldn't let their child on social media to begin with. Basically feeding your child's developing brain into the dopamine farm, along with the "it's on the internet forever" tax. Social media is a cancer, not some bizare tool for their social or economic wellbeing or general happiness.
  • CivBase 5mo ago
    Payphones were mostly extinct even when I was a kid. I didn't have a cellphone either and smartphones didn't exist yet, except for the extremely rare Blackberry. But it wsn't a problem because basically every establishment around me had a landline phone I could use in an emergency. Now even landlines are extinct because just about everyone has their own phone on them at all times. Phones are easier to come by now more than ever. Kids have never been safer, even without their own phones.
    • technothrasher 5mo ago
      Even when I was teen back in the 1980s while payphones were still going strong, they weren't everywhere you wanted them to be. My mother had a standing rule that if I was going to be out past 10pm, I had to call her to let her know. Depending upon where I was, it was often a pain to find a payphone before 10pm so I didn't get in trouble. If I had an emergency, it wasn't at all guaranteed I'd be near enough to a payphone for it to be helpful.
• RandallBrown 5mo ago
  > once you give a teen a smartphone your control over what websites they visit ends. Isn't it pretty easy to set up a whitelist of apps/websites kids are allowed to use? Whether or not that's a healthy thing for your parent/child relationship is a different question.
  • vlovich123 5mo ago
    > But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them. The parents recognize it's a collective action problem. OP already gave you your answer, you just chose to ignore it
  • edoceo 5mo ago
    Not easy. Kids can bypass very easy. Like those security-theatre apps companies use - but crappier. Then, once on a site/app like Instagram or Roblox it's a whole other layer of whitelist to manage (if possible). It's simpler to take the phone away. And iPad. And stop hanging out with your friends that have it. Phone management is hard to solve for pre-teen and teens. It's like taking heroin away from an addict. They hate you for helping.
  • larrik 5mo ago
    on iOS this is basically impossible
    • mwigdahl 5mo ago
      Using the built-in Screen Time tools, yes. Qustodio works pretty well though as an add-on product. Not perfect UX, not perfect functionality, but it's the best I've found.
      • larrik 5mo ago
        I also use Qustodio, and it has some pretty major rough spots, imo. ScreenTime does as well. They are both very bad at things like my kids listening to Spotify with the screen off. Qustodio also has no way to mark an app as "allowed even when they run out of time", or "this app doesn't count towards screen time" (like Spotify, for example). Then on the PC it gets MUCH worse. I want tracking and blocking on my PCs for my kids' profiles, but if ONE kid runs out of time, ALL the PCs lock everyone out. No message, either. Just bounced to the login screen. Took me like a whole day to figure it out.
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• everdrive 5mo ago
  Quite a twist, no? This generations of parents are telling their children "Well all your friends are jumping off a bridge, so you need to as well."
  • rayiner 5mo ago
    The generations of parents who came up with the original bridge hypothetical also worked to have the government ban alcohol and cigarette sales to minors.
    • mothballed 5mo ago
      You can order cigars, loose tobacco and rolling papers, and wine straight to your house without any ID check, all completely legal. I did it as a minor and you can still do it today (well today you can also add "CBD" on to that list). The truth is there is no meaningful controls on teenage minors getting access to tobacco and alcohol. The limitations used are just window dressing for Karen to pretend like the government is doing something.
      • nativeit 5mo ago
        They should (and frequently do) require ID for delivery. The postal carrier will literally check ID before delivering the package. It costs about $8 extra. Any company that’s not using these services is exposed to some dire consequences if/when ATF comes knocking.
        • mothballed 5mo ago
          In practice USPS carriers everywhere I've lived completely ignore the check and drop it straight in the box. Good luck getting the government to prosecute themselves, particularly when ATF needs USPS for investigations against private individuals. And AFAIK, since the carrier requested to check the ID has no idea what's actually in the package, there's no mens rea to even prosecute them. It's a legal loophole where the seller requests the check but the person delivering it has no binding liability to do so and they simply will not because it takes extra time. The economics practically guarantee the check won't be performed and the interface mechanics of carrier-seller means there's no practical way to prosecute either party when the carrier doesn't perform a requested ID check.
• thinkingtoilet 5mo ago
  Don't do it then. :) It's not hard. If they need to be contacted get them a dumb phone. And yes, my kids will miss out. They will miss out on their attention span being destroyed, their ability to critically think destroyed, body issues, radicalization, horrible influences, etc... My children will miss out on all that and I'm very glad that will be the case. I'm not sure why other parents are rushing to destroy their kids brains but that's their choice.
  • dghlsakjg 5mo ago
    Or they’ll be mildly resourceful and pickup a cheap Walmart phone, or a friend’s old phone and learn that they can’t be open with you. I ran a summer camp for teenagers. They know how to get around that stuff if they want. They know how to hide it from their parents to keep access. You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy. Below a certain age I’m sure it works for a time, but you will eventually have to find a balance. That’s why parents want bans. Their kids are going to go where the other kids are. If they are all banned on instagram, they won’t care about finding a way onto a platform where none of their friends are.
    • thinkingtoilet 5mo ago
      This is always the response. I'm not an idiot. I understand kids will do things to break the rules. The point is, it won't be something they have access to constantly. If they see a phone at a friend's house that's fine. >You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy. Yes. And the healthy decision is to not have a phone. That's like saying I should let my kid eat ice cream for dinner every night but talk to them about how it's better to eat healthy. I'm a parent. It's my job to make some decisions for my children.
      • dghlsakjg 5mo ago
        It sounds like you have a plan! Best of luck. Sucks that we’re stuck as parents running an experiment on children where the only beneficiaries are corporations, and there is no correct answer.
• esseph 5mo ago
  > But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them. 2 of my 3 have never touched social media are are healthy, functioning adults with jobs and friends. FOMO chasing Jones family bullshit.
• AnonymousPlanet 5mo ago
  Maybe legally banning minors from smartphones instead of from arbitrary websites is the better idea.