To wholeheartedly agree with Brianna Ghey’s mother

[Moonpig82]

I spotted this article this morning. We personally do not allow Tik Tok, Insta, Facebook, Snapchat. For our eldest who has just got a phone when starting Year 7. However we have succumbed to whatsapp.

What are people’s thoughts? How can we ‘police’ our children’s phones?

Or AIBU and there is no policing for social media? I know my Year 7 child’s friends do have these apps. Not all of them though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68193103

I don't think it's possible. Pandora's box has been opened. The genie is out the bottle. It's so sad and I wish it wasn't like this.

I dont know the answer because while I do think this, I also know its completely unrealistic unless the whole country goes back to giving kids brick phones. Anyone that suggests this is almost suggesting child abuse.

I think open access to the internet has been incredibly damaging to children, we're not safeguarding their emotional development.

Kids are being exposed to dangerous sexual and violent representations in two ways, either they are looking it up themselves or they're accosted/bullied/shown it by other kids and exposed that way.

I deeply sympathise with her but I don't think that is possible

Why isn’t it possible though? If every child was not allowed the apps and there were restrictions on the internet. Wouldn’t that be better for the kids?

Children are growing up too soon.

Not really possible now. And this poor woman’s child was extremely active across social media. It feels like it’s too late in the day now sadly.

If, collectively, parents had the will, yes it would be possible, but sadly it seems they don't. And those of us whose children don't have phones/are restricted on their phones are then considered to have excluded their children.. I do think in ten years time maybe it might be different.

Another similar incident happened close to where I live. The victim's family has been very vocal begging other parents not to allow their children unrestricted access to phones.

The backlash against smartphones for kids has already started in parts of California where tech is big business. These families work in social media and know full well the dangers. I think it will take much longer to trickle down to the rest of the population. Parents want their kids to fit in

Also those children whose parents restrict phone use are all too easily be exposed to these things through the phones of their friends and classmates.

It would be possible. I don’t understand people saying it isn’t possible. A smart phone with internet access could be treated like a pack of cigarettes or alcohol and confiscated if in the possession of an under 16. Parents would be able to buy a brick phone for a child under that age. Parents could go against the grain and act illegally by buying a smart phone, but over time society would shift to see that as awful parenting. The same as parents who buy the under 16s cigarettes.

It would have to be enforceable, yes. But the mental health damages of this access at a young age are now widely known.

My children are younger and I’m hoping with every fibre of my being that laws like this come into place. I have much younger siblings and the damage smart phones have had on their generation is untold. My parents have no idea how to truly monitor what they access.

Why isn't it possible? Are you serious?

Obviously it's possible for parents to lock down their kids internet access but vast numbers don't bother. You would have to legislate to create a criminal offense of allowing a child unfiltered internet access. That's not going to happen. If access isn't locked down then the only garekeeping most adult sites have is a tickbox confirming "I am over 18" which a 14 year old is perfectly able to click.

They should raise the ages to 18. It sends a strong message.
I was that annoying parent who didn't let her kids on SM until they were older (mid teens), and limit screen time. I still have no idea what they go on. I can see they have been on YouTube or whatever bit not sure what they have watched.

It's frightening. DS is 17 and autistic. He started spouting some Andrew Tate bollocks and was luckily shut down by his brother. But it took a while to untangle it in his head.

I hope this lady's campaign gets a lot of support and something does change. It's absolutely terrible what happened to her child, such a tragic loss.

The article does also say she struggled to stop her own child from accessing inappropriate things online. Extremely sad all round.

The two convicted seem like incredibly damaged teenagers. What they did was horrific and evil. IMO bolstered by unfettered Internet access.

How would you do that though?

Established apps you probably could, but new ones keep popping up, plus you can message through forums and games.

You could make smart phones illegal for U16s but kids like this would still get hold of them.

You could make the established systems more supportive of active parenting for sure, but it needs active parenting.

My DC are grown now, and they didn't have Tiktok. I suppose I could have bought them brick phones, but they already run rings around me, so possibly could have found a way to access it? I don't know honestly how I would enforce it.

I agree and the social media sites need to be held to account. Teenagers and children will always seek a loophole so it needs to water tight.

I can open a bank account online, but not in someone else's name. The technology suggests it's available, but SM sites simply don't care enough about investing!

of course it is possible to lock down access. Tech companies need to create a phone that is suitable for children:
maps
messaging
calls
that's it. No camera. No web browser.

(I know they already exist but need to be mainstream)

I do hope there is a backlash like there is against UPF.

Look at those that invent those devices and apps. They didn’t give them to their kids until the children were a lot older.

https://www.businessinsider.com/screen-time-limits-bill-gates-steve-jobs-red-flag-2017-10

Established apps you probably could, but new ones keep popping up, plus you can message through forums and games.

Should apps now require a license to operate ?

How would you police it?
You can restrict it age wise but who checks ?

You may as well ban teenagers from talking to each other at all before the age of 16.

It's the age old issue.

It used to be magazines/comics blamed for behaviour
Then it was cartoons
Then it was video games
Now it's the Internet

Sometimes, people want to do bad things and they will find a way to do them. Yea they might get a bit bolstered by something they see/read, but I'm not into this general feeling of "something was to blame". No, it was "someone".

Part if the issue is that adults are attached to their phones. Its presumed necessary for everything from controlling your heating, to seeing whose at the door, to paying for your shopping, catching a bus, your diary...

We need to "untech" adult lives to set the example.

Absolutely.

You just don't give them smartphones until they're old enough to have one. I grew up before mobile phones were common. I saved and bought a Nokia 3310 when I was 15. Didn't have a smart phone til I was about 28! Somehow I lived to tell the tale.

"Not possible" my arse.