DO NOT give your kid a smartphone this Christmas

[Firey40]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDd86TftyNT/?igsh=MTZueGVicm1udDllNw==

The evidence is overwhelming.

Their brains are only young once.

We might not have known before….. but we know now.

STOP GIVING KIDS SMARTPHONES

Do you know what people really can't be trusted to make the best decisions? People who fall into hysteria and use nonsense arguments like comparing smartphones to alcohol and smoking.

Cheers!

What are you talking about? I have extremely strict restrictions on my kids phones (teens) I am a present mum who is there for my kids each and every day when they get home, weekends, take them to amazing places outdoors, history, culture, museums, sports and all the rest. We don’t sit around on phones or slump in front of the tv with dinner not speaking. If anything, you would want me as your child’s friends parent because nothing much gets past me, my kids phones are monitored and restricted and best of all, my kids have been brought up to have morals and be trustworthy. So yes, parents like me you can trust.
I am stating the obvious that phones just won’t go away because you try to ban them. Australia has put forward a move to ban social media for under 16’s. How is this going to work in practice? Even they don’t know. No actual real plans have been laid out as far as I can see. Tell the tech companies they need to monitor ages? How is that going to work in practice then? And the worst of the worst isn’t on social media anyway. It’s on the internet, easily searchable.
You seem ignorant to be honest and it’s doubt ful you currently have teens.

@WhiteLily1
I didn't know about Australia ban, it's hilarious out of touch, makes me wonder what moron even put foward that idea.

Like, how will they even enforce that? Are we going to live in literal 1984? With Big Brother watching over everyone shoulders? lol

Seriously, even if somehow enforcing the ban was possible, only way to actually do it would be if for using internet you had to use your ID number and that it was impossible to create any other accounts without it, goverment would need to know everything you do online, where you are and so on.

People already think goverment has too much power, to enforce such ban we would need to literally become a dystopian society.

Whoever thinks that such thing is possible or a good idea is the literal definition of stupidity, I would even go as far as to say such person shouldn't be allowed to have children as to not taint humanity genetic pool due to how absurdly low IQ they are.

@Tsama

Enforcing the ban is simple. Just prosecute the parents every time there is an incident involving a child on social media. Schools would love to be able to refer these to the police. Massive fine and jail time for being feckless and neglectful. People would soon stop. Couple that with enormous fines for the social media companies of children are found using the site. Very much the same way we restricted cigarettes.

You wouldn’t call it hysteria if you had to deal with the incidents I see on a weekly basis. You are so invested in the tech that you seem not to care about the real human cost. Just take a minute to think about what level of destruction to the lives of vulnerable kids you’d accept.

Having seen the the incidents, spoken to kids and parents I cannot take your comments as anything but wilfully ignorant. So what if a couple of hundred thousand kids have their lives fucked up as long as you get to have the tech you love so much. Get your head out of the sand.

@Bontonbonbon
Enforcing also means being able to identify when children are doing what they shouldn't, which will be almost impossible cause they'll hide what they're doing.

Yes, make parents pay fines or even jail them, which will ruin families, make techers do it which will make children hate them even more, not to mention involve police, prosecutors and so on, which will waste everyone time and waste resources that are already stretched thin, what a geniuns idea lol

It's going to fail pathetically, plain and simple, it's not enforceable in the real world.

And you're so invested that your hysterical experience is universal that you don't care about how the idea is completely moronic and not enforceable.

The fact that you think I'm willfully ignorant while you unironically believe Australia ban will ever work is honestly hilarious, like the Australian politicians it's such a unihinged level of delusion that I honestly hope you're just trolling, cause otherwise it's just sad really.

You get your head out of the sand and wake up for the real world, it's not enforceable without breaking a lot of people rights and freedom, if goverment even had the resources to make such ban even work, which they don't, be prepared for disappointment since it's all you'll get from what Australia is doing.

@Tsama And your experience of this is what? Your own opinion and your personal investment in it not being a big deal. Thanks for the ‘hysterical’ - got to love the easy dismissal of anything you don’t understand or have any expertise in as ‘hysteria’.

Next you’ll be using lots of other deeply misogynistic phrases like ‘pearl clutching’ and ‘Karen’ to make me feel like my twenty years of expertise in working with teenagers is worthless in comparison to your strongly held opinions.

You are wrong. Things can change, they will change. Taking the stance that things can’t be changed because you don’t have the understanding or imagination to see that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

The position you are taking is weird. What you are essentially saying is that bad things can’t be stopped and we shouldn’t try because it is inconvenient and time consuming. Do
you feel that same about dangerous driving or theft. This is hard so let’s not bother is a strange take.

Things need to change and can be improved. 100% I don’t think anyone would argue that. But banning social media online for under 16’s while the real of the population freely use it just won’t work. I admire the sentiment, I really do, and it doesn’t mean nothing can change, but this just won’t work any more than banning teens from all junk food. Yes it’s bad for you but it’s literally everywhere, engrained in society. It would be even more difficult that that to put outright bans on social media for under 16’s because as fast as you ban, another app or tech will pop up in its place, go viral and you would be back to square 1.

Dangerous driving and theft are illegal for everyone though. Families (adults) are not doing it multiple times daily, social media they are.

@Bontonbonbon
My experience is literally irrelevant because the ban is objectively impractical and can't be enforceable.

Your own opinion and your personal investment in it is not a big deal either.

I find funny you talk about expertise when you unironically think the ban will get nowhere, which just show how you have no idea how goverment and its resources work, and yes, it is hysteria like it had for radio, for tv, videogame, it's nothing new or special.

I don't need to use misogynistic phrases because your sex is utterly irrelevant to my point, you could be a man, a tree, a martian for all I care, I would say exactly the same, I also find funny you talk about 20 years of expertise and yet you think the goverment has power or resources to enforce such ban.

I have enough understaind to know how goverment needs to work with the resources it has and that they simply don't have resources to enforce such ban, goverment just can't do parents work when they have a bazillion of other stuff to do first, things will not change because of the scale of things, you accuse me of not having imagination, imagining that a utterly impractical unenforceable plan will work isn't imagination, it's delusion.

Bad things can't be stopped at the level you think it can, you use driving and theft as example, which is puzzling, did anyone stop driving accidents from happening? Did anyone stop thefts from happening? Did death penalty stop the worst crimes? Did arresting drug addicts and people who sell drug stop the drug market? No, and you know that.

Just to make a point, US alcohol prohibition didn't work either, cause what a shock, most people fought against it, social media will inevitably end the same way.

Such ban would only work if literally everyone, every single person in the country, decided to enforce it, it'll never happen, plain and simple.

@WhiteLily1
Oh absolutely, things definitely can and need to change, they're doing in the most stupid way possible to get attention, doing it due to knee-jerk reaction, they 'll fail as I assume they know they will and then they can pat themselves in the back and say they tried, it's nothing but a performance.

Dangerous driving and theft are illegal for everyone though. Families (adults) are not doing it multiple times daily, social media they are.

Not to mention they're illegal and they still happen all the time, murder is also illegal and that doesn't stop people, to think smartphone and social media will be different is honestly baffling lol

Criminalizing social media not only is unenforceable but would clog the criminal system with stuff that is nothing compared to real crimes and ruin families.

Seriously, it's such a pointless and worthless plan that will inevitably fail at all levels lol

That ship sailed some years ago.

@Tsama You are genuinely arguing that government legislation has never successfully been enforced to outlaw anything. Really?

By your logic we should literally why bother outlawing anything. Too inconvenient, why bother?

If you can’t see that the point it to encourage the majority not to engage in a damaging behaviour then I can’t help you. There is always a crazy hardcore of people who believe their personal rights override everyone else’s rights and safety. That’s what the police and court system is for. It would actually probably be cheaper the pursue these people rather than the thousands of cases rooted in teen social media use.

@Bontonbonbon
Your argument doesn't work at various levels, but I'll use only three arguments right now

One - being outlawed is meaningless cause people will still do it, adults are still free to use social media, and vast majority will in practice ignore the law and let their children use their smartphone.

Point, drugs are outlawed, and we still have a massive world wide issue with drugs,

Murder is also outlawed, and it still happens all the fucking time.

Driving while drunk is also outlawed, and guess what, still happens.

Something being outlawed is not the big thing you think it is, when people want to do something they will do it, fact that you can access any and all social media with the touch of a finger anywhere at any time just makes it impossible to stop.

Two - goverment simply don't have resources to enforce such law, that's a absolute objective fact, they don't have resources to do infinitely more important stuff, they won't waste resources on this, at best it'll depend completely on other people telling the police about it.

Which in itself opens other problems, teachers are already overwoked and stretched thin as it is, dealing with problematic parents and children, you really think they'll waste their time with calling the police due to social media?

And then there's the legal side of the issue, cops are stretch thin and can barely deal with crimes as it is, prosecuts and legal system is clogged with a bazillion of cases, you really think they'll care about fucking social media when there's countless of other crimes that are infinitely more important?

Three - smartphones are basically universal, effectively everyone worldwide has one, you simply can't stop children from accessing social media in some way because it's still going to be around them all the fucking time.

Not to mention another issue, vast majority of people will think the law is a joke and even openly break it, what, you think you can arrest everyone due to fucking social media? Even fine every single one is impossible.

It's not enforceable, plain and simple.

By your logic we should literally why bother outlawing anything. Too inconvenient, why bother?

By your own ligic drugs, murder and rape shouldn't be outlawed anymore, they still happen after all

If you can’t see that the point it to encourage the majority not to engage in a damaging behaviour then I can’t help you.

Damaging behaviour? You mean like alcohol, smoking, drugs, and a bunch of other stuff that people still do?

Majority of people in practice won't give a fuck about such law.

There is always a crazy hardcore of people who believe their personal rights override everyone else’s rights and safety.

You mean like people who think they can ban social media and make everyone step on each other rights by calling the police cause gasp,their children used social media?

That’s what the police and court system is for.

Police and court system are for real crimes, not to raise children of incompetent and lazy parents who can't teach them how to manage a smartphone.

It would actually probably be cheaper the pursue these people rather than the thousands of cases rooted in teen social media use.

Making the police and prosecutor waste time on children using social media isn't cheap, police and justice system doing their job is actually very expensive and time consuming, which is why they're stretched thin and don't waste their time when the cases aren't worth or can't be proved.

Name one thing, that the majority of the population did every day for years, that was successfully outlawed (excluding North Korea of course)

Get him a flip phone and an Apple tag on his rucksack. Sorted.

Tags don't work rurally - they need to check in with smart phones.

Check in where?

AirTags use Bluetooth to communicate their location to nearby Apple devices, which then send the location to iCloud. The owner can view the location in the Find My app on their iPhone or iPad.

So the tag stops communicating if they’re not in close proximity to smartphones.

No smartphone = high chance of no tracking, therefore pointless.

It's too late because any parent who's bought their child a phone for Christmas isn't going to be returning it a few days before Christmas.

I don't even agree with giving kids phones but a post like this is way too late to change anyone's mind.

I think this is excellent advice.

Goodness, I wonder how those of us who lived in a time before smartphones, and walked to and from school at a much earlier age, managed to survive.

@ForGreyKoala - I'm not sure how we survived, the biggest threat I had on the walk home from school was from horrible bullying girls, and pulling out my iPhone and calling my mum wouldn't have saved me.

I'm not against tracking DC, DD and I track each other, or kids communicating with each other by group texts, but 11yos don't need a smartphone for either of those.

I do think travel companies etc need to keep providing ways to use their services without the need of a smartphone. Lockdown seemed to push society towards the use of smartphones for almost everything, and I don't think it would be a bad thing for there to be a push back against that.

Jailing parents for giving their kids a mobile phone!

Wow.

That's not even remotely proportionate. That's draconian to a point that actually pretty disturbing.

A few things here in terms of practicalities.

This is all about children right? And doing things in the best interests of children. So please explain to me how it's in the best interests of vulnerable children we believe are being harmed by mobile phones are better off, if their parents have been criminalised? This risks putting kids into care due to mobile phones.

The trouble with criminalising something so widespread is that you have to have a) public consent to enforce it b) society has to benefit from the ban in a significant way c) it has to be realistically enforceable.

The issue we have here is
a) we have an overflowing criminal justice system and no space in jail. To a point that sex offenders are being released early. So where exactly are you intending to put these parents in jail?

b) the court system is so overloaded that cases are backlogged already by years. A crime that happens now, is unlikely to get a court date this side of 2027 at this point. So if you have a 12 year old kid with a mobile phone, mum and dad are unlikely to end up in jail much before the kids 15th birthday! I fail to see how that solves the problem.

c) if this is about an issue with harms to children surely the process should be immediate intervention by social services rather than criminalisation. Otherwise you just leave the kid in what you deem to be a harmful situation. We already have a shortage of social workers and foster care places. Putting every kid exposed to mobile phones into this system, really isn't going to help anyone. And frankly any incident which is significantly serious enough in terms of child neglect with exposure to things via a mobile will ALREADY end up brought to the attention of social services / police anyway under existing safeguarding protocols.

d) in terms of public consent for this, you get a couple of fairly middle class parents facing jail / removal of kids just for having a mobile phone doing sadface in the newspaper and the whole thing will fall apart and because kryptonite for dodgy political parties who will use it to gain traction. It's really not a vote winning policy. You just get deeply unfavourable headlines about the police using all their time to harass kids rather than catching actual criminals. Society accepts that drugs are bad via public consensus. Their use is widespread but not widespread enough to risk running into issues over public consent due to demand. There's little danger of a public backlash.

e) it's going to lead to kids being more vulnerable because mobiles will become illicit - and thus attractive - and vulnerable to people willing to supply a phone to suck kids into more concerning criminal activities. "Here have a free iPhone. Right now you can deal my drugs for me too." How does that improve where we are?

f) a ban will disproportionately criminalise poorer families. The rich family can just pay off the fine, kid gets mobile back in school as a status item. Poor family can't pay the fine, parents get jailed. Kid ends up looked down on for not being rich enough to have the status symbol plus kid is now in the care system.

g) kid has a mobile they shouldn't have and exposed to something harmful. What do they do? They worry about their parents not just telling them off for being stupid (they wouldn't but the fear is there) but they worry that their parents is going to be jailed because they have a mobile. So they are less likely to speak to an adult about grooming or sexual exploitation. You leave them altogether more vulnerable and unwilling to report criminal activities - and this is already something we need to work on and improve.

Yes we should have laws, but laws have to work without unintended consequences and they have to improve society.

There are some laws that just create more problems than they solve. The comparison with the prohibition era is the best I can think of. Banning alcohol rather than fixing social ills, was a driver of much more criminal activity and much more serious criminal acts.

Banning mobile phones is similar. It only works if it's widely supported by parents on a soft level. If you start to introduce punishments you risk driving kids in trouble into a much worse scenario. A ban risks eroding trust between schools and pupils. It therefore has to be pretty much only schools are prohibited from requiring them or using apps and having a no phones policy. Going beyond that, you risk creating a problem that didn't previously exist. Why do you need a law rather than a Department of Education directive over mobile phone use? Kids who get caught up in something very dodgy should already be covered by safeguarding protocols anyway, without the added fear of criminalisation.

We have laws because the public want them and because we think they make our society better. Without widespread public consensus and an achievable target for a law it's doomed to fail. Seatbelts in cars works because the public understands that it's for their own safety and there's a tangible recordable benefit from a reduction in deaths AND the negative impact of seatbelts is negligible / none existent. Rape is understood to be bad and wrong, so we support the law. Where it fails is where men fail to respect this and because the likelihood of prosecution is minimal. But the law itself has public consensus.

Mobile phones fall into this space where we understand they are useful and we like them. There's an understanding that they have helped society. Adults are unlikely to give them up. That isn't a great starting point for building public consensus to ban them for children. It's only when you hit a tipping point when adults want to give them up in sufficient numbers that a criminal ban for kids starts to make sense. (See smoking) Otherwise keep bans under educational jurisdiction...

@RedToothBrush

Don’t you think allowing your kids to access the dark web and view snuff porn ( a real case I’ve seen) is neglectful? It’s not about just giving them the phone. It’s the people giving the phone to children as young as five and putting no restrictions on it. They should be prosecuted for neglect. Absolutely.

We wouldn’t have these issues if feckless parents cared one jot about what their kids are up to. It’s not just giving the phone.

I cannot believe people are so ignorant as to not understand properly what is happening out there with teens and mobiles and social media. No one is talking about stopping everyone from having one, just make people wait until they are 16. Sheesh!

But absolutely fuck vulnerable kids, right. So long as your precious gets to use Instagram.