AIBU to find a girl's comment about social media quite sad

[FelicityShagsWell]

I just heard the story on the radio about Kier Starmer wanting to tighten up access to social media for under 16s. A few sound bites from some children followed. One girl said it's unfair because there's nothing else to do. Am I unreasonable to find that utterly sad?

It’s not just about clubs though, it’s about being able to entertain themselves at home. You don’t have to replace being at home on social media with being out at clubs every night. You can replace being at home on social media with being at home doing things other than social media. Reading, cooking, drawing, watching films, researching stuff that interests them, playing board games, crafts, chatting to friends on the phone… there are loads of things that teens could be doing. The issue appears to be that a lot of them would rather be on social media than doing those things. But that’s a different issue to ‘there’s nothing to do’.

I’m dumbfounded as to why that difference isn’t absolutely obvious to everyone complaining about their boring childhood.

Ours are now all over 16 so not affected - but we had very strict limits on how much phone time there was and mointored what the kids were up to relaxing restirctions as they aged. We kept communication open with them and taught them how to use phones and socisl media repsonsbility and stepped in when needed- skills they took with them at 18 when they headed off to uni and we no longer had daily control.

Some areas do not have free sport - £15 a month is a lot for some families especially if that's 15 a month per child.

I'm not saying the issue are insumounatble issues round lack of things to do just saying for some like that 12 year old the issues of nothing to do may be more insurmountable than many failry privillaged posters on MN may be willing to conceed.

I don't know about that 12 year old but for some it be more about where they are or how much income the family has rather than any tech zombification - which may be a factor for some teens.

Yes, this is what really irritates me. My DS is very well-behaved and responsible (not saying that he's perfect), but a lot of the rules and laws for teenagers coming from the school and the government are based on the assumption that teenagers all have no common sense, will misbehave, will make stupid and harmful decisions and/or all have parents who don't bother parenting them at all.

My DS wouldn't yield to their low expectations; but it does kind of feel like, if they treat you like you're all feral and terribly behaved, based purely on your age, what's the actual point in any individual teen aiming and achieving higher in the first place?

He only ever used his phone during break times and after school - normally to let us know if clubs were cancelled, they need to bring something in for tomorrow and stuff like that... but because of the kids who can't stay off their phones during lessons (and will continue to do so anyway, as rules really aren't their thing), he now has to go to reception and ask them to call us on his behalf, as though he were a 5yo needing help to tell mummy or daddy something.

But isn’t it likely that the same teens whose parents can’t afford a £15 a month sports club, or some drawing paper and pencils etc also wouldn’t be able to afford a smart phone/date contract etc on their phone? Most of the kids i see glued to their phones are on iPhones, far newer and shinier than the one I’m currently on!
Of course there will be some teens whose parents cannot afford for them to access any out of school hobbies etc, but I’d wager that in the main, they’re not the ones currently on MN complaining about this ban.

The thing is that, if as a parent, you happily leave your child on their phone for 10 hours a day - and would you not be utterly mortified to be a parent of one of these kids who've been on TV today merrily telling the BBC reporters that they do this? - you are highly unlikely to be willing to 'lose' that time by spending time with them and arranging/guiding them in other pursuits yourself.

If your options are either to be forced into a 'new' parenting 'job' that stops you from being on your own phone all day and all night, or to just ignore it and help them find a way around it and be able to continue to ignore them as before... what do people think is going to happen?

Maybe the government could start looking after kids by ensuring men caught with child sex abuse images on their hard drive get 20 years inside rather than a slap in the wrist.

Properly investigating the Epstein files and bringing the perpetrators who are clearly implicated to justice would also be a good start. I wonder why they haven't done this yet, or shown any interest in ever doing it........?

And just to reiterate, social media doesn’t have to be replaced with expensive clubs out of the house. There are plenty of things at home that teens can do. They’d just rather be on social media.

This is the issue I have. Because of feckless parents who don’t fancy parenting their children and saying no to them, and because of irresponsible teens, sensible teens and their parents are being punished and having the good bits of social media taken from them.

As an aside, with the You Tube ban, presumably children can bypass the age restriction by just not signing in?

It's a very weird time. Years ago we would have been told off for hanging around in groups, now we seem to be encouraging it. I dont think kids can win and maybe that's why there are issues with MH. There aren't really any free activities for kids around, unless they like reading or going to church.

Not all kids like sports either. My son is geeky, not really into sports at all. He games a lot, but we are moving him towards strategy games now. I wish we could ban the durge on YouTube, though. Lucky he isn't really interested in WhatsApp and SnapChat etc as he is still a bit too young for that.

I spent a lot of my youth watching TV. Sometimes screens help to unwind, but kisds should be socialising more and playing out. We had more balance in the 80s.

I think the real elephant in the room is the demands placed on families these days in general. Everything is so admin heavy. Filling in forms, bollocks demands from schools, being on hold for an hour just to book an appointment that gets cancelled anyway. Parents don't have much time to be parents sadly. My mum worked long hours and we were just left to entertain ourselves with TV. Naturally kids will gravitate towards their own screen they can control themselves, rather than sharing one.

Not sure if someone else has replied to this but I would absolutely not be sending DC to a sleepover where phones were banned, ever. She is too young for all of that now anyway but I would never be comfortable with it. Staying overnight in a home with unvetted adults and other children with no way to communicate home sounds risky.

Everything else I totally agree with.

That sounds very sad. And we have to remember phones and social media are designed to be highly, highly addictive and yet we're expected to have them as a necessity in our lives. Many of us have phone addiction but it's very hard to get about without one. I for example am expected to be able to get on the Internet using my phone for work, to do banking, to download apps to access money saving vouchers in the shops, etc. It's like expecting alcoholics to walk around with a bottle of vodka in their pocket and not drink it.

Kids got on fine without phones for years and would have had to speak to reception then, it's hardly the act of a 5yo. Why can't he just tell you what he needs when he gets home like at all the schools where phones are already banned?

Most here have second hand - which can sometimes be very battered ones.

Many have them because so much in modern world requires them like - public transport apps.

I think people living in affluent areas saying clubs and money for hobbies are normal and assuming it like that everywhere are a huge issue here - it's their normal it's not the normal everywhere.

I expect teens will go back to hanging round parks and fields like in the past - especially in area that do actually have little to do- and that people will moan about that as well.

As I said, being at home on social media doesn’t have to be replaced by being out at expensive hobbies. There are plenty of things that can be done at home, too. I’ve listed plenty upthread.
There’s nothing to do’ is very different to ‘there’s nothing that they’d rather do than be on social media’.

I'm presuming that they will eventually require pretty robust ID verification so you can't do this - I was reading that in Australia lots are getting around it but that the companies are now coming under scrutiny on compliance.

There also ways to detect whether a VPN is being used, if the companies are inclined to do so.

One on tv this morning said the time she would otherwise have been on SM she would spend looking at a wall! Insane.

Also, how long are some teens spending on social media currently that parents think they have to replace it with a multitude of expensive hobbies?

Yet we all did exactly that until the 2000s, and many children who don't yet have a phone still do. If something bad is going to happen at a sleepover, a child having a phone somewhere isn't going to stop it, they won't be prewarned so they can contact their parents.

I don't know re YouTube - I wondered that as well. It wouldn't surprise me if it now changes so that everybody has to sign in to view anything at all (not just 'mature' content or to upload) - which I pointedly don't do, as I don't want to give Google any more access to my personal data than I have to.

Because it's a standard part of modern life, and I don't see why we want to go backwards and not benefit from progress.

People managed perfectly well for years calling the operator to put them through to make a call - that wasn't because they were 5yos, because it's the best tech we had then; but if you told people nowadays that they had to ask a stranger to help them to make a phone call, they'd look at you like you were mad.

People managed perfectly well with a tin bath in the living room and a toilet at the end of the garden, and going to the library to look through reference books instead of being able to find info online.

You're currently online yourself - having chosen to be, without anybody forcing you - so I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the many benefits that it brings to the modern world as standard.

What is very concerning is that many people sound like they’re saying that the only thing their child enjoys doing is being on social media and there’s absolutely nothing they can think of replace it with. Surely that’s a massive problem??

Many home hobbies require equipment or stuff to do which often requires at least some money - even local libaries have closed in recent years.

Also never lived anywhere where bike or sewing machines are given away for free as PP insisted- if they are usable they are sold.

I think teens will find stuff to do just might not always be the wholesome activities that some MN image.

My parents reluctance let me out as a teen was becuase they were aware of what the local teens were getting up to because there was very little in area to do.

Teens like ours with some money and parental input behind them are fine with social media - as we parent and mointor - and if banned because we are engaged parents who provide access to indoor and outdoor activities.

I'm just not blind that there will be some teens who are social media because they have limited in RL activities avaliable - though no idea if 12 year old in question is actually one of those.

I agree.

I think parents are reacting to what it means to them, which is essentially dealing with kids who have never been taught to amuse themselves or be bored.

It's daunting, it will mean some moaning initially, but it will be worth it to have healthier, more engaged children.

I think what people are saying is that banning social media isn't going to suddenly lead to a mass influx of teens doing a whole load of nice, wholesome activities, that's all.

No, but if they read a book or cook a meal instead of scrolling Tik Tok, surely that’s preferable?