Campaign to control children's use of smart phones

[Signalbox]

Really interesting conversations happening around the idea of campaigns to ban smart phones for children or much heavier controls on what they can access on the internet.

Ironically Brianna Ghey's mum is pushing for controls or a ban which would undoubtably limit the kinds of social media known to be influencing the transgender social contagion amongst young people.

Really interesting discussion on BBC Sounds. I didn't know that NICE consider to take away a smart phone from a child over the age of 13 is against their liberties.

I hope these campaigns catch on and Labour are brave enough to legislate once they have power (because it won't be a popular move amongst TRAs)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0h9h4nt

I agree with this in principle and would like to see some meaningful way to enforce it. I think it's the apps downloaded rather than the smartphone itself that needs legislating against. A smartphone is useful for anyone. Maps helps you when you are lost. Text messages and phoning people also useful. The GPS is how we've found lots of missing children. Kindle for children is excellent for books on the go. But 13 was always preposterously young to have social media accounts.

The trouble is, the parents who CBA with saying no will just hand over their own phone to their kids like they do now. It's why so many 8 year olds are on Instagram when they shouldn't be. Or the kids will lie and construct a fake date of birth, any social media lets you do that. Or they'll start accessing it all on different devices like iPads or laptops.

What we really need across the internet is a meaningful method of age verification that simultaneously filters out underage children on the wrong apps and yet doesn't place unnecessary burdens on adults who just want to do a thing quickly and easily e.g. download a parking app at the side of the road within the 10 minutes grace before they get hit with a ticket for not paying for parking fast enough.

Also I'm not sure why NICE (guidance body for the NHS? That same NICE?) have got an opinion on children's liberties. Funny how they've got an opinion on phones but don't seem so vocal on some more important issues like the long term effects of taking unnecessary medications from an early age. 🤔

It would really help if someone could bring out a basic phone which had certain app functions but not others. Maps, location sharing, transport apps etc can be pretty vital for independent travel.

It really doesn't help that WhatsApp have broadened their scope to become much more like Facebook, making it so much harder for parents to keep teens off social media.

Yes I think she's actually said that she'd like to see versions of phones for under 16s that allow certain things (music would be good, maps, phone etc) but not others.

Social media is the key issue and then messaging though that is useful. And to a point children need to learn how to use phones responsibly.

I broached the topic of algorithms and social media with my son who doesn't have a phone yet but does watch some YouTube kids (had long hiatus from it as it affected his behaviour) and was pleased to hear that he thinks TikTok is rubbish. He's quite in to history and understands bias and propaganda type concepts so we've had chats about opinions, facts, persuasion, perspectives, advertising etc.

Social media is now how political persuasion happens and we all know about silos and echo chambers. Children need to be taught skills around how to navigate it all, at age appropriate times.

A specific phone type is an excellent idea. There's another thread about the issues teenagers have because secondary school kids can't be stopped from abusing toilets by sexual assault, bullying, etc - if schools can't let them have access to toilets because of behaviour then how on earth is anyone expecting they'd be any safer on smart phones.

I suspect future generations will look back on unregulated use of smart phones for kids the way we look now at taking kids in a car with no seatbelts.

@WarriorN

I know what an echo chamber is but what's a silo?

Will they tho. We are a very techy household DS got his 1st iPhone (used 13 pro) at Christmas he's 10. He uses it for TikTok style videos shared over WhatsApp and as a tablet. I would begrudge buying a specific teen phone to then have to buy him a normal phone at X age.

Apple parental controls are excellent, anything he wants to download pops up on my phone to approve. Family link makes sharing locations easy (I can track him pretty accurately now but if he gets a series 9 watch to within a meter).

I'm using as 15 pro. Having a teen phone won't stop them using the internet browsers to access other sites and I can't be bothered with verifying my age every 20 minutes when I can just police what he is up to! Not only that where do you stop a teen laptop, a teen tablet etc all that will happen is they go a friends house to use the unrestricted device

It's never going to happen though - DS is 11 and pretty much all of his mates (it's true I know the parents!) have had Fortnite for years despite it being rated 12. They all regret giving access now but aren't prepared to do anything about it / gave in in the first place.

These are all well educated people who know the risks but for reasons known only to them, decided that their 8/9 year old should have access to a game widely reported as being HORRENDOUS for behaviour / creating addicts.

I think the Internet should be safeguarded like in-person interactions are. Online communities should have stringent safeguarding policies and interactions between children and adults should be monitored.

But equally I don't think "social media" (Facebook, Tiktok etc.) turns kids into murderers. That comes from other parts of the Internet.

The phenomenon in the last 5 to 10 years where teens are “identifying” as “transgender” or “non-binary” often with sudden onset with multiple cases within friendship groups and often following on from heavy internet use. Also more prevalent in same sex attracted and autistic children and those with significant mental health issues. Those in care also more likely to be affected. Probably wouldn’t be a problem if these children weren’t being channeled into medical and surgical treatments.

Same thing?! I think! Maybe I didn't need to say silo. Or maybe it's a bit different?

Ok so, random article that I personally think sounds really useful:

Silos and echo chambers are slightly different:

The Creation of Information Silos
The term “Information Silo” describes an environment where only specific types of information are made available, restricting exposure to a broader range of perspectives. Social media algorithms often lock users into these silos by continually serving them content that aligns with their existing beliefs, interests, and behaviors. For instance, Facebook’s algorithm is known for presenting news articles and opinions that confirm the political leanings of the user, essentially isolating them from dissenting views.

The Birth of Echo Chambers
In these algorithmically constructed environments, echo chambers are born. An “Echo Chamber” is a situation where an individual’s pre-existing views are reinforced and magnified by a closed system that amplifies only similar opinions or relevant data. The psychological mechanisms at play, like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, make exiting these chambers extraordinarily difficult. The result is an increasingly polarized populace, with less and less interaction across ideological divides.

https://andrewggibson.com/2023/09/18/information-silos-and-echo-chambers-the-unintended-consequences-of-algorithmic-sorting/

It's definitely worth a read.

Relates to the research on algorithms on TikTok promoting misogyny which was also discussed on woman's hour today:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/06/social-media-algorithms-amplifying-misogynistic-content?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

@Signalbox there was research done a few years ago that directly linked YouTube's up next algorithm with the rise of flat earthism.

The alogrithm was changed not long afterwards but it's still clearly there offering similar content.

IIRC the algorithm on YouTube also timed with the sudden rapid rise in gender confused children, around 2014.

And before someone waltzes in and says, oh mumsnet / fwr is an echo chamber!

No, it's not. Those who avoid fwr make their own echo chamber.

We welcome debate and always have.

This was another article that I like on silos:

www.edge.org/response-detail/23777#:~:text=Internet%20silos%20are%20news%2C%20information,and%20not%20the%20worst%2C%20either.

My solution? For one thing, you can do your part by regularly visiting the opposition and showing them in conversation how reasonable you can be. There's little more upsetting to a silo than infiltration by an intelligent, persistent individual.

Giving expensive smartphones to children too young to use them safely is one of those things that future generations may well look back on and think 'WTF were they thinking??'. And the idea that grownups who don't fully understand technology say here you go, you're a child, you deal with it, is hard to justify.

If a child needs a phone for emergency use, a small, cheap Nokia will allow them to contact mum, dad, nan, carer, 999, whatever. It will allow them to stay in touch with their mates, but not exchange images with them. Obviously, it won't give them access to the internet, incl social media, which is a good thing, surely, in the light of the damage SM can do and has done to kids.
'you have to buy me; one cos all my friends have them!' isn't taken at face value for anything else (Vapes? Quad bikes? Tattoos?) so why the free pass for smartphones?

So why the free pass for smartphones?

I wonder if it's because people don't realise what truly dark places you can end up with a few taps of a screen. Also they may be in denial about what their children are using their smart phones for. People talk about the need to educate children but I think the education required needs to be aimed at parents who are still not fully informed about what type of place the internet is. It seems crazy that everything that they would protect their children from in the real world is openly available to them via computers and smart phones and this doesn't worry them. Maybe the next generation of parents (who are currently teens) will be a bit more likely to push for restrictions. They've been the first generation to experience the harmful side of technology from a very young age and perhaps they will not want their children not to have those experiences too.

Brianna Ghey had a completely public profile in TikTok with a reported 37k followers. On the BBC podcast about her (horrific) murder, school staff reported that they had had to have many conversations about inappropriate filming in school etc.

I understand that the issues and concerns are not about this, and the worry is about the red room/dark web content her killers had allegedly been consuming.

However, I feel that a conversation also needs to head about the inappropriate level of intrusion into the lives of minors, streaming videos of children on platforms such as TikTok but also FB and Instagram, creates. A much wider conversation about the king reaching implications of thousands, sometimes millions of followers, knowing what school your kids go to, where they play football, do dance, what they eat, where they sleep etc. The massive numbers of parenting blogger's for eg make me so uncomfortable - their children have no privacy afforded to them. The other day I saw a blogger who was videoing every conversation she had with her children at home, in the car, in the shops, and putting it on her stories.

I understand the distinction that we are not linking these behaviours to murderous intent. But it's a part of the same discussion, surely? There can be zero good reasons for THIRTY THOUSAND random strangers all over the globe, to be watching videos of your child at home, at school etc.

I do think kids having phones is useful. But there should be a very limited functionality - calls, messaging on tightly controlled platforms, maps, and "neutral" things like the TFL app or whatever. Parents should be able to have complete control.

But I also think no-one should be using social media under the age of 18. I remain immensely grateful that social media didn't exist until I was in my 20s - as someone who was a bit different and therefore something of an outsider at school which made me the occasional target of bullies, plus a general sense as being seen as "not one of the cool kids" I shudder at the idea of how much worse things would have been should social media have existed in the 1990s.

And that's before we get to the self-esteem mind-fuck that is trying to be popular online, judging your self worth by how many followers you've got etc.

I was listening to "When It Hits The Fan" yesterday, a R4 programme about PR management. One of the presenters was saying that the people who work for the social media behemoths send their children to schools where social media is banned, because they - the very people working for FB etc - know just how damaging it is to children.

Also I'm not sure why NICE (guidance body for the NHS? That same NICE?) have got an opinion on children's liberties

From the discussion at 06:49 it seems as if the access to smartphones issue is related to children in secure units or psychiatric hospitals etc. I should think legal frameworks are heavily involved here when children may well be on what, in adults, would be known as an involuntary hold.

I've just found this which may clarify some matters. It depends on when that NICE guidance was written, and I can't find it. NB: it might not clarify anything because it might depend on the intersection of parental rights, LA rights, hospitals and secure units' protocols…

In a judgment handed down in January 2023, Mr Justice MacDonald dealt with the question of whether depriving a person of the use of their mobile phone and/or social media equates to depriving them of their liberty.

The question for the High Court in Manchester City Council v P (Refusal of restrictions on mobile phone) (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 133 (Fam) was – do restrictions imposed by a local authority on P’s access to her mobile phone fall within the category of a deprivation of liberty or the proper exercise of parental responsibility under Section 33 of the Children Act 1989?
… [Judgment found that it wasn't but note the caveat which indicates that a court sanction to remove the device may be necessary as it's not within an LA's power, bound by the Children Act 1989, to do this.]

However, MacDonald J did accept that whilst not present in this case, the use of physical restraint or other force to remove a mobile phone or other device from a 16-year-old adolescent, even in order to prevent significant harm, would require sanction by the Court, and would not fall under a local authority’s power under S.33(3)(b) Children Act 1989.

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/child-protection/309-children-protection-features/53714-mobile-phone-restrictions-and-deprivation-of-liberty

So why the free pass for smartphones?

If you are a parent of a 12/13 year old today, you were probably born in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. Most people did not get mobile phones until the late 1990s at the earliest (I remember someone in my 6th Form having one and us all - including the teachers - crowding round to look at it!) and they did bugger all. Calls and texts, that was it. Snake was as exciting as it got.

By the time phones developed, we were adults. We didn't/don't use phones in the way that kids do and we probably struggle to understand how they use them and what things they can access. We understand the technology - we grew up with it and maybe even invented it - but have no idea what teenagers are up to with it. Plus, we see our smartphones as a brilliant thing and not as a little box of harm sitting in a vulnerable child's pocket.

The concern around deprivation of social media would be moot if children weren’t allowed on social media in the first place.

Apple could solve this problem in a heartbeat and make billions at the same time by manufacturing an appropriate product. But I doubt they will.

Apple could solve this problem in a heartbeat and make billions at the same time by manufacturing an appropriate product. But I doubt they will.

But there's got to be a shift amongst parental attitudes, because for all the parents desperate to limit their child's social media access, there will be those parents (usually the "I'm a cool parent and best friends with my kids" type) who will give their children an "adult" phone. Then their child shows what they access and do to all the other children.

Maybe it's a case that not only should child-friendly versions of devices exist, but allowing access to social media etc should be seen as on a par with abuse (or at the very least, neglect) and treated accordingly by law?

I remain immensely grateful that social media didn't exist until I was in my 20s - as someone who was a bit different and therefore something of an outsider at school which made me the occasional target of bullies, plus a general sense as being seen as "not one of the cool kids" I shudder at the idea of how much worse things would have been should social media have existed in the 1990s.

Yes me too. Social media would have been a nightmare for me when I was at school. I was a loner and also an occasional target of bullies and I've no doubt that SM would just have magnified my misery.

Can anyone help me with controls you have in place for a 12 year old. If they have a smart phone is it enough to ban TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram and Pinterest? What about keeping Google and safari off? Do you just keep off pretty much all apps? Leaving only WhatsApp to chat with friends. What else do I need to be aware of? It feels like an absolute minefield.