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

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.

I don't understand why physical restraint or force would be required. Surely in most of these cases the parents will still be paying for the contract which could be easily cancelled. The question is can the courts force a parent to pay for a contract that they don't want and they believe is harming their child?

Setting up Google family link is great. They can't download apps without permission, you can restrict times and usage.

WhatsApp has turned into something like Facebook on the sly. I'm monitoring it v closely.

If it’s an iPhone you just control Family Sharing. They can’t download the apps without your permission. They can’t access websites you don’t authorise. All controlled through the Screen Time app with a passcode. They can’t override that unless they know the code.

Other phones I don’t know sorry.

WhatsApp is owned by Meta/FB, isn't it? But have you noticed a creep in some way? (Not on FB although I understand they have shadow profiles even for non-members.)

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-profiles-zuckerberg-congress-data-privacy

I'm also interested if you can put age related restrictions on Google searches (eg) on smartphones, in the same way you can with laptops? Anyone know?

If anything good comes of this tragedy, I hope there is some movement in this area. I'm grateful to Brianna's parents for that.

I would also add that my DD12 is not allowed WhatsApp. She has her older sister’s old phone that is essentially bricked. She can message through iMessage which is better than WhatsApp from a parent perspective because you can see and control which contacts she’s messaging. She can listen to music on Spotify. She only has 1 hour of time total per day for all those things. There is a list of websites she’s allowed to access in that hour that are basically school ones. It’s possible for controls to be in place.

Again, on an iPhone, Google is not an allowed website. If they want to go on Google they have to request Screen Time to go on it and search something and I can say “what are you googling?🤨” and they have to show me and and the answer is usually “Taylor Swift Travis Kelce”🙄

Get an iPhone and one yourself, you can control what they do, what they see, what apps they use and how long for in granular detail.

WhatsApp has turned into something like Facebook on the sly. I'm monitoring it v closely.

In what why has WhatsApp changed to make it more like FB please?

There's currently a thread in AIBU about whether to allow an 11-year-old to have TikTok, and a surprising proportion of posters seem, um, intensely relaxed about young teens using social media.

The thing that worries me is that you can control your own child’s access, but they will still have access via their friends. Our dd (10) and doesn’t have a phone, but so many of her friends do and she’s already been exposed to inappropriate conversations due to what other dc have been viewing online.

The other issue is needing a phone in secondary school to access Google classroom and similar, which the local state schools seem to require. I noticed a local private school were ‘celebrating’ the one year anniversary of banning all phones in their secondary school.

"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"

If true that's utterly ridiculous. Usually it's the parents phone so they can do with it as they will. And surely the same should apply to parents who choose not to give their children a phone at all. Is it now compulsory? No-one NEEDS a phone. It's not human right.

I absolutely agree with greater restrictions. We are raising a whole generation(s) of people who effectively have ADHD symptoms (as they can't concentrate or be present for anything) and have mental health issues (partiy) due to having social media streamed at them 24/7. Plus there are the issues with bullying and what they gave access to. The dopamine fix that social media uses to draw you in is addictive and hard for adults to not be drawn into, let alone children.

There definitely need to be controls. I am cry pleased that some schools are now phone free zones and I think we need greater controls and limits on what young people can access and how long for. Ideally parents would do this but they aren't.

A good start would be banning the "attention" models that social media platforms use. If they can't make money off your "attention" they a lot of the harm they cause (ie by using whatever they can to keep you stopping) would disappear. It would also probably mean they need to switch to a subscription based model which would work make them much less attractive.

I also think there need to be laws preventing people from posting images and videos of others online without their consent.

Yes I started a thread in AIBU similar to this one about controls on children's phones and I am surprised at the amount of posters saying that Brianna's death would have happened regardless of whether or not the killers had had unrestricted access to the internet and that it's the parent's responsibility to control their child's use of phones and we should consider teaching children the responsible way to use them. But let's face it, teaching boys not to watch porn on their mobile phone because it risks harming their long term attitudes towards sex isn't going to convince many 15 year-old boys. And monitoring your child's phone use does rely on a parent knowing more about the technology than the child and I think this is rarely the case.

I am surprised at the amount of posters saying that Brianna's death would have happened regardless of whether or not the killers had had unrestricted access to the internet and that it's the parent's responsibility to control their child's use of phones and we should consider teaching children the responsible way to use them.

But isn’t that the argument against controlling violent films which, IIRC, were implicated in James Bulger’s murder? Yes, the killers here just wanted to kill and their original target wasn’t trans, but the girl was into watching online red rooms (live torture and murder) not to mention hard drugs (some the court reporting said that Brianna had been lured to the park on the promise of cocaine).

I suspect those making the “But they exist anyway” argument either can’t or don’t want to have to parent their children.

The internet and violent films and hard drugs exist but that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and say “Crack on, kids. What’s the worst that could happen?”. Because we KNOW the worst that could happen.

This is why ultimately legislation is needed.

And it's also why my DD does have a phone with some apps. I would be happier if all these things were strictly limited for all under 16s. But as things are, if we don't give her access (which we can control and see what she's looking at) she may well be looking on her friends' phones instead. Which IMO is worse.

Tiktok has always been a hard no, but with other apps we've gradually added things as she's got older and demonstrated responsibility. Whilst we're paying for the phone, we can look at anything on it at any time. We limit how much we do that at the moment because she's demonstrated really good sense. We have a rule that she cannot be friends with anyone online she doesn't know in real life and she's stuck to that and I've seen how she's removed herself from groups set up with people she doesn't know. I'm pretty sure she does understand that we only have these rules because we love her and care about her and she does come to us (ok, in reality DH who is pretty tech savvy) when she doesn't understand how things work and has questions.

As a parent you can set your own rules and boundaries, but as they get older you also end up against the fact that it matters a lot what their friends parents rules and boundaries are too (and hope against hope they don't end up in the 'wrong crowd').

But isn’t that the argument against controlling violent films which, IIRC, were implicated in James Bulger’s murder? Yes, the killers here just wanted to kill and their original target wasn’t trans, but the girl was into watching online red rooms (live torture and murder) not to mention hard drugs (some the court reporting said that Brianna had been lured to the park on the promise of cocaine).

Yes it's exactly that argument. These things may not be easy to enforce because enforcement requires adequate parenting but not many people would argue that we should remove restrictions on x-rated films because of enforcement difficulties or that we should just educate children not to watch them whilst simultaneously placing a pile of slasher movies within easy reach.

A number of PPs suggesting the production of a 'limited' smartphone onto which you can only download certain apps but not others.

I don't understand how this would be possible as all smartphones connect to the same internet.

You'd have to have two separate internets to make this possible...and f course that in itself is impossible.

Just wondering if someone more techie than me can explain exactly what they have in mind with the 'limited' phone.

WhatsApp is specifically not recommended for under 16s. This has been the case since 2018

https://saferinternet.org.uk/blog/age-restrictions-on-social-media-services

This exactly. I was 42 when I got my first smartphone. My eldest child had a smartphone before I did, given to her by a friend who had been given a new one.

I have asked my children what choices they will make with their children. They have a very clear idea. They have railed against how strict I have using downtime, app limits, not allowing certain apps and yet they plan to be as strict if not more do with their own children.

This generation have been harmed by the ignorance and indifference of their parents. Keeping children safe online will only work when we have broad consensus across society about doing it. I found that I was in a tiny minority in imposing restrictions on my children’s phone use which does make it very difficult. In the future I think that blasé parents will be the minority and it will be recognised as neglect.

I fully support Ester Ghey’s campaign. I think we should put children’s wellbeing and safety before adult desires or convenience.

Age verification should be required for all 18 plus apps and websites including shopping and selling apps. Social media apps should all be 18 plus.

A brick with phone, sms and GPS tracking only should be available for children.

For children’s travel just have a physical bus pass or railcard as was the case not too long ago and is still the case in some areas.

I think you are right it needs to be phone, SMS, GPS tracker and nothing else, no camera and no internet connection.

I think so because all apps are accessible via the WWW so as long as your phone has the WWW you can access any apps.

You can also access tik tok, IG and other content on your web browser; you don't actually need the app. The app is just a function of design really to make navigating a site more enjoyable (and addictive).

it's impossible to have a two tier internet or two separate internets, even the dark web is a misnomer, it's the same as the surface web just without URLs that can be recognised by search engines.

So I think either you've got to have your child completely off the WWW or do what @NotBadConsidering does which is the parent doing the work rather than lobbying Google / Apple / Meta to do it.

What @NotBadConsidering does is incredibly impressive but many parents will not have the time / ability / stamina / inclination

Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag with kids and the internet. And it can't be put back in

My prediction is in 100 years time, what's left of humanity will really, REALLY regret the world wide web

Love your username BTW!!

Ds 11 has a relatively recent old fashioned Nokia brick we found and we have no idea why we have it for local walks he does to friends' houses etc.

The problem is he never looks at it

It has snake which he loves.

This town has an agreement no smart phones till secondary, though a parent admits she wishes it was till much later.

www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/03/much-easier-to-say-no-irish-town-unites-in-smartphone-ban-for-young-children

You can buy those phones. They’re dirt cheap.

Just wondering if someone more techie than me can explain exactly what they have in mind with the 'limited' phone.
There are an awful lot of convoluted suggestions about how to make a smartphone safe. The easiest solution is not to buy one, buy a non-smart phone instead, typically a Nokia. They do the basics, the are very cheap, and they are much neater and lighter than a smartphone - handy for active kids. Or grownups who want to do a 'tech detox', for that matter.
BTW I read somewhere recently that Nokias were becoming 'cool', that might help🙂