• whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    23 days ago

    I will argue smartphones or any electronic is not the problem. The problem is lazy parents.

    My kids all have had phones since before 10 and they’re all well adjusted but to be clear I monitor their usage and I check in with my kids regularly.

    I cannot hold back society or technology at the fear of my kids being left behind. What I can do is help them navigate both as they grow.

    I love how quick we are to lay the blame anywhere but parents.

    • padge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      I strongly believe that a large part of the reason China is so strict with underage phone and game restrictions is because the parents are at work for too long to do any real parenting. Ideally parents should be the ones making those choices and actually monitoring their kids, but since I don’t have kids I can’t really say for myself.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      The problem here is that the systems you have to monitor usage aren’t great, and kids are known for lying or omitting details to their parents.

      Giving kids open-ended access to technology doesn’t have to involve giving them access to the Internet without constant guidance. I would rather my kid have less digital access than their peers, than get sexually exploited because they were a child publicly online.

      More and more I am seeing that the places kids go online are places I don’t fully understand, but a cursory review reveals is also a hotspot for sexual predators. This seems like the perfect place for a predator to stalk my child. I don’t know enough to stop them, and my kid doesn’t know enough not to get exploited. By the time I find out about it, it’ll probably be too late.

      Giving a child an internet-connected camera and screen can become such a horrific nightmare, I think that good parenting actually has to involve being realistic and telling your kids “just because your friends have TikTok and Instagram doesn’t mean you won’t get grounded for it in this house”, and letting kids use technology when I am in the room with them. I have seen what kids are posting online, and it’s easy to assume that their parents don’t care, but it’s a lot more realistic to accept that kids are good at keeping secrets, and their parents don’t know what they’re up to.

      If they want to learn about computers on their own, I’ll buy them what they need to learn about all sorts of stuff that doesn’t expose them directly to capitalist or sexual exploitation online. When they are old enough to defend themselves, then they can be given the trust in accessing the Internet on their own, but until then they need to explore under my watchful eye.

      Giving a smartphone to a <10 year old child, and trusting that the limited monitoring tools available, and your child’s honesty is enough to keep them safe from vicious exploitation is delusional and irresponsible.

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        This is an extremely reactionary take. I hear what you are saying but I draw the line as delusional and irresponsible unless you apply that to pretty much all parents that don’t completely smother their children.

        We make mistakes as we grow. We lie. We get hurt. Technology is always Pandora’s box. I’d argue we have better knowledge of our kids now than we ever used to and stats show the world is safer now than it has ever been.

        If you live in fear you will form your decisions from a place of fear.

      • deathbird@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        This is actually a good take. Kids aren’t miniature adults, they’re kids. They’re not helpless or useless, but neither are they fully morally and emotionally developed. They need guidance. Plenty of adults can’t responsibly handle internet access. I survived early onilne porn and gore and social media, but it’s not like any of it benefited me in a meaningful way.

        Some folks have an attitude that’s like “I touched hot stoves and I learned better”, but that’s far from ideal.

  • JDPoZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    Scrolling to find out what “EE” is… I can’t find anything. Can someone fill me in?

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      EE (formerly Everything Everywhere) is a British mobile network operator, internet service provider and a brand of BT Consumer, a division of BT Group. Supposedly the #1 network in the UK similar to Verizon in the US.

  • Mountain_Mike_420@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    Please don’t give kids smartphones period. A smart watch is far less addictive and just as valuable to parents and kids (parents can track location, kids can still make phone calls and txt.) other suggestions are a dumb phone (think t9 txting), or just let them go phoneless.

  • bulwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    My kids are around that age and it’s a real struggle when all of their friends have one.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        Yup. All my friends had cell phones and I was pretty much the only one who didn’t. That kind of sucked, but my friends were cool and worked around it.

        If their friends won’t accommodate them, well, they’ve shown their true colors and perhaps they should find some better friends. Having a phone isn’t going to fix crappy friends.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 days ago

          I think there were some social blunders and connections missed because I got a decent phone later than my peers.

          I got my first basic phone (a phone which barely functioned and regularly crashed doing basic things) at 16 back in 2011(?) when many in my class had gotten a basic phone by 2008. By 2010, pretty much everyone had at least a basic phone, many had smart phones.

          I wouldn’t write this off as an irrelevant issue in a world where so much connection is done through phones (even if you personally don’t believe you were all that affected). I do think my parents decision to delay giving their shy-ish child living in a rural area a good phone (solely because they didn’t have one when they were kids) was a bad decision.

          Actually being able to keep up with people between classes, discuss homework, to have gotten some pretty girls numbers earlier on, etc … that could’ve really changed my high school and middle school (or at least jr high) experience for the better.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            23 days ago

            I certainly don’t know your situation or anything, so apologies if this comes off as tone-deaf.

            And yeah, I completely appreciate that a lot of communication happens through phones. However, most of that communication is a distraction, and a lot of it is damaging. If you have a phone but nobody talks to you, that’s worse than if you don’t have a phone at all. Likewise, if you have a phone and use it responsibly, you’ll likely get called out for “ignoring” people’s messages because so many people expect a ridiculous level of engagement these days.

            Calls and texts aren’t really a thing any more, and most people communicate through apps instead. That means that even without a phone, there’s a pretty good chance you can still be included if you have access to a computer at home. I grew up in a weird transition where people moved from IM to SMS, because IM just didn’t work yet on phones yet everyone had phones. We’re seeing the opposite trend these days, where now that most people have massive data plans, apps are becoming king again.

            So in my mind, this means that not providing a phone doesn’t cut them off, it just delays communication. That means they’ll have less of a chance to become addicted to all the SM BS, while still being able to be included in things. I think that’s a healthy boundary to set.

            That said, absolutely none of my friends communication during HS or my communication in college was productive. We didn’t “discuss homework” or anything related to school, we merely arranged hangouts and flirted, with a little gossip to round things out. I highly doubt things have changed much, because that’s just what kids do. When I was young, cell phones weren’t a thing, and my sister spent hours on the phone talking about nonsense with her friends. That’s just how teenagers work, if they’re talking to friends, they’re not talking about school work.

            That said, I’ll certainly be paying attention as my kids get older. My oldest is around 10, and they’re definitely too young for a phone (though I’m debating giving them their own PC). I have nephews and nieces who are a few years older, and I can roughly see which ones I’d be comfortable giving access to a phone, and which I’m not, and that point seems to be around 14yo. But whether I give my kids one depends on how much I trust them. We’ll probably test drive a loaner phone in a year or two before deciding if they should have their own phone.

            • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              15 days ago

              Sorry for the late reply…

              Calls and texts aren’t really a thing any more, and most people communicate through apps instead. That means that even without a phone, there’s a pretty good chance you can still be included if you have access to a computer at home.

              I find this varies a lot within different social groups … some people I know use different apps some people don’t use anything other than SMS/iMessage and/or maybe Facebook messenger.

              My friends and I definitely communicated with Skype and things like that. I just never really had the chance to “grow my social network” if you will as a younger teen. Like summer 2009 I did a summer gym thing (my school let students take gym in the summer before high school for the high school PE credits and lots of kids did) … if I had a cell phone there’s a good chance I might have made connections with kids that had interests other than “get on the computer and play video games (and associated ‘nerdy’ interests).”

              So in my mind, this means that not providing a phone doesn’t cut them off, it just delays communication. That means they’ll have less of a chance to become addicted to all the SM BS, while still being able to be included in things. I think that’s a healthy boundary to set.

              That could be fair; it just kind of depends on what their peers are doing. I’d also caution against artificially creating hard barriers that won’t be for them later in life. My parents didn’t lock the fridge they just said we couldn’t have ice cream more than one time a week. It was ultimately on us to be able to honor that agreement.

              Of course that wasn’t a bullet proof “solution”, I’m sure we snuck some ice cream here or there … and I’m sure we got caught at least one. But, IMO that’s just part of being a kid and a couple of bowls of ice cream when we broke the rule didn’t hurt anything, the rule still did its job (keeping our diets tilted towards good).

              That said, absolutely none of my friends communication during HS or my communication in college was productive. We didn’t “discuss homework” or anything related to school, we merely arranged hangouts and flirted, with a little gossip to round things out. I highly doubt things have changed much, because that’s just what kids do. When I was young, cell phones weren’t a thing, and my sister spent hours on the phone talking about nonsense with her friends. That’s just how teenagers work, if they’re talking to friends, they’re not talking about school work.

              I think this varies too. Of what I remember of college, sure the vast majority of stuff was non-school communication. However, there definitely was communication over projects (especially if I was doing something with friends vs random people in class).

              That said, I’ll certainly be paying attention as my kids get older.

              I think this is the biggest thing. Like, nobody can tell you how to parent your kid and I’m not trying to tell you what’s right. I’m just saying, my parents took a hard line stance on this, based on some made up rules about what I should or shouldn’t have that was way different than what nearly every other parent was doing. I didn’t have the gumption (arguably due to a mostly unrelated, hidden, depression that my parents attributed entirely to “teenage angst”) to advocate for that access or ask for help and largely just accepted my situation as the best I was going to get.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                14 days ago

                It sounds like you had overbearing parents, which is honestly as bad or worse than overly loose parents. Unfortunately, most parents seem to go too far down one end of the spectrum or the other.

                And that’s precisely why I don’t care what other parents do. If my kids want something, they know they need to use well-reasoned arguments and show through their behavior that they can be trusted. In general, this means my kids often get to do things before their peers (e.g. my kid was riding to the park alone at least a year before their peers), but it also means they just don’t get to do certain things (e.g. I refuse to let them play F2P games like Fortnite because of the predatory marketing). In general, I either fully trust my kids, or I don’t trust them at all. Either we have ice cream in the house where they can easily get it, or we have nothing in the house. I don’t believe in parental controls, content filters, tracking devices, etc, so either they have full access, or they have none. That’s generally how my parents raised me: trust, with steep consequences. And that’s how real life works, either you follow the rules, or you get hit with severe consequences.

                I’m sorry if your parents weren’t understanding. I think the best approach is to articulate from a very young age that every rule is up for discussion, but that only accept well-reasoned arguments will be accepted (and “but my friends get to do it” isn’t a valid argument). If my kids ask, I’ll provide reasons for every rule we have and what needs to happen in order for those rules to change. I want to give my kids privileges, but I won’t until they prove they’re ready for them. If my kids get their own phone, they’ll have earned it and the trust that goes along with it.

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days ago

    In my opinion, social media is a bigger problem than smartphones in general. For me a smartphone is a just a tool that can be both incredibly useful but also very harmful.

    With a bit of knowhow, you can neuter a smartphone so kids can’t access social media, games, and other distracting mediums. No social media apps, no browser access, no YouTube, no games. But they can still access useful functions like calculators, the torch, phone calls and messages, etc. Android and iOS both have features allowing parents to do this.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      I think that this is somewhat besides the point. Give a smartphone to a teenager, and block all social media, and one of two things is going to happen:

      1. They don’t use the phone, because the only reason they wanted it was social media.
      2. They find a way around your social media block, because the only reason they wanted it was social media.
  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    EE is advising parents that children under 11 should be given old-fashioned brick or “dumb” phones that only allow them to call or text instead.

    That sounds ridiculous. An 11-year-old is, what, a fifth-grader in the US?

    If they have access to a computer or something in addition to their phone, okay, maybe. But for a lot of young people in 2024, their smartphone is their sophisticated electronic device. Maybe they tack on a keyboard or whatnot. But take that away, and they don’t have a computer to use. A computer is just too essential of a tool to not let someone learn.

    Kids used to veg out in front of the TV, where material is generally not all that fantastic and the device is noninteractive. I think that it’s great that smartphones are replacing that.

    I was programming when I was in first grade. I was doing computer graphics and word processing somewhere around there. Those are important skillsets to have. I made use of those. You want kids to pick those up. You do not want to push those back. I’d get a computer of whatever form into their hands at the earliest point that they can avoid destroying it.

    If your concern is that you want to restrict access to pornography or something, okay, fine, whatever, set up content filtering. I think that they’re probably going to get at it anyway. But that does not entail not permitting access to the computing device. That’s a restriction on access to the Internet.

    In May this year, MPs on the education committee urged the government to consider a total ban on smartphones for the under-16s and a statutory ban on mobile-phone use in schools as part of a crackdown on screen time for children.

    That’d be, what, up to high school before you have one? And that’s not “I have parents who want that”, but outright “the government doesn’t let anyone do that”.

    Wikipedia. Google Maps. The store of knowledge available from search engines. I use those all the time. You want to cut them off from that?

    I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?

    I mean, I’m just boggled.

    • IllNess@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 days ago

      I was programming when I was in first grade. I was doing computer graphics and word processing somewhere around there. Those are important skillsets to have. I made use of those. You want kids to pick those up. You do not want to push those back. I’d get a computer of whatever form into their hands at the earliest point that they can avoid destroying it.

      Most kids aren’t improving their skillsets. They definitely aren’t programming on cell phones. I am a programmer. I have code editors that I paid for on my phone at all times. I’ve used them like 5 times at most.

      Social media and misinformation is damaging for everyone but more so for children. Social media is what kids are mostly doing.

      I agree that there can positives for using a cell phone. Their are educational software but most kids aren’t doing that.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 days ago

        Even if they are only figuring out how to ignore clickbait, they are improving their skill sets.

        Social media is “damaging”, in the same way that all social activities are “damaging”. The solution is not isolation, but early exposure. The last kid to get a phone is the one at greatest social disadvantage.

        • pahlimur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 days ago

          Firm disagree. Social media, or more specifically algorithmic short form content these days, is extremely damaging. It’s different from anything that’s come before and has nothing to do with connecting with your peers.

          I graduated high-school in 2009 so I saw the beginning of popularized social media. Very few gained anything from participating in it. Mostly people who were good at marketing and building a following benefited.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            23 days ago

            It’s different from anything that’s come before and has nothing to do with connecting with your peers.

            Kids have always been evil little shits who get their jollies demoralizing and torturing the weak. Social media is just a newer avenue for old sociopathy.

            Social media, or more specifically algorithmic short form content

            Again, nothing particularly novel. Marketing, news, propaganda.

            • IllNess@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              23 days ago

              Again, nothing particularly novel. Marketing, news, propaganda.

              Marketing, news, and propaganda of the past never targeted people directly. It’s also not just feeding them content, it’s also taking and storing massive amounts of data from the user that will be used against them.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                23 days ago

                Yes, they have. Direct mailing, cold calling, lead farming, door-to-door, yes, all of it has been done, and most of it predates even the printing press. This isn’t social media; this is marketing, plain and simple. And marketing is the least damaging aspect of social media: they just want to exploit you. The people who aren’t after your money are the real danger.

                • IllNess@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  Direct mailing, cold calling, lead farming, door-to-door

                  None of those compare to what is happening now. Those are playing wack a mole hoping to get a sale. What’s happening now is recording everything you show a reaction to, whether enjoyable or not, and use it against the user.

                  A list of names, address from marketers is nothing compared to the amount of data tech companies are getting from individuals.

                  Just saying cold calling and door-to-door is the same as the data gathering tactics now shows your ignorance on the topic.

  • Macropolis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days ago

    Just don’t do it people. Me and so many parents have horror stories. Even without social media these phone numbers get out one way or another. For us it was much more trouble than it was worth.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      I haven’t had a problem.

      iPhone with Screen time and communication limits means I can control how much time they spend in the device and in which apps and I control who they can contact.

      Don’t approve any apps that allow social features.

      Talk to them about the realities of the internet and the wider world.

      All of this has to happen at some point. If you just hand off a phone to an 11 year old or even a 14 year old workout doing any of the above, you’re still going to have issues.

      Much of what is being said about tech is the same as was said about tv and video games. The only studies you’re going to hear about this are the ones that confirm the societal biases.

      If you don’t seek counter opinions of this topic you’re playing into the same fear mongering every generation of parents has had about the new thing.

      Dancing, rock and roll, tv, video games, and now phones. Every time, everyone thinks this time is different and every time it hasn’t been.

    • biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 days ago

      As a 17 year old who has 3 phones (somewhat strange story behind it), giving a child a phone should be either when they need it, such as when they go out more often or other events where they need a specific use, but if not, I believe 18 to 20 is not a bad age to receive one, since young adults are more likely to need to travel to schooling such as UNI more often and generally need more info about travel routes and to be able to message parents/siblings/etc.

      As for my 3 phones, one is a galaxy S4 my dad gave me as a hand-me-down, pretty much used to text my parents exclusively, then I received an oppo Reno z from a friend who didn’t need it, which I currently use as a games and social media phone, then the third is one is a galaxy a20 my dad brought home and said I could take if I wanted, since there were a few of those unused at his workplace, so I now just use that as a flashlight.

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 days ago

        You can’t exist in this world without a phone anymore.
        Any meaningful school relationship builds on things like messaging groups.
        Just because we could do it in the early 2000s doesnt mean it’s applicable today.

        This would today socially cripple a student.

        • biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 days ago

          I guess it lands differently in other parts of the world and is more nuanced than I previously anticipated, since, where I live we are quite agnostic between devices to message with, some use phones, some use tablets, some use laptops, and it goes on. As for my friend group, none of us communicated using phones until mid 2022, two years into our friendships.

          Since we all moved to our senior campus, we are just now emphasising smartphones as a daily method of communication, compared to our previous default, laptops and desktops, but we normally use the same apps/sites we used to, specifically discord and Instagram.

          Again, I believe it depends on the area, maybe in other parts they use phones much more often compared to us, or some may never use phones at all.

          • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            Oh certainly!
            I would say my take would more or less apply to most of west Europe and north America and maybe some parts of heavily urbanized parts of Asia. But that is only guessing.
            My location is in Germany so take that information for what it is :)

            • biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              I definitely agree, though I’d also add the Australia/New Zealand region as well, since we are also reasonably heavy users of phones too. Also I’m from Victoria, Australia by the way, it’s pretty fascinating how diverse the internet is :)