Ok, but you also need a data plan to go along w/ it (or regular visits to top up; is that still a thing?), plus hide it from parents, or you’re going to have a bad time.
Drugs are a different story. You can often get drugs from friends (free to start), can buy them a little at a time, and you don’t need to stash any at home. For a phone to be useful, it needs to be readily accessible, which means you’ll have it with you everywhere.
It’s possible, but it’s going to take a fair amount of work to hide a phone from a parent who’s paying even a little bit of attention.
The real problem here is parents. Parents need to step up and do a better job. Source: am a parent.
Prohibition never works; people will always find other bad — maybe even worse — things to do. The human pressure to have social interactions may lead to creating terrible IRL friendships, ones that can be much more dangerous.
Instead, I would strongly advise for honest, mature conversations about the risks that social media comes along with. This can lead to a highly positive impact, especially if you teach how to observe interactions between people through social media, even if not interacting, yourself.
Prohibition works… temporarily. If you believe your child is not ready for SM, then prohibiting them from it until they are can work.
So yes, have a mature conversation with your kids, set boundaries, etc. That’s something that should happen between a parent and a child, not between a government and a child.
I actually agree with you, especially in the last sentence. Knowing the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, governments are definitely willing to manipulate children through control of information.
Exactly! You may trust your government now, but another group will gain power, laws will change, etc. It’s best to not give your government too much power, especially when it comes to control of information.
Look, maybe it’s true that parents should be doing a better job here. The thing is, that’s an individual solution. This is a systemic problem. How kids (and adults) interact socially and consume media is fundamentally changed over the last thirty years and we’re going to have to find ways to adapt to that as a society.
Yeah, in any particular individual case you can probably come up with a list of things the parent could have done differently. The reality is that this is a problem for tens (hundreds?) of millions of parents.
You can hand wave away any problem that affects children with “parents should do a better job”. It didn’t work for obesity, it didn’t work for child traffic deaths, it didn’t work for fentanyl overdoses, it didn’t work for school shootings, it didn’t work for measles, and it’s not going to work for this either.
I’m just going to copy/paste what I wrote in a previous comment in a similar thread:
Everybody is so quick to blame the parents in these situations. Maybe there is some truth to that, but people also need to reckon with the fact that kids (and adults) are being constantly inundated by Skinner box apps, and “platforms” full of engagement bait designed to be as addictive and attractive as possible. All run by corporations with functionally no regard for the safety of their users.
Yeah, sure, if you’re giving advice to an individual parent, they should probably be keeping a closer eye on what their kids are doing.
But there are systemic problems here that can’t be fixed with individual action. By laying the blame solely at the feet of the parents here, you are in effect putting individual parents up against dozens of huge corporations, each with armies of expert advertisers, designers, and psychologists working to build these products. It’s hardly a fair fight.
You don’t need a data plan if you can access wifi. There is public wifi and I don’t think most parents even know how to check the devices using their home wifi.
If they are knowingly doing something that can cause harm and not properly warning users of it, then they should be held accountable. However, users shouldn’t be prevented from using a service just because a government agency doesn’t like it. That’s a delicate balance that preserves individual freedom to choose while still providing some reasonable amount of protection.
One critical piece here is requiring companies to safeguard any data they collect, not allow them to sell/make it available to other entities w/o express permission and fair compensation, and to remove any data they have collected upon request. That alone helps mitigate the worst of it.
Ok, but you also need a data plan to go along w/ it (or regular visits to top up; is that still a thing?), plus hide it from parents, or you’re going to have a bad time.
Drugs are a different story. You can often get drugs from friends (free to start), can buy them a little at a time, and you don’t need to stash any at home. For a phone to be useful, it needs to be readily accessible, which means you’ll have it with you everywhere.
It’s possible, but it’s going to take a fair amount of work to hide a phone from a parent who’s paying even a little bit of attention.
The real problem here is parents. Parents need to step up and do a better job. Source: am a parent.
Prohibition never works; people will always find other bad — maybe even worse — things to do. The human pressure to have social interactions may lead to creating terrible IRL friendships, ones that can be much more dangerous.
Instead, I would strongly advise for honest, mature conversations about the risks that social media comes along with. This can lead to a highly positive impact, especially if you teach how to observe interactions between people through social media, even if not interacting, yourself.
Prohibition works… temporarily. If you believe your child is not ready for SM, then prohibiting them from it until they are can work.
So yes, have a mature conversation with your kids, set boundaries, etc. That’s something that should happen between a parent and a child, not between a government and a child.
I actually agree with you, especially in the last sentence. Knowing the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, governments are definitely willing to manipulate children through control of information.
Exactly! You may trust your government now, but another group will gain power, laws will change, etc. It’s best to not give your government too much power, especially when it comes to control of information.
Look, maybe it’s true that parents should be doing a better job here. The thing is, that’s an individual solution. This is a systemic problem. How kids (and adults) interact socially and consume media is fundamentally changed over the last thirty years and we’re going to have to find ways to adapt to that as a society.
Yeah, in any particular individual case you can probably come up with a list of things the parent could have done differently. The reality is that this is a problem for tens (hundreds?) of millions of parents.
You can hand wave away any problem that affects children with “parents should do a better job”. It didn’t work for obesity, it didn’t work for child traffic deaths, it didn’t work for fentanyl overdoses, it didn’t work for school shootings, it didn’t work for measles, and it’s not going to work for this either.
I’m just going to copy/paste what I wrote in a previous comment in a similar thread:
You don’t need a data plan if you can access wifi. There is public wifi and I don’t think most parents even know how to check the devices using their home wifi.
It’s not hard, and parents can easily change the WiFi password if they don’t know how to check the leases if they suspect something is up.
I’m very much in the camp of no filters and building a relationship on trust, but occasionally verifying if that trust is misplaced.
I’m a GenX that works with IT. I can tell you that none of my coworkers that are the same generation would know how to do any of that.
I agree that parents should be more involved with their children, but when do we hold a company responsible for the harm it causes?
If they are knowingly doing something that can cause harm and not properly warning users of it, then they should be held accountable. However, users shouldn’t be prevented from using a service just because a government agency doesn’t like it. That’s a delicate balance that preserves individual freedom to choose while still providing some reasonable amount of protection.
One critical piece here is requiring companies to safeguard any data they collect, not allow them to sell/make it available to other entities w/o express permission and fair compensation, and to remove any data they have collected upon request. That alone helps mitigate the worst of it.