It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t.
A good starting point would be fully banning all phones for the entirety of the school day in K-12.
Why is this obvious? Unless you’re talking CS = Programming a specific language, I think it’d be better for the K-12 version of CS to be completely analog save for maybe a “lab” for students in later years of high school.
Bulking up on math in HS is smart. I took AP Calculus and then went to community college to take more calculus.
Yeah, I do think that kids would get a ton out of hands-on analog classes where they learn logic, problem solving, etc.
Exams we would have to write code, or predict the results of code or spot bugs
My teacher was a bit of a dick and would sometimes intentionally leave out a brace. Therefore “does not compile” was sometimes a valid answer :-)
Of course, this kind of thing is easy to do wrong. Programs like D.A.R.E. and THRIVE tried going the way of fear tactics which seems to really not work well. We need to have an open and honest discussion about "yes, this is fun. But it DOES have a bad side" instead.
The last sticking point there is that it assumes people will be rational and come to the conclusion of using with moderation. Hopefully people can be rational... Otherwise I think there's no hope for us in solving the brainrot epidemic.
Is what I was responding to in the grandparent of your comment
From my own experience and that of fellow parents that I talked to, explanations will be dismissed outright by the all-knowing teenagers, and any attempt to have a rational conversation on the topic will fail. Just like any addict, kids will deny that they are addicted. I had to act once the smartphone addiction reached a disaster level. What worked the best for me was "no you cannot bring your phone to school or use it before the homework is done, that's my decision and I don't have to provide you with any explanation." Did this generate some resentment and a few tantrums? You bet, but I got the result I wanted, peace of mind and homework done on time. I disagree with you.
They may be 'forbidden fruit', but does that means that it would lead to more use of them?
Do you think people drank more in 2020 or 1920 during prohibition?
Do you think people smoked more weed in 2025 or, say, 1985 when it was less legal?
Do you think there is more gambling in 2025, or in 1925 when the laws banning it were still fresh?
I think you'll reach the conclusion that outright banning does in fact reduce the usage of the vice.
I think it should be fine to outright ban them in certain contexts, like classroom learning; just as they are outright banned (usually) in theaters or playhouses or places of worship.
And to cite your example, even in the most liberal jurisdictions I think it's not acceptable for students to take drugs in the classroom. Phones are basically the same thing.
How many 10 years old smoke weed, have sex, and drink alcohol ?
10 years old spending hours per days on their phone on the other hand...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...
It's surprising that this isn't done everywhere.
Note, kids from year 4 (9 years old) in many parts of Australia do have a Chromebook.
I think you chose well
I still don't believe that it's worth it, with the exclusion from their social circle causing a bigger health issue than social media, but I get it.
I believe you underestimate the power of being "in". Even if the friends wouldn't be "true", it is still extremely valuable socially. That is, speaking as someone who, due to unrelated reasons, was prevented from fitting in fully. It may not hold much water from a stranger on the internet, but i would've given anything to be able to fit in more at that time. I believe it has set me back socially 3-5 years, with lasting consequences which I may never truly heal.
> Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing
Sure, but they won't learn that when you prevent them from participating activities with their friends. This isn't them deciding that they don't want to participate in something.
> Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.
Attention spans can be fixed.
And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that. You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will. And the damage done by controlling their life like that is more lasting. Their relationship with authority, with you, with their own autonomy will be forever changed. (Speaking as figurative you, I don't mean to imply you specifically) This teaches them "You don't have a right to own things the authority doesn't want you to own" (Or it teaches them how to lie and hide contraband.)
Every parent exercises some form of control over their child. (Cookie before dinner? No, sorry.) Children need to learn boundaries and it's up to the parents to set those boundaries. It's basic parenting, and isn't as nefarious as you're making it out to be.
> You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will.
In my experience this is untrue. I grew up when TV was the primary medium of household entertainment, and yet I was the sole child in my class, and probably my whole school, to not have at TV at home (a deliberate choice on my parents' part). Now that I'm grown up, I'm thankful for it.
In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to.
I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.
I make sure that my daughter (6) sees me writing in my notebook, reading, making things etc. More often than not, she then wants to join in.
I will hold out giving her a smartphone as long as possible, and up until she has one, I will try and show her all the other fun things.
It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent"
It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors.
There, the phone addiction crisis solved.
I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.
Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.
None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.
I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.
Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.
> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.
> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,
Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting
I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.
> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.
I would also ban them globally, not just for kids but like I'm sure that would be a whole 'nother discussion.
And they doomed a generation in the process
But seriously agreed, that's why I propose what I propose - when it's banned no-one can do it and no one can eat your lunch (*)
(*) Subject to exceptions, as the War on Drugs can attest, but I think it would work in this instance
I vaguely recall too students back in the era where our biggest distraction was MSN messenger and our university forums. They kept both off until late at night.
We're letting people experience the downsides of the attention economy when it's almost (if not entirely) too late to avoid the negatives.
Because social media is precisely in the short term benefit x long term risk that human brains are bad at conceptualizing. Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.
Hardly anyone in the "west" gets pulled over by police for seat belt checks (unlike say, India, China), yet nearly everyone still wears them, because they understand if they don't, they'll probably become a stain on the asphalt. I imagine if tomorrow, a law passed that seat belts no longer had to be worn, most people would still use them. Perhaps the regulation and enforcement are only needed initially when not everyone is educated on the long term risks.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV. Cutting back to chronological feeds might improve some things but I don't think that's the root of the issue.
I would suggest the primary difference between then and now is accessibility. As a kid, my screen time was limited not just by my parents indulgence but the social pressure from using a shared device. Smart phones let you carry your personal distraction with you.
I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
Yeah that's fair.
> I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
Well to their friends in other classes ("Wanna go out after 3pm lesson").
Additionally, and socially, smart phones, if banned, would be instantly seen as a status symbol. And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality. The kids won't understand it, hell adults wouldn't. So it's also the case that you can't really ban them without really adverse social effects.
Probably something we should be encouraging in our youth.
To quote a great man, we live in society. And it's better to work within a system and get to know it rather than it is to just hate it. And if the first experience of a large portion of youth is system beating them down, you can see how that's gonna grow a strong "tear it all down" mentality.
My family didn't have a TV growing up. (This was way before the Internet, when TV was king and HBO and cable were a status symbol.) Me and my siblings tried every argument in the book to get them to buy one, to no avail. Out of the loop on TV pop culture? Boo-hoo. Peers make fun of you for not having a TV? Too bad, so sad. The result was that I participated in more activities that engaged my body and brain. Aside from being bad at TV pop culture trivia from those decades, I turned out just fine.
At the end of they day, parents need to set the standards that they want their children to live by, and stick with them. Even today, a phone is a luxury that a kid doesn't really need, and will likely contribute to low attention span and cause them all manner of anxiety. Don't take my word for it; many studies will back me up.
I’d actually prefer HN and Reddit to be just chronological (or “newest comment” on the above-thread level), like traditional forums.
Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.
Love this phrase. What might happen is that the next generation, upon seeing this opportunity, will do the opposite of their elders and highly value focus, and more readily dismiss quick gains.
1) Parents in the US are overworked, underpaid and (increasingly) unable to participate in the lives of their children. It should come as zero surprise then that phones are used as a way to get kids out of their hair. If you don't fix this problem then banning phones entirely won't matter, because parents will yell, scream and quite literally assault your schools for taking away phones from their kids.
2) Our K-12 educational system is broken. Kids are graduating with lower literacy rates than ever. College is functioning less as higher education and more like remedial programs, having to teach basic topics that should've been covered as part of the core curriculum.
3) Teachers are also underpaid, overworked and having to deal with the deficiencies in parenting as well as the advent of AI making cheating significantly easier and harder to detect.
These three factors all compound to create a whole generation that we're effectively failing. And given the attacks/teardown of college as an institution, I fear we're going to have our own version of the 'lost generation' until people get angry enough to fix it or our business capabilities collapse.
I can only speak anecdotally. Way before smartphones were invented, I had enforced limits on computer time to 1-2 hours a day via time tracking software. All this did was breed resentment between me and my parents that led to conflict and punishment. As soon as I got to college I was back to being on my computer all night nearly every day, relieved that I didn't have to put up with them anymore.
The technology restriction wasn't the beginning and end of my mentality all through college. The true cause was how I was raised and my relationship with my parents. They were the only real bullies I've ever had.
People will always attack apps, algorithms and corporations since they're easy to feel powerless about. But if a developing person is given good enough reason to doomscroll so that they able to forget the pain that was imbued in them from an early age, then 1) the outcome in the article results, 2) a major underlying factor in the analysis of why we're failing young people will be missed, and people will assume it's solely the fault of addictive "algorithms" and capitalism, and 3) it's unlikely that people are going to open up about stressors as personal as childhood trauma (a cause) as opposed to behavioral addictions like doomscrolling (a symptom), so the focus will be on attacking and regulating the symptoms, and this cycle of trauma will only exacerbate and repeat itself.
A certain level of trauma can steal decades away from developing persons and set them up for failure, with or without smartphones, and smartphones only make their problems worse. Not to mention, past a certain age people start to blame you for your own failings, even though many of them have roots in actions taken against you that were not your fault, and this only contributes to feelings of misery and hopelessness. Knowing this firsthand, it's no wonder so many people find little else interesting than doomscrolling all day - myself included.
You can regulate apps and restrict smartphones, but I have no idea how to fix bad parenting/emotional trauma at scale. What goes on in families is private by its nature, emotional abuse is legitimized if you never lay a hand on the child and some arbitrary standard of defiance is crossed, and intergenerational trauma can have completely arbitrary causes going back decades, which end up transmitted as meaningless stressors to a victim trapped in an endless search of anything at all to hold close to them...