(you will reply "don't do that then")
But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them. The parents recognize it's a collective action problem.
It's a legal loophole where the seller requests the check but the person delivering it has no binding liability to do so and they simply will not because it takes extra time. The economics practically guarantee the check won't be performed and the interface mechanics of carrier-seller means there's no practical way to prosecute either party when the carrier doesn't perform a requested ID check.
https://www.periodpaper.com/cdn/shop/products/EM2_315_1200x1...
The last time I ordered some tobacco a major, non-shady, licensed vendor literally had USPS pick it up and drop it straight in my mailbox.
Moreover, the point of these laws isn't to prevent any particular illegal sale. It's to eliminate the market and reduce the volume. In-person, cash transactions are difficult for parents to track. But most kids aren't going to risk their parents finding credit card charges from mail-order alcohol and tobacco vendors. If a large fraction of kids were actually using that loophole, then enforcement of those laws would be a higher priority, like it is with in-person sales.
Product bans do, in fact, work. For example, sports betting has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court overturned a ban on online gambling: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/01/sports-bettin....
Note that I agree with your point overall. My kids have phones for times when they are away and might need to contact me. I'm just saying it isn't as bad as it sounds.
This isn't very compatible with also teaching children that they can't trust the majority of adults, and that every stranger is a potential danger.
that's not even true for adults. Why would you assume it's true for kids?
People can be wildly reluctant to just hand over a thousand or two dollars worth of equipment to a teenager in a busy street and hope they don't run off with it. Smartphone theft is still a thing.
Who owns a $2,000 phone which isn't insured and should they really be leaving their house?
How about this, I'll pick a random day in your future while you're out doing stuff to show up and break your phone in half. How much is that going to ruin your day?
I take your point though, but I have to wonder who in their right mind would go to times square to ask to borrow a phone. Surely you'd go somewhere less busy.
I remember about 10 or 12 years ago, I'd answer every incoming call. Many were wrong numbers (guy who had the phone number before we was, I kid you not, some sort of wine salesman... people were wanting to order crates of wine). But I'd answer. Now, not so much. I get 15 calls a day some days, all are robots. I screen through voicemail transcription most of the time, unless I recognize the number. Blocking does not good. Numbers in my area code mean nothing... a surprising number of robot calls match my own exchange number (why? what's the point?). For 3 weeks a few months ago, one even matched my own phone number but for the last two digits being transposed, but it wouldn't leave a voicemail.
I no longer have the reasonable ability to answer strange phone numbers. If it were just mean, I'd chalk it up to some idiosyncratic neurosis and be quiet, but my own impression is that everyone else is doing the same thing. We not only tore down the old POTS network, we got rid of all the norms around it.
I have phone numbers in an area code that just seems to get flooded with spam calls. Even our unpublished numbers get them so it doesn't seem like directed attacks, just broadcast spam.
I also have a phone number from a different area and I blocked that area code and everything near it.
The robocallers have found that if the fake caller id given matches the area code and exchange of the number being called, that more of the recipients are willing to answer.
And from a robocaller's perspective, getting folks to answer is critical to being able to transfer them to someone in the scam boiler room for reaping.
Messaging, calls, maps, notes but no way to take or view images. Marketed simply from a global brand.
Shocker, but those are probably not the people you are going to give a shit about after you leave school.
Of course they do, which is why any sane (imo) parent wouldn't let their child on social media to begin with. Basically feeding your child's developing brain into the dopamine farm, along with the "it's on the internet forever" tax.
Social media is a cancer, not some bizare tool for their social or economic wellbeing or general happiness.
Personally I think no phones until 16 is a good rule.
Cell phone and social media addictions arn't inevitabilities they are choices.
That being said, I can’t imagine myself drawing pictures, or playing boardgames every day with my friends when I was 13. Wouldn’t be happy if my parents didn’t let me play WoW/AoM with my friends. Obviously everyone is different, and I’m in no place to say you’re doing it wrong. Just trying to say how it would suck if I couldn’t do something that all my peers are allowed to do.
This all is the main reason why I support nation-wide social media bans. Would solve the issue if no kids were allowed.
But yeah, I support the school-wide smarthphone bans. Not uncommon in Tokyo.
Social development is very critical during school-age years.
In general around this topic, there is a lot of post hoc rationalisation about choices already made. I've actually got a family member approaching her 30s who has spent the last 2 decades mostly staring at a screen, and has nothing to show for it. So for me the choice is easy, maybe less so for my kids.
It makes an enormous difference for transit.
Knowing when the bus is arriving allows you to decide to walk. Not every places has buses that arrive on time. In Rome a bus can be late by 40 minutes, in which case walking is an option, especially if you are young.
nobody stops you from limiting your kid to bunch of whitelisted apps, for instance whatsapp (it has parental controls as well), duolingo, wikipedia, phone, SMS, calculator, maps, flashlight, sudoku, chess, camera
not exactly sure why you wanna ban cameras
It's not hard. If they need to be contacted get them a dumb phone. And yes, my kids will miss out. They will miss out on their attention span being destroyed, their ability to critically think destroyed, body issues, radicalization, horrible influences, etc... My children will miss out on all that and I'm very glad that will be the case. I'm not sure why other parents are rushing to destroy their kids brains but that's their choice.
I ran a summer camp for teenagers. They know how to get around that stuff if they want. They know how to hide it from their parents to keep access.
You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy.
Below a certain age I’m sure it works for a time, but you will eventually have to find a balance.
That’s why parents want bans. Their kids are going to go where the other kids are. If they are all banned on instagram, they won’t care about finding a way onto a platform where none of their friends are.
>You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy.
Yes. And the healthy decision is to not have a phone. That's like saying I should let my kid eat ice cream for dinner every night but talk to them about how it's better to eat healthy. I'm a parent. It's my job to make some decisions for my children.
Best of luck.
Sucks that we’re stuck as parents running an experiment on children where the only beneficiaries are corporations, and there is no correct answer.
Isn't it pretty easy to set up a whitelist of apps/websites kids are allowed to use?
Whether or not that's a healthy thing for your parent/child relationship is a different question.
OP already gave you your answer, you just chose to ignore it
It's simpler to take the phone away. And iPad. And stop hanging out with your friends that have it.
Phone management is hard to solve for pre-teen and teens.
It's like taking heroin away from an addict. They hate you for helping.
They are both very bad at things like my kids listening to Spotify with the screen off.
Qustodio also has no way to mark an app as "allowed even when they run out of time", or "this app doesn't count towards screen time" (like Spotify, for example).
Then on the PC it gets MUCH worse. I want tracking and blocking on my PCs for my kids' profiles, but if ONE kid runs out of time, ALL the PCs lock everyone out. No message, either. Just bounced to the login screen. Took me like a whole day to figure it out.
2 of my 3 have never touched social media are are healthy, functioning adults with jobs and friends.
FOMO chasing Jones family bullshit.