Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 252 posts

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#241

Post by rtkwe »

codersfocus wrote: post #240
greedo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming both that you're arguing in good faith, and that your ability to use search engines must be seriously impaired. So here goes: 1875 - US v Cruikshank. Held that states have the ability to regulate firearms independent of the Federal government. 1939 - US v Miller. Held that the "obvious purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was insuring effective state militias. Specifically insisting that only those guns usable…

Reagan was the one who banned guns in California, and the 2 cases you mention seem irrelevant

The cases show the former and long running consensus in the court that some regulations were not unconstitutional infringements in contrast to the "shall not be infringed" absolutism popular among progun groups today.

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#242

Post by egberts1 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #96
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build a giant Faraday cage around the classrooms. Blocks telecomms.

Then you’ll get a visit from the FCC.

No, they will not get a visit from FCC for any form of passive blocking.

Maybe in a banana republic, but certainly not in U.S.A.

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#243

Post by greedo »

codersfocus wrote: post #240
greedo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming both that you're arguing in good faith, and that your ability to use search engines must be seriously impaired. So here goes: 1875 - US v Cruikshank. Held that states have the ability to regulate firearms independent of the Federal government. 1939 - US v Miller. Held that the "obvious purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was insuring effective state militias. Specifically insisting that only those guns usable…

Reagan was the one who banned guns in California, and the 2 cases you mention seem irrelevant

AB 1591 was signed into law not because Reagan supported gun control in general, but because the Black Panthers had been conducting armed protests in 1967. 12 years after signing the Mulford Act into law, Reagan diminished the act; "I hardly think it was gun control."

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#244

Post by greedo »

codersfocus wrote: post #240
greedo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming both that you're arguing in good faith, and that your ability to use search engines must be seriously impaired. So here goes: 1875 - US v Cruikshank. Held that states have the ability to regulate firearms independent of the Federal government. 1939 - US v Miller. Held that the "obvious purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was insuring effective state militias. Specifically insisting that only those guns usable…

Reagan was the one who banned guns in California, and the 2 cases you mention seem irrelevant

So a SCOTUS decision that states the obvious purpose of the 2nd Amendment are state militias seems irrelevant...

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#245

Post by red-iron-pine »

throwaway50603 wrote: post #190
wetmore wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taking away their phones because others can't handle themselves is wrong. Why, if it's during the school day? What's the advantage of having a phone during class?

There doesn't need to be any advantage. They're not causing any disruptions - nobody should be telling them where to put their property. A phone contains private photos and conversations, has authorized access to email, chat and (in other cases) social media accounts, it's a second authentication factor, it has payment cards, saved passwords, browser history, potentially health data (for example, period or medication…

> There doesn't need to be any advantage. They're not causing any disruptions - nobody should be telling them where to put their property.

Bollocks. Even on silent it's disrupting someone's attention, if only the owners.

And those under 18 years old aren't adults, and are wards of their parents. They're required by law to go to school and during the duration they're wards of the state. They don't get to own property in the direct sense that actual legal adults do.

> It's perfectly understandable they want to have it under their own sight and control. Touching it without permission is unacceptable.

They're kids, you think they're going to agree to that? Confiscate em -- put em in a box at the start of the day -- or else make them stay at home.

> I have seen kids steal stuff from the teacher's desk/other school property when I still went to school - one kid even stole a RAM stick from a school computer right during class. I would never trust the school's ability to keep my phone secure.

Then they can keep those phones at home.

> Also - the school day is not 100% class time, there are breaks in between. What they do during breaks is their own business.

This isn't a job -- there is no expectation of freedom in between classes. If they're in the building they're still wards of the state. They're just not in classes.

Listen, if this was a 19 year old on a construction site, I'd agree with you, but there is plenty of legal, moral, and basic cat-herding involved in having kids at school. You wanna get treated like an adult before 18 then drop out and get emancipated, otherwise thems the breaks.

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#246

Post by red-iron-pine »

mdgrech23 wrote: post #86
Octokiddie wrote: post #9

Parents have not idea whatsoever of the destruction that phones have wrought on the education system, both in the large and in the small. Students who claim otherwise are gaslighting their parents. Parents are unfortunately all too willing to believe the lies because of course their child is above average and would never completely tune out of class for another hit on the electronic crack pipe. At this point, the pro…

Let's be real - parents want their kids to have phones at school b/c of school shootings.

Security theater, really.

Most mass shooting happen very quickly. Even if that kid can call 911 instantly, it's not gonna stop a buncha people from getting killed.

The Virginia Tech shooter, armed with 1 x 9mm pistol and 1 x .22LR pistol, killed 30 people (including himself) in roughly 8 minutes. Even with perfect knowledge and alerting there is no way police would be able to get there in time. Similar timelines for many recent shootings, with Uvalde being a notable and egregious outlier -- the cops were on site very quickly but didn't go in, the bloody cowards.

With iPhone or not, the reality is little Timmy is gonna catch two to the chest if something goes down.

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#247

Post by mmierz »

ido wrote: post #142
Octokiddie wrote: post #9

Parents have not idea whatsoever of the destruction that phones have wrought on the education system, both in the large and in the small. Students who claim otherwise are gaslighting their parents. Parents are unfortunately all too willing to believe the lies because of course their child is above average and would never completely tune out of class for another hit on the electronic crack pipe. At this point, the pro…

Is this an American thing? Here in Germany my son is not allowed to have a phone at school. He doesn't have one anyway, but kids that do have to give up their phones in the morning, which are in a locked box and they get them back in the afternoon when they go home. Nobody ever asked us about it, it's simply school policy.

I am American and my children's school has exactly this rule (phones confiscated during the day). My kids report that most of their peers simply ignore the rule and keep their phone with them, and that this is so common the school has given up on enforcement.

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#248

Post by mock-possum »

harshalizee wrote: post #203
throwaway50603 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There doesn't need to be any advantage. They're not causing any disruptions - nobody should be telling them where to put their property. A phone contains private photos and conversations, has authorized access to email, chat and (in other cases) social media accounts, it's a second authentication factor, it has payment cards, saved passwords, browser history, potentially health data (for example, period or medication…

Ok, then just don't bring it in? I don't why America constantly acts like we have unique problems no one does. Most schools in EU just bans cellphone usage during school hours either by taking it away or barred from bringing it in and it's just effective. Humanity dealt with periods/medications/emergencies long before smartphones and can still do.

> Ok, then just don't bring it in?

So - in my experience, when I find myself saying "why don't you just-" it's a flag that I don't fully understand the situation.

Use your imagination, in what ways could having ready access to a smart phone be a marked improvement in your ability to navigate the day-to-day experiences of a student?

You could take notes or record lectures, obviously. That's an easy one. One a related note, as an accessibility tool - you can automatically transcribe speech that you may be having difficulty following, and you can quickly look up definitions or even translations if you need to. Teacher just used a big word that you didn't quite catch? You could either raise your hand and interrupt their flow for the entire classroom... or you could glance at your phone and get your answer yourself.

Do you need to perform some sort of self-care activity periodically? Your phone can remind you that it's time for the next pill, or time to get up and stretch, or have a small snack to manage your blood sugar.

Along those lines, the assumption that it's so easy to just discard such an essentially integrated piece of modern technology comes off as subtle ableism, if nothing else.

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#249

Post by _siis »

throwaway50603 wrote: post #234
than3 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this sounds more and more like an association trigger and addiction seeking behavior. You may want to: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/how-an-addicted-brain-work... Additionally, each one of those apps has nearly full access to all your private information. Accurint goes out of their way to get most data about people. That entire ecosystem lacks adversarial review. Additionally, coercively forcing you to…

Honestly, it sounds like you're just fishing for reasons to ban phones because you personally don't like them and are unable to respect students as people. Not sure what you mean about the reliability - the apps are more reliable than the previous methods like paper tickets. I don't really want to go back to standing in endless queues. And no, these apps don't have nearly unlimited access to my private information, n…

I deploy VOIP solutions professionally as a System Admin/Engineer, I happen to see all the problems that you haven't yet noticed.

Reliability wise, I'm talking about messaging improperly handling timestamps, not sending messages but saying their sent, and silently discarding messages sent to you. Timestamps and other dated items are necessary for non-repudiation; or proving to a specific level that is acceptable as evidence in a court of law (to hold business accountable).

I've seen messaging apps, text messages (which are a messaging app), not display errors and silently update fields later or disappear the messages when compared with a separate device on the same network. You only see it if you happen to have equipment to monitor what the baseband modem is sending and it fails at the cell tower (which may not be official). Phone providers open a ticket, then auto-close them within 30 days without resolution.

The way these systems work, there's heavy coding theory so if a transmission fails, it gets resent. Its not a result of interference but of failures at infrastructure nodes.

So what might happen to the relationships in your life if you stop getting messages from your friends, and from their perspective they stop getting messages from you. You miss things because you don't know about them. You think they'll be your friends long? If they aren't having the same issue, do you think they'll believe you when you notice it without provable times just on your say so, and they discount date and timestamps since they get updated?

If someone did that maliciously to isolate you, you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to do anything about it. People would look at you like you were crazy. You do it long enough and isolation does interesting things to your psychology, and if your thinking there's no reason for someone to target you like that, you would be wrong.

Political warfare, or the destruction of the national will, in part involves priming people's psychology so they polarize into groups that are complacent (don't respond), or lash out at anything they see as remotely triggering (similar to your attachment to a cell phone). This allows a smaller group during a destabilization event to seize power; historically.

There's a great book published and freely available on the USMC University website about political warfare and what it exactly entails. Bezmenov isn't that reliable.

GDPR and DSA are only reactive. What happens when the violators are moving targets (nefarious non-business).

Your email provider has access to read, and more importantly prevent you from sending email to others. Preventing communication without alerting the sender is how this is weaponized.

WhatsApp regularly uses your microphone in the background; maybe its location finding from your local power hum (50/60hz) did you agree to that or did they update the terms after the fact and continued use is acceptance?.

All these things happen regularly. The fact that you think they don't happen, and have discounted it so completely and are so attached to a device that literally can make you go crazy under the right causable circumstances looks like an addiction spiral to me or impossible levels of extreme ignorance about how you are manipulated on a daily basis (sheep-le) with no real thought because thought requires risking being wrong to learn what's right.

A non-attached person would simply say, I go with what works and leave it at that, and take a critical eye towards reliable methods being deprecated. It certainly appears you are attached whether you know it or not.

Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough

#250

Post by than3 »

musicale wrote: post #229
than3 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of supporting material about addiction and young adults. Social media is just one avenue or road on a path of thousands at your fingertips. You don't control it, the phone manufacturer and the app makers do. You may be shown something, it looks like fun, and then wastes hours, days, or months, on a simple dopamine 'loop' that's been designed (Octalysis Framework). You may spend a lot of money on worthle…

> If your parents didn't stop you, would you be able to choose and have only 1-2 servings of your favorite sugar snack? or if left alone would you go through a long process of rationalizing just one more and before you know it the entire bag is gone. "You can't eat just one." Fortunately I seem to be able to easily resist the lure of potato chips/crisps and actually feel full after eating a few of them. I think the g…

I used 'sugar' for a reason, comparing it to potato chips is an apples to oranges comparison. We are talking about addiction, and how the brain at young ages can't really perceive or moderate highly addictive behaviors.

Sugar is provably addictive and has been compared to cocaine, heroin, and other opioids for the flood of dopamine it causes.

Those optimized foods you refer to often simply have a lot of sugar processed into them.

Post reply on HN