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

The kids with phones are alright

heatherburns.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#81

Post by GeekyBear »

mcv wrote: post #69

Do people want to restrict 16 year olds with phones? That seems like a really bad idea. For 10 year olds it makes sense, but 16 is nearly adult; they need to really learn this responsibility. And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls. A bit of a weird tangent from what apparently is harassment in a train or something like that? I admit it's hard to follow what is going on.

Personally, I would rather see public resources used to teach parents how to use the existing controls (in iOS and Android) to restrict what their own kids can do on their own smartphone.

However, if a school district wants to restrict the use of smartphones during the school day for all students, I would be OK with that.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#82

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

mcv wrote: post #69

Do people want to restrict 16 year olds with phones? That seems like a really bad idea. For 10 year olds it makes sense, but 16 is nearly adult; they need to really learn this responsibility. And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls. A bit of a weird tangent from what apparently is harassment in a train or something like that? I admit it's hard to follow what is going on.

> And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls.

Do teens need phones? Sure, they need a phone. Arguably any child old enough to know how to make a phone call needs one. But do they need a miniature computer to scroll through AI slop 10+ hours a day?

These aren't the same question. Confusing these two is dangerous.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#83

Post by [deleted] »

testing22321 wrote: post #70
mcv wrote: post #69

Do people want to restrict 16 year olds with phones? That seems like a really bad idea. For 10 year olds it makes sense, but 16 is nearly adult; they need to really learn this responsibility. And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls. A bit of a weird tangent from what apparently is harassment in a train or something like that? I admit it's hard to follow what is going on.

Do people really want to restrict 16 year olds with alcohol? 16 is nearly adult, they need to learn responsibility

[deleted]

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#84

Post by sheept »

alwa wrote: post #72
mcv wrote: post #69

Do people want to restrict 16 year olds with phones? That seems like a really bad idea. For 10 year olds it makes sense, but 16 is nearly adult; they need to really learn this responsibility. And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls. A bit of a weird tangent from what apparently is harassment in a train or something like that? I admit it's hard to follow what is going on.

Seems wise to experience at least a little bit of “functioning as an adult in the world” independently of phone habits… It seems like, in this situation, we watch primarily non-phone-enabled virtues save the day: a clear sense of right and wrong, assertiveness, courage, steadiness in a tense situation, an attentive social environment with bystanders who both noticed and backed each other up… Even having practiced som…

The severity depends on where you are, even within a country, but in many places you can't authentically "function as an adult in the world" without a phone, unless you want to roleplay an adult from the previous century.

In some places, payment requires a phone. Tracking unreliable public transit requires a phone. Getting rideshare requires a phone.

The issue probably isn't the phone but letting them outside in the first place.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#85

Post by cmoski »

nyeah wrote: post #61
titanomachy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree. Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant in this case. And I’ve never heard anyone seriously argue that 16-year-olds shouldn’t have phones, or that 16-year-old girls are at fault when an old man secretly makes videos of them. Both these groups seem like imagined bogeymen that the article is railing against.

>Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant The article explains why that was not irrelevant.

Who is saying 16yos shouldn't have phones though?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#86

Post by thesmtsolver2 »

puchatek wrote: post #31
FeteCommuniste wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting reversal of the "think of the kids" argument, though: think of the kids who could have used their phones to document their mistreatment at the hands of alcoholic perverts.

Reminds me of the "good guys with guns" narrative tbh. Being able to document such transgressions is not enough of an argument to do a mass rollout of ad display technology IMHO.

What do you think about legalizing drugs?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#87

Post by Triphibian »

GeekyBear wrote: post #81
mcv wrote: post #69

Do people want to restrict 16 year olds with phones? That seems like a really bad idea. For 10 year olds it makes sense, but 16 is nearly adult; they need to really learn this responsibility. And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls. A bit of a weird tangent from what apparently is harassment in a train or something like that? I admit it's hard to follow what is going on.

Personally, I would rather see public resources used to teach parents how to use the existing controls (in iOS and Android) to restrict what their own kids can do on their own smartphone. However, if a school district wants to restrict the use of smartphones during the school day for all students, I would be OK with that.

Where's the setting to make YouTube not display shorts?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#88

Post by quotz »

testing22321 wrote: post #70
mcv wrote: post #69

Do people want to restrict 16 year olds with phones? That seems like a really bad idea. For 10 year olds it makes sense, but 16 is nearly adult; they need to really learn this responsibility. And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls. A bit of a weird tangent from what apparently is harassment in a train or something like that? I admit it's hard to follow what is going on.

Do people really want to restrict 16 year olds with alcohol? 16 is nearly adult, they need to learn responsibility

In parts of europe you can legally drink wine and beer at the age of 14-16. In many parts of europe you start drinking alcohol at around 14-15 illegally but socially acceptable to some extent. I started at that age, which is the same age adolescents start going out and dating.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#89

Post by pluralmonad »

Triphibian wrote: post #87
GeekyBear wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I would rather see public resources used to teach parents how to use the existing controls (in iOS and Android) to restrict what their own kids can do on their own smartphone. However, if a school district wants to restrict the use of smartphones during the school day for all students, I would be OK with that.

Where's the setting to make YouTube not display shorts?

This works for me:

echo "0.0.0.0 youtube.com www.youtube.com m.youtube.com" | sudo tee -a /etc/hosts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#90

Post by NoPicklez »

nyeah wrote: post #27
jimbokun wrote: post #19

> These are groups who, culturally, do not want their children to have agency over their own lives, People who are not yet ready to have full agency of their own lives is more or less the definition of children. Does she also expect children to have full time jobs, pay taxes, pay all their own bills and rent, etc etc?

In TFA, the author says "agency" not "full agency." I also can't find all these other issues (jobs, etc) in TFA. Where are you getting this?

Well that's the question isn't it, agency but to what extent. It makes sense to allow teenagers to have more agency over themselves than a 10 year old, but clearly there is an argument for limiting their agency on social media platforms.

Just because there are adults that abuse their agency of the use of alcohol (alcoholism) doesn't mean we should remove restrictions on young people.

Just because there are adults with full agency who drive recklessly doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds to drive cars.

Post reply on HN