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

101–110 of 458 posts

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#101

Post by fragmede »

NoPicklez wrote: post #96

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then? What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impa…

> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones

I'll say it. Kids shouldn't have phones until the age of 16.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#102

Post by jjulius »

makeitdouble wrote: post #94
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> make a phone call Kids don't want to call, and parents don't want to receive calls except for critical situations. Only elders and scammers are actually phoning. > AI slop Same deal as what the GP is pointing at: you need to train kids to deal with slop, and not have them face it on their own at once at some arbitrary adult age.

I'm a parent in my 30's. Call me up anytime, for whatever. Always down to chat!

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#103

Post by burningChrome »

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.

>> if a school district wants to restrict the use of smartphones during the school day for all students

Both of my kids went to public school. My sisters kids both went to a private school. The policy was the same at both places. Kids come in the classroom, turn off their phones, put in a pouch at the front of the class. At the end of the class, kids get their phones back.

Apparently since there is little or no time between classes, I guess with the lack of time to be on their phones, in person conversations have increased and more face-to-face interactions are the norm. Its faster and easier to meet someone down the hall then it is to go through the process of texting someone, which is the entire point.

The goal was to create enough friction (psychological or real) so kids simply revert back to just meeting up at a regular spot to catch up, as opposed to constantly being on their phones. The school admins I talked to said its really pushed kids back into communicating like humans. Many have forgone their phones in between classes, except a quick check for emergency purposes, that sort of thing.

Kind of fascinating to hear to be honest.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#104

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

makeitdouble wrote: post #94
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> make a phone call Kids don't want to call, and parents don't want to receive calls except for critical situations. Only elders and scammers are actually phoning. > AI slop Same deal as what the GP is pointing at: you need to train kids to deal with slop, and not have them face it on their own at once at some arbitrary adult age.

>Same deal as what the GP is pointing at: you need to train kids to deal with slop,

Sure. That's why I have mine mainlining China White. How will they learn to deal with addictive substances unless they're waist-deep in it?

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#105

Post by trueno »

avaer wrote: post #98

I think most reasonable people can agree social media/internet can be a dangerous place where your images will be taken and posted to others without your consent. This isn't a matter of age. Except this is exactly what Heather Burns is doing. Not this guy, who (I had to check) was apparently following the law(?) and the article even admits this: > as far as policymakers are concerned, it’s the senior legal officer wi…

> was apparently following the law

i feel like there's a time and a place to split hairs on whether or not legality clears moral wrong doing, and this is certainly not that time nor place. in what universe are these even remotely equivalent without broad abstractions?

* elite boomer filming underage girls for his own gratification

* bystanders filming a perpetrator mid-act

heather touches on those willing to get hung up on this stretch of an inconsistency and even links her other Darnella test post.

> (if the law is bad, change it. but that's not this article)

that is literally the article. she's a tech policy writer critiquing the policy framework.

in general the weird undertones of your comment feel like you're asserting heather is like morally compromised or something and that the article is worth dismissing. if there was some discussion about the actual stuff she's talking about in this article i'd be singing a different tune right now, you know about whether or not under 16 bans punish young people for stinky perf perpetrator behavior... but since there isn't it feels even crazier that you're dotting this with your assessment that heather is somehow being the problematic one here. wat

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#106

Post by albedoa »

jimbokun wrote: post #63
nyeah wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is there a point you’re trying to make?

The point is very clear to the rest of us. You inserted the word "full" where the author was not talking about full agency. It's hard to believe that you don't follow.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#107

Post by pmg101 »

fragmede wrote: post #101
NoPicklez wrote: post #96

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then? What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media. Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impa…

> Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones I'll say it. Kids shouldn't have phones until the age of 16.

The smartphone free childhood movement is explicitly saying children shouldn't have phones (until 14). I'm broadly with them although with nuance.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#108

Post by s5300 »

psd1 wrote: post #53
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?

"These are groups that i invented". I know a few upper-crust families, including a hereditary title. They all care about their children, like the majority of human beings. But this blogger doesn't think we hate posh people enough, so necessarily they abuse their young. It snacks of "jews will eat your baby". It's not the vitriol that offends me, it's the stupidity.

[dead]

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#109

Post by DangitBobby »

albedoa wrote: post #106
jimbokun wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a point you’re trying to make?

The point is very clear to the rest of us. You inserted the word "full" where the author was not talking about full agency. It's hard to believe that you don't follow.

We are arguing over how much agency children should have. The article argues they should have more, the comment you originally responded to said practically definitionally we limit the agency of children. The obvious implied point is that it's not unreasonable to think their phone use may be part of the agency that they are denied, and that would not be a departure from how children are treated.

Re: The kids with phones are alright

#110

Post by makeitdouble »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #104
makeitdouble wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make a phone call Kids don't want to call, and parents don't want to receive calls except for critical situations. Only elders and scammers are actually phoning. > AI slop Same deal as what the GP is pointing at: you need to train kids to deal with slop, and not have them face it on their own at once at some arbitrary adult age.

>Same deal as what the GP is pointing at: you need to train kids to deal with slop, Sure. That's why I have mine mainlining China White. How will they learn to deal with addictive substances unless they're waist-deep in it?

If you're waist deep in China White, you may as well teach your kids about it, get them as much knowledge as possible, and how to stay clear of it.

Letting choose a different path than you is IMHO the minimum you should be doing.

Post reply on HN