NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again • Hacker News Board

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#291

Post by mschuster91 » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:05 PM UTC

nandomrumber wrote: post #227

zhivota wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty simple really, we're basically all [1] addicted to smartphones, so we basically all [1] advocated for this. After all, to admit it was a problem for our kids, we'd have to also admit it could be a problem for ourselves. Even I find myself holding onto my phone during most of the day when not on my computer, I don't even know why. It's an incredibly addictive piece of technology. [1] - to a first order of appro…

Did we ever allow the students to smoke in the classroom?

In the classroom not, but during my youth in Germany, the smokers had their own smoker's corner with an ashtray until smoking age was raised from 16 to 18 and the smokers had to go out of the schoolyard (i.e. they had to walk 5 meters more, lol).

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#292

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:06 PM UTC

LtWorf wrote: post #290

9rx wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook shifted because they wanted you to spend more time on their website and serve you more ads. Right. A service that isn't used is pointless. Usenet didn't serve ads or even try to make money, but also didn't get used, and was also deemed unworthy of attention. I mean technically it is still running out there in some corner of the internet, but when was the last time you used it? I bet 90% of HN users have ne…

So a toilet is only useful if you're 24h a day sitting on it? I'm having trouble understanding you.

[deleted]

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#293

Post by bavell » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:08 PM UTC

benchly wrote: post #234

zhivota wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty simple really, we're basically all [1] addicted to smartphones, so we basically all [1] advocated for this. After all, to admit it was a problem for our kids, we'd have to also admit it could be a problem for ourselves. Even I find myself holding onto my phone during most of the day when not on my computer, I don't even know why. It's an incredibly addictive piece of technology. [1] - to a first order of appro…

What's missing from the initial comparison is the fact that smartphones opened up all sorts of conveniences, which is partly what makes them so addictive. Rock music, D&D, etc, these other things that were crusaded against offered no convenience for all, so a conservative mind saw no value in it and attacked it as something that warps or rots young brains. Smartphones obviously do that and worse, but because they off…

HA I think I still have dope wars on my old college TI-84. Thanks for the blast of nostalgia!

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#294

Post by 9rx » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:09 PM UTC

LtWorf wrote: post #290

9rx wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook shifted because they wanted you to spend more time on their website and serve you more ads. Right. A service that isn't used is pointless. Usenet didn't serve ads or even try to make money, but also didn't get used, and was also deemed unworthy of attention. I mean technically it is still running out there in some corner of the internet, but when was the last time you used it? I bet 90% of HN users have ne…

So a toilet is only useful if you're 24h a day sitting on it? I'm having trouble understanding you.

One isn't able to do everything, I suppose.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#295

Post by MSFT_Edging » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

harvey9 wrote: post #220

mjbale116 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a couple of arguments I had to deal with whilst expressing my support for electronics ban at schools including a blanket social media ban: 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best." 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain th…

Forbidding things doesn't work. Not for kids and not for adults. Hence speakeasys and the end of prohibition, or the war on drugs (which was won by drugs).

Would a parent be allowed to send their kid in with a pack of smokes, and expect their kid can smoke them inside the school?

No?

Because it effects others and brings down the overall ability for the learning environment to succeed. Same deal with phones. If it makes the environment toxic to success, there should probably be some prohibition within those grounds. This isn't banning phones across the board, or banning them for kids. It's banning them within a location, like how firearms are banned inside courthouses.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#296

Post by cameron_b » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

obscurette wrote: post #199

therein wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone somewhere Must have been a powerful person.

They were. I was there in edu conferences, training sessions and other events years ago and could observe all this massive FUD which appeared – "smartphones are the future", "all communication will be in social media in the future", "books will not matter", "privacy will not matter", "if we ban smartphones, we will handicap our children" etc. People didn't know better and there was genuine fear in education. Or actua…

This is a huge factor, and heavily influenced by the purveyors of the technologies involved. A factor I hadn't realized that is implicated in this transition is the shift from the Teacher-led classroom to the device-led classroom. The teacher is no longer seen as the expert, the interpreter, the model figure of the subject when the laptop or tablet is the delivery tool. Students learn that the teacher is a facilitator, likely not up to date on the latest changes to the app interface, and not an authority on the subject.

Device-delivery instead of teacher-delivery puts the student first, even when the student knows nothing, and has zero impulse control.

So instead of modelling a productive and enriching data accessing environment, we're actually just tearing down the walls of the school and asking teachers to babysit the mayhem.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#297

Post by conductr » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

chis wrote: post #91

It's so insane that they let things go this far. It could have been immediately obvious to those involved that cell phones in class would have immensely negative effects. I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"?? I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.

They had to know. My middle schooling coincided during wave of beepers (early 90s) and then high school was mobile phones (late 90s) then college in early 2000s (iPods but not iPhones). During all that time, devices were practically unacceptable at school. It was a zero tolerance, teacher would confiscate your device, your parent would have to come to school to get it back. It likely was accompanied by some detention or more punitive measure. College was a more adult approach to same, professor would yell or just tell you to leave the class if your device came out and you appeared distracted at all. If it rang, and everyone was distracted, they’d often be livid.

Then, it seems only a couple years after my schooling was complete, smart phones came out and they just let them exist, everywhere. It has never made sense to me how that shift happened so suddenly but best theories I’ve heard are 1) parents insisting kids be reachable and 2) educators just gave up the fight against it.

But yeah, it’s sad to me to think a whole generation had lost core social experience and socialization of such a pivotal age in life. When I hear stats about how kids/teens don’t; drive, party, date, sex, etc yet are lonely, anxious, depressed, etc I’m always like “no shit”

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#298

Post by yunwal » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:21 PM UTC

bigmealbigmeal wrote: post #245

echelon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful. Next let's ban kids from social media. Or better yet, let's tax social media as a negative externality. Anything with an algorithmic feed, engagement algorithm, commenting/voting/banning, all hooked up to advertising needs to pay to fix the harm it's causing. They're about as bad as nicotine and lung cancer. They've taken p…

> Chatbots [are] going to remain niche for quite some time. > iPhone immediately caught on like wild fire. > I'm not saying there won't be users, but it's a much smaller population. The facts say you're wrong about this. The adoption rate for the iPhone was slow. There were only 1.4 million iPhones sold in its first year,[1] whereas there were 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users in its first year.[2] ChatGPT is n…

> The adoption rate for the iPhone was slow. There were only 1.4 million iPhones sold in its first year,[1] whereas there were 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users in its first year.[2]

The ChatGPT number includes people who paid no money. iPhone adoption was incredibly fast for a paid product

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#299

Post by StarGrit » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:31 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #280

StarGrit wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People "roll coal" it because it is kinda amusing to do it, and it is a middle finger towards people they perceive to be preachy. I accidentally "rolled coal" in my 90s Landrover because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill. It was amusing in the way of "oh shit! I kinda just blew a load of black smoke in the driver face behind me". Obviously, I don't do this deliberately.

Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior. The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal . Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timi…

Your reply is exactly the preachy response that causes people to be defiant and resentful.

> Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.

Blowing a bit of soot up in the air isn't in itself cruel. It is just a bit naughty. Now doing it in someone's face like I've seen in videos deliberately is not very nice and can be dangerous. I think it should go without saying that I don't condone anti-social and dangerous behaviour.

> The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .

Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy? BTW, I am a cyclist that spent 3 months out of work because of a hit and run accident that left me with a permanent weakness in my right shoulder as a result. The reason I don't spend a lot of time with other cyclists, is because everything started to become a political issue against drivers, a lot of my fellow cyclists are preachy. I heard people saying that owning a pet was akin to slavery and other such nonsense. As someone that enjoys both driving and cycling, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

BTW, In the story he caused a collision while rolling coal. The issue was dangerous driving. Not blowing some soot up into the air itself.

> Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing.

In my case it was, it was because I was stuck in the wrong gear. My vehicle is currently in a garage being repaired for that very issue now (clutch is worn). It was funny in the sense of "OMG that is embarassing".

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#300

Post by tda » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 2:31 PM UTC

miki123211 wrote: post #273

hamdingers wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back. This can't be it. I was in high school when smartphones were coming out and there was zero tolerance for them or any other electronic devices (dumbphones, ipods, palm pilots, etc) in the classroom. I don't know when or why it happened but allowing smartphones in school was a conscious choice and a policy change.

TBH, I think banning smartphones in class is entirely justified and reasonable. Banning smartphones completely (including during breaks / lunch)? A different matter entirely.

If you haven't been to a school recently where >99% of kids all direct >99% percent of their attention during breaks I can see where you are coming from. But I was at a highschool with a lax phone policy (allowed in breaks etc), and I was amazed and appalled. A no-phones policy is really important to me, because there seems to be no middle ground possible.