For me, I worry about smartphone bans etc because for the weird kids it's a lifeline to be able to contact their people. Not to mention all the assistive apps that make life with vision and hearing defects, or existing in a second language, easier.
What I find most interesting in all this discourse is that it is framed as "smartphones" when the actual discussion is usually then about social media, porn, or something else that is just as easily accessed on a tablet, laptop or PC. In fact in Adolescence the internet influence wasn't portrayed as mainly phone based, it was the computer in a bedroom. Nonetheless this 'medium' aspect is relevant because a phone is portable, ever present, and hard to see what someone else is accessing. But it isn't the whole story, and discussions that centre around smartphones feel like they are probably not clear enough on what they are proposing - the framing is off.
(That awareness of individual isolation being a concern is also the key to what we've attempted to do as parents - encompass all of the concerns with a simple principle of access in public. No electronics upstairs, so whatever they're doing, they're doing it where everyone else can at least vaguely see what sort of thing is happening. We have also had other rules of engagement which fall on the stricter side of things - but it's the staying involved with what they're up to that I think is the most powerful principle.)
The trouble with public Internet use only / parental involvement is it's great when the parents are good, but not good when the parents aren't - online contacts can be the lifeline escape from abusive parents.
So it's good to do if you're a good parent, but not a good norm as it makes abusive family situations worse.
Yes, there's an important distinction between 'what should I do as a parent' and 'what should society do'?
On the norms, it all depends on what your assumptions are about baselines. What is your relative size here of 'number of abusive families where it's good kids can use the internet unsupervised' vs 'number of kids who, if using the internet unsurpervised, will be drawn into incel culture / Islamist extremism / pro-anorexia cultures'? You can't just automatically privilege the former over the latter.
Indeed - any blanket policy can’t avoid the fact that there will be some who benefit and some who suffer, which is why I’m generally extremely wary of jumping to regulation over public discussion, exchange of ideas, and people making their own choices for their own context as a result.
I don’t think, however, that we should start every recommendation with the assumption that the default position is that most children need protecting from their parents. On a purely practical level, society can’t function without parents caring for children before they can do that themselves.
That doesn’t mean *no* children need protecting from their parents - some do - but in those cases action beyond allowing unrestricted internet use is likely to be needed (and probably more effective).
(On a personal level - I don’t mean that we closely watch everything they are typing or watching. But you can have a vague idea whether they are watching a stream of ED videos or doing their homework, share their enthusiasm at beating a tricky level or get an idea of what memes they find funny, and perhaps as importantly can spot if they are uncomfortable about something they’ve come across. Yes it works best in a family environment of support, respect and trust - again I think this is something to start by trying to foster rather than assuming it’s an impossibility.)
Hadn’t thought about it this way before - think probably both!
For me, I worry about smartphone bans etc because for the weird kids it's a lifeline to be able to contact their people. Not to mention all the assistive apps that make life with vision and hearing defects, or existing in a second language, easier.
What I find most interesting in all this discourse is that it is framed as "smartphones" when the actual discussion is usually then about social media, porn, or something else that is just as easily accessed on a tablet, laptop or PC. In fact in Adolescence the internet influence wasn't portrayed as mainly phone based, it was the computer in a bedroom. Nonetheless this 'medium' aspect is relevant because a phone is portable, ever present, and hard to see what someone else is accessing. But it isn't the whole story, and discussions that centre around smartphones feel like they are probably not clear enough on what they are proposing - the framing is off.
(That awareness of individual isolation being a concern is also the key to what we've attempted to do as parents - encompass all of the concerns with a simple principle of access in public. No electronics upstairs, so whatever they're doing, they're doing it where everyone else can at least vaguely see what sort of thing is happening. We have also had other rules of engagement which fall on the stricter side of things - but it's the staying involved with what they're up to that I think is the most powerful principle.)
Yes! The title made me think we were asking "is it smartphones (medium) or social media (content)?"
The trouble with public Internet use only / parental involvement is it's great when the parents are good, but not good when the parents aren't - online contacts can be the lifeline escape from abusive parents.
So it's good to do if you're a good parent, but not a good norm as it makes abusive family situations worse.
Yes, there's an important distinction between 'what should I do as a parent' and 'what should society do'?
On the norms, it all depends on what your assumptions are about baselines. What is your relative size here of 'number of abusive families where it's good kids can use the internet unsupervised' vs 'number of kids who, if using the internet unsurpervised, will be drawn into incel culture / Islamist extremism / pro-anorexia cultures'? You can't just automatically privilege the former over the latter.
Indeed - any blanket policy can’t avoid the fact that there will be some who benefit and some who suffer, which is why I’m generally extremely wary of jumping to regulation over public discussion, exchange of ideas, and people making their own choices for their own context as a result.
I don’t think, however, that we should start every recommendation with the assumption that the default position is that most children need protecting from their parents. On a purely practical level, society can’t function without parents caring for children before they can do that themselves.
That doesn’t mean *no* children need protecting from their parents - some do - but in those cases action beyond allowing unrestricted internet use is likely to be needed (and probably more effective).
(On a personal level - I don’t mean that we closely watch everything they are typing or watching. But you can have a vague idea whether they are watching a stream of ED videos or doing their homework, share their enthusiasm at beating a tricky level or get an idea of what memes they find funny, and perhaps as importantly can spot if they are uncomfortable about something they’ve come across. Yes it works best in a family environment of support, respect and trust - again I think this is something to start by trying to foster rather than assuming it’s an impossibility.)
includesome would like a space included.
(But you got to causation as well as causation before I could complain!)
My political knowledge isn't good enough to know who has flipped on the online safety bill due to joining Reform. Who is it?