this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
399 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
59989 readers
2101 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That sounds ridiculous. An 11-year-old is, what, a fifth-grader in the US?
If they have access to a computer or something in addition to their phone, okay, maybe. But for a lot of young people in 2024, their smartphone is their sophisticated electronic device. Maybe they tack on a keyboard or whatnot. But take that away, and they don't have a computer to use. A computer is just too essential of a tool to not let someone learn.
Kids used to veg out in front of the TV, where material is generally not all that fantastic and the device is noninteractive. I think that it's great that smartphones are replacing that.
I was programming when I was in first grade. I was doing computer graphics and word processing somewhere around there. Those are important skillsets to have. I made use of those. You want kids to pick those up. You do not want to push those back. I'd get a computer of whatever form into their hands at the earliest point that they can avoid destroying it.
If your concern is that you want to restrict access to pornography or something, okay, fine, whatever, set up content filtering. I think that they're probably going to get at it anyway. But that does not entail not permitting access to the computing device. That's a restriction on access to the Internet.
That'd be, what, up to high school before you have one? And that's not "I have parents who want that", but outright "the government doesn't let anyone do that".
Wikipedia. Google Maps. The store of knowledge available from search engines. I use those all the time. You want to cut them off from that?
I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?
I mean, I'm just boggled.
Most kids aren't improving their skillsets. They definitely aren't programming on cell phones. I am a programmer. I have code editors that I paid for on my phone at all times. I've used them like 5 times at most.
Social media and misinformation is damaging for everyone but more so for children. Social media is what kids are mostly doing.
I agree that there can positives for using a cell phone. Their are educational software but most kids aren't doing that.
Even if they are only figuring out how to ignore clickbait, they are improving their skill sets.
Social media is "damaging", in the same way that all social activities are "damaging". The solution is not isolation, but early exposure. The last kid to get a phone is the one at greatest social disadvantage.
Firm disagree. Social media, or more specifically algorithmic short form content these days, is extremely damaging. It's different from anything that's come before and has nothing to do with connecting with your peers.
I graduated high-school in 2009 so I saw the beginning of popularized social media. Very few gained anything from participating in it. Mostly people who were good at marketing and building a following benefited.
Kids have always been evil little shits who get their jollies demoralizing and torturing the weak. Social media is just a newer avenue for old sociopathy.
Again, nothing particularly novel. Marketing, news, propaganda.
Marketing, news, and propaganda of the past never targeted people directly. It's also not just feeding them content, it's also taking and storing massive amounts of data from the user that will be used against them.
Yes, they have. Direct mailing, cold calling, lead farming, door-to-door, yes, all of it has been done, and most of it predates even the printing press. This isn't social media; this is marketing, plain and simple. And marketing is the least damaging aspect of social media: they just want to exploit you. The people who aren't after your money are the real danger.
None of those compare to what is happening now. Those are playing wack a mole hoping to get a sale. What's happening now is recording everything you show a reaction to, whether enjoyable or not, and use it against the user.
A list of names, address from marketers is nothing compared to the amount of data tech companies are getting from individuals.
Just saying cold calling and door-to-door is the same as the data gathering tactics now shows your ignorance on the topic.
"Use it against the user"... For what? You make it sound nefarious, but it is just marketing. You aren't being blackmailed. People are trying to sell you stuff. They've been doing that since forever.
Again, "marketing" is not the problem with social media. The harmful part of social media is the fucking people. Especially for kids, who are trying to figure out how to get along with everyone, but haven't yet learned that most people are assholes who should be ignored.
Marketing can be really broad. You can market a shirt or you can convince someone to join a cult. And you can find out if someone is more likely to join a cult through the gathered data.
If you don't see the dangers of propaganda and misinformation, like I said:
Yeah. Data like "does this person respect arbitrary restrictions imposed by self-appointed authority figures?"
Parenting is "self-appointed authority figures" rather than being called "parenting" now? Lol.
Data like "can we sell make up to minors because they only follow models? Looks like they are in the path to body dysmorphia, better send the results to local plastic surgeons."
Data like is "this teenager having issues with their parents and have no friends on their profile, so that makes them an easier target to join a welcoming group?"
When parenting was still called parenting and not 'self-appointed authority" (lol), parents prevented their children from hanging out with the same groups that social media is pushing on to them.
And you think the best things for developing minds to exposing them to these groups because according to you "it is just marketing".
In the context, yes: you're teaching kids that someone else will be protecting them from harm, so long as they obey arbitrary rules and restrictions. That's the exact mindset someone needs to have to be susceptible to a cult, and the exact opposite of the mindset needed for responsible interaction with the general public, either in person, or over a network.
Better they be taught early that nobody can offer them complete protection against all harm, and show them how to protect themselves.
Denying them access to because you can't control what they see, or how they will use it? That sounds like the behavior of a cult leader, not a parent.
I think that by age 10, a kid should have a debit card and begin making some of their own purchasing decisions. I think they should be learning to budget their money early, when mistakes cost them tens of dollars instead of thousands.
And before that, they need to understand the very kinds of marketing that you are talking about. They need to know that advertisements are inherently deceptive, and to evaluate them critically. Your "Delores Umbridge" approach to teaching defense against the "Dark Arts" of marketing isn't going to cut it: they need direct, actual exposure.
You can still teach and prepare without exposing.
You can try, but you'll be teaching to deaf ears until they have seen enough to understand what the hell you're talking about.
Kinda like teaching kids about heroin or cocaine.
They should also learn not talking to strangers by putting their lives at danger.
There have been priests that taught sex education using your logic.
The kids who "learn" from such priests are kids who haven't been exposed to proper sex ed. Generally, they've learned that sex is something that should be concealed. It's a secret that the kid isn't supposed to know about, so of course they don't tell anyone about it, because they know how to stay out of trouble.
Gatekeeping the Internet works the same way. If you're going to do that, you might as well download the sex offender registry and invite them all to the kid's birthday party.
So you want kids to understand cocaine and heroin and sex by a professional instead of a priest. If they don't then in your logic, they will fall on deaf ears.
Language is incredible. You can describe experiences that others have without actually being there or doing those things. It even works with fiction! Or horrible events like war! Or even drugs without exposing them to it!
I never said to prevent them from using the internet, I said social media.
You say that like there is any sort of meaningful difference.
There is a huge meaningful difference.
Again, this shows your ignorance on the topic.
I would love to hear the distinction. Please enlighten me.
Smartphones won't help you learn how computers work. They are dumbed down devices, designed to keep you on social media while maximizing exposure to ads. These things are way worse than TVs.
Tasker says you're wrong.
The kid who has done nothing more than install games from the play store is miles ahead of his phone-less peers.
And I'd say the kid who learned to start a game on daddy's PC is miles ahead of the kid who clicked on an icon in the play store.
Edit: I just saw that you mentioned access to a computer in your first post. Sorry for sounding like a dick!
Then kids will just work around it.
I personally refuse to set up content filtering. My state passed a law requiring ID to view porn and use SM, and I'm willing to set up a VPN on my WiFi to work around that because I detest content filtering. I'd much rather have zero filtering and track what websites are visited so I can react appropriately (i.e. if the kid is watching porn, they probably need some proper sex ed and something to occupy their time).
Sure, and I'm 100% willing to take that away from them.
My policy is, if I trust you, I trust you to not be supervised. If I don't trust you, I don't trust you at all. So either you get complete access, or you get no access.
That's how I'm planning to handle phones as well. They'll get a loaner phone when they need it, and if they earn my trust with that, they'll get their own. If they violate my trust, they lose the phone, including the loaner. Simple as that.
Yeah, that's not cool at all, the government shouldn't tell me how I can raise my kids.
That said, kids can still access the internet at school and at libraries, just like I did as a kid. Or they can ask to borrow the family computer. If I choose to restrict my child's access to the internet, that should 100% be my prerogative, as should me deciding to give my child a smart phone.
Hey kid, you finished your vegetables and cleaned your room, here's the car keys. Right pedal is gas and... ah, you'll figure it out. Be home by 10.
Also lol @ family computer.
? The "family computer" is one of my computers (I have a laptop and a desktop, they choose) that's in an open space. I unlock it for them (usually from my phone), tell them what they are allowed to do and how long they can use it, and then let them on it with pretty much no supervision and no filtering/tracking. I don't look at their browsing history (I trust them), but if I find out they were breaking the rules, they lose that privilege. We've only had a couple of incidents (usually they're watching stupid YouTube videos we don't like), but they've largely done a good job of sticking to our rules, and I'll always explain why those rules exist. They earn computer time by reading (15 min for every 30 min they read), and they keep track of their own time (again, we don't track it, but they will get grounded from the computer if they lie).
I want them to experiment with things as much as possible, but within some safety guidelines. If they're going to stumble on something bad, I want them to do it while they're young enough to tell me about it. IMO, that's the best way for them to learn proper boundaries. For example, my kid told me about some cool jumps at the park someone made, so I went over there with them, we rode on a few, and then I told them they're totally fine to come back, but that one jump didn't look safe and they should avoid it. Now I let them go pretty much whenever they want with their friends without me or anyone else watching, provided they don't have other obligations. If they get hurt, we live a couple blocks away, so they can get home, or if someone is seriously hurt, they can send someone. My kids are pretty careful though, so chances are they would be the ones finding help.
My level of supervision scales with the danger. My kids know where they're allowed and not allowed to go, and they know they'll lose their privileges if I find out they went somewhere they're not allowed to go. I have taken away my kid's bike for that (took off the front wheel and hid it), so they know I'm serious. But they also know I'm reasonable, and if they want to expand where they're allowed to go, they talk to me and we discuss any relevant safety concerns I have (e.g. crossing busy roads, knowing directions, etc).
I try to give them more freedom than they're comfortable with, but not so much that they'll get into serious trouble so they set their own boundaries. My goal here isn't to keep them safe in the short-term, but to teach them to to make reasonable boundaries to keep them safe in the long term.
Sounds like the rules my parents had for me, not the ones I have for my kids. Not quite boomer rules, but almost. You do you, tho.
My parents didn't have "rules" so much as "expectations," and they seemed to work pretty well for us. All of us kids did well in school, had healthy social relationships, are happily married, etc. They gave us a lot of leeway, but only once we had shown we were ready for it.
That's essentially what I'm trying to build. I want my kids to see me as a counselor, not a rule-maker, but I do want them to respect my authority to step in if they veer too far outside my expectations. If my kids want to do something that we currently don't allow, they'll present their argument and I'll give my concerns (e.g. my 10yo wanted to know when they could babysit, and I told them my maturity expectations). So far it seems to be working well, we'll see how the teenage years go.
That's a bit overdramatic. Most kids have a laptop for schoolwork these days. I personally didn't get a smartphone until I started university, got a Samsung S7 then. I had no issues accessing any of those sources. These days I have a comp sci masters degree, so it definitely didn't "stunt" me in any way.
Kids reading and writing skills appear to have been declining ever since the rise of the smartphone, so I doubt they're reading anything of sufficient quality to hone those skills a bit.
Schools here have recently mostly banned smartphones, and the kids seem happier for it and their grades and concentration in school is improving. Sound like positives to me.
Agree with your points on having a pocked PC to hack with, the issue here is then with mobile and their OS makers which mindbogglingly have omitted to design a working and hardly hackable "children account mode", since what is damaging here is not what they can fiddle within their devices, nor certainly what they can read from wikipedia, but rather the unfiltered and unaccountable exposure to a profiling oriented social media storm which even adults fatigue to cope with.
I'm sure it isn't unheard of OSes having a hardware locked managed kiosk mode, because that is what smartphones basically need.