As if fifteen year olds are buying phones themselves. Discussing this was a waste of time even before you consider that parents need to do some parenting and social networks need some regulation.
Even if they have to pay it themselves, they can still ask their parents to buy/order it for them and just give them the money. That’s what I did at that age anyway because ordering them online is cheaper and you have more choice.
Shhh, don’t tell the out of touch politicians that teenagers are not exactly known for their care about if something is against the rules or not.
It is more fun to watch them be shocked on TV when they can’t explain why their ideas don’t work.
Unfortunately, parents aren’t always able to do their parenting very well and need their own guidance.
Not overusing screens was a constant when I was a kid decades ago and it doesn’t take a genius or even paying much attention to notice the effect it and social media has on kids.
deleted by creator
‘Make it illegal’ is always a cheaper option ‘than spend money to implement a solution that will actually work.’
As a parent of kids that I don’t want using smartphones just yet (oldest is 10), screw those reps. If my kids save up and buy a smartphone behind my back, that’s on me for not earning their trust. If I’m such a bad parent that they feel the need to do that, they should have that right.
So screw these lawmakers. If they want to protect kids, they should teach parents how to be good parents, and teach the necessary stuff in schools.
Of course, “always cheaper” in this case means less money up front, but much, much expensive more down the road than the initial cost.
Of course, the down the road cost isn’t usually that visibly connected to the “make it illegal” plan, so conservative governments love it.
Are any under 16 buying the phones themselves? With the price of phones now I’d guess for the vast majority it is the parents themselves buy it for their kids.
At that point it’s for the parents to decide for themselves
You can still buy perfectly good phones for 1-200€ but yeah the blame still mostly lies with the parents imo.
The “blame” lies with no one except for the big social media megacorporations that develop and distribute addictive apps. Phone use by teenagers, or anyone else, is not intrinsically connected to any adverse effects. Rather, negative health consequences for children are the result of an unchecked, raging hypercapitalism.
Yes and no. I agree we should regulate these companies and make them partially responsible for the harm they cause, but you cant sue a knife company if your kid stabs someone. Its your responsibility to make sure your kids dont fall into the traps that exist in our world.
I think most of them get an older phone from their parents.
deleted by creator
Having a phone is an important part of participating in society like it or not. Not everyone has a happy home life of a home at all, and flatly banning anyone from owning a phone (purchased themselves) under 16 could further endanger young people already struggling in a dangerous situation. Or even just maintaining a job to survive.
Of course I don’t want to live in a world where under 16s need to work, or need to discretely contact help, but we have to face reality. Let’s fix that stuff rather than ban communication devices…
Te be fair, working in the coal mines was also an important part of participating in society.
If only they banned sending mail and reading the newspaper we could have saved those kids.
(you missed the point of my comment)
Or how about you legislate for parental controls on Smartphones.
You know, like how any desktop or laptop has them?
How are you going to enforce this law? Because parents will still buy their kids smartphones. Are you going to have the police arresting under 16s and confiscating their phones?
I like parents having the option, but I think the better option is to build actual trust with kids, not lock down their stuff and spy on them. Kids will find workarounds, so technical measures are merely a tool that should be used with restraint.
Apple has pretty robust parental controls on their devices.
Source: am technical enough to have set them up.
So does Android.
It’s just a moral panic, as usual.
Politicians love moral panic.
Some laws have little to no thought put into. This is one of them. Not only is this unnecessary but it would create more technological waste.
UK you’re drunk, go home.
These guys live on an island.
I mean… literally…
Old mental people who have zero idea about modern world. What about investing into education and prevention?
Lol who is downvoting you? I get that Lemmy is generally left-leaning but come on!! All drugs should be legal and taxed , all information should be free ! A phone is a cheaper computer! Stop giving more power to governments! Free the people! — edit before the downvotes come my way: why do I bring up drugs ? Politicians & police are also the ones benefiting from negotiating with dealers. Does not matter which country you live in.
More and more aspects of life require an app or at least a smartphone (QR codes). That already excludes older people from some aspects of daily life. Let’s do the same for kids!
Politicians should do their jobs and regulate tech and social media not ban useful devices.
deleted by creator
Power to young people. Politicians who propose things like this, may you lose all elections.
If you are a teenager, I am so sorry for my fellow adults who think we have any business deciding how you guys live your lives. I assure you we are not all like this.
deleted by creator
Anyone else notice how insane expensive phones have gotten in the last couple of years?
No? The spectrum just got way wider. you can still buy 150$ phone, no problemo, its just gonna be a piece of junk. But same was true 10 years.
Only thing that changed is that back in the day 300 - 400 phones gave you 90% of the experience of the 800 - 1000 phones. Thats different now.
Well your second paragraph is the meat of what I mean. A $300 phone now is shit, whereas 5 years ago you could get a decent one. You gotta get to the $600+ (Canadian) to find anything that’s decent now
I disagree. Motorola makes decent phones, and I’ve been rocking one I got for $50 ($250 retail) from Google Fi a few years ago.
NaNnY sTaTe!!1!11!!!
I know I’m an old cranky Lemmy user and in the distinct minority here, where my impression is that the average age is somewhere in the 20s.
But as 40-something dad of four, I can wholeheartedly say that I would approve of this. And I’m saying this as a bleeding-heart “let people make their own choices”.
But I do believe we will come to view smartphone access (leading to Social media access and 1000s ephemeral Snapchat and WhatsApp groups) for under 16s like we now do selling cigarettes to children.
Before people decide how wrong I am, I’d really like them to try and raise children with smart phone and a race-to-the-bottom challenge where some absentee-parents child gets a smart phone in year 4 and then it sets off an avalanche.
Parent controls do not work on iPhone. And when I say “they don’t work” I don’t mean “they’re not effective”. I mean they’re broken and do not work. If Apple gave a shit and actually fixed it and if accounts on SoMe sites were age verified I’d feel very different about it.
I kind of agree with the idea but it’s absolutely not enforceable in any practical way. What we need is more awareness and parental control, but other than that, I’m not sure what else could be done that wouldn’t screw everyone over. (Like identity and age control, which would be an absolute nightmare)
I actually disagree that identity control is required. We already have in place the post office EasyID (Yoti) system and we already have PASS cards. It isn’t hard to imagine extending that system and simply saying “if you’re allowing an account from the U.K., you must verify the age using this third party system”. Agreeing that someone is over 16 and knowing everything about them is two very different things.
It’s only hard to imagine it because we’ve never tried.
