"It is especially beneficial for teens from historically marginalized communities."
Set this argument back 30 years: anorexia is especially beneficial for minority children.
Set it back 60 years: smoking is especially beneficial for black women.
Give me a break.
When you're invoking the "sacred victim" narrative to justify continuing to peddle an obviously harmful product, you have jumped the shark. As a side note, the "sacred victim" narrative has pretty much worn out its usefulness, as most people see through it now.
They don't believe it. I used to work in Silicon Valley. Tech company managers and executives are parental Luddites. They don't let their own kids have this stuff, but make money foisting it on yours. Like so much else our ruling class does.
I see that and agree. But somewhere I think they also have convinced themselves they are helping the ‘rest of the people’ bc of their intelligence and ability to know how to save them / us.
Many LGBTQ+ teens self-report social media/the internet as instrumental in the development of their sexual/gender identity, which is why the argument is that rescinding access will have a negative access of those teens, whose primary issue with social media is hateful/abusive content.
Everyone invokes the "sacred victim" narrative all the time now, whether it is appropriate or not.
My understanding is that this particular bill has the very bad side effect of forcing all social media to verify the identity of all users, so as to verify their age. Good bye anonymity, pseudonymity, and similar; hello privacy violations and even more data sold to spamvertisers.
This may not matter very much for big name social media like Facebook, some of which seem to have a policy of requiring real world identification and then "accidentally" using it to out at-risk people to stalkers and similar.
It's possible in principle for social media companies to collect this data, then neither sell it nor have it stolen by hackers. In practice, I expect my privacy to be violated to "save the children".
Bottom line: this is the wrong remedy for the problem at hand.
Frankly, what we don't want done to children shouldn't be done to adults either, short of affirmative consent. FaceBook et al. shouldn't need to know someone is a child to decide not to attempt to addict and upset them, aka "engage" them. And the same for some of their other objectionable habits.
Yes, it's weird that issues like addiction, exploitation and extremism are viewed as risks exclusive to kids. Even if kids may suffer more from these conditions, the status quo shouldn't be desirable for adults either.
Fully agree it's the wrong remedy. Meta shouldn't be offering a solution by way of another digital product. There should be no trust in Meta's solutioning; the standards are so low, i.e., Meta finally offering something up.
I am so happy what you guys have done in particular for our youth, and Dr. Haidt, what you have done for, I believe, society as a whole. (I have been reading your work for almost a decade and The Righteous Mind in particular was very meaningful to me.) I have a 12 year old and a 16 year old and our local school system is shifting this year and it's directly because of your work!! Thank you so much🙏 Keep up the good fight!
Thank you for both articles in The Atlantic and the Times. The evidence from research and personal use is indisputable. Smart phones harm kids and KOSPA is a step in the right direction. Schools need to figure this out already and thereby help families who struggle to contain social media addiction among their children. Technology must not dictate how schools educate.
Glad something is finally being done about this, sad that it comes down to a room full of bureaucrats having to do the job of parents. Why have parents allowed this “cancer” into their homes, and haven’t stood up to the school systems who require phones in classrooms? The smartphone has become the biggest crutch, and the biggest influence in our children’s lives sadly. We all know by now that they are designed to be addictive. We have allowed this “virus” into our homes, into the most intimate parts of our family life. We’ve given our children’s’ childhoods away.
Jon, I've read your work here and the book and I agree a lot as a parent and educator with the principles you are advocating for. Tech companies are always going to make disingenuous arguments, but there are real concerns with KOSA as it is written. It's come around some as it's made it's way through legislation, and I don't think we should toss the whole concept, but there's plenty left to be done on the bill to prevent it from being used to create some really negative outcomes.
I am concerned about phones and social media, but also banning phones completely concerns me. Human beings have to learn how to to coexist in a healthy manner with our current and future technologies and remain healthy in spite of their detrimental effects. Some of that is allowing the freedom with guidance to learn how to regulate and control and not be controlled by tech/social media. Easier said than done, I know. Limiting access to social media is less concerning, but banning phones in a school setting altogether is alarming to me when we have situations which require communication to authorities. If all communications are limited to "official" communications in school emergency situations, that is also disturbing. I have lived through a scare at my son's school. It was everything that he could just text me that he was okay.
I felt the same way regarding safety during a crisis, AP. Our school system this year has mandated that kids in high school will no longer be able to use their phones during the school day even between classes or during lunch. (Middle school and elementary were already not allowed phones in school.) But their only method of enforcement is that teachers and administrators give penalties for just "seeing" a phone. So, my 16 yo daughter simply keeps her phone in her backpack. Surprisingly it has worked! The enforcement has been strict enough that despite lots of "demerits" at the beginning of the school year while the kids got used to it- my daughter is actually grateful. She admits that it's an addictive device and she sees a positive difference for her and the school. Kids are simply too young to handle the power of the addiction and learn how to balance and regulate yet, just like we don't allow kids to figure out how to balance and regulate alcohol until they're older. I feel parents need to have some institutional muscle to help us in the fight to keep our kids sanity. So, while the desire for safety and communication during a crisis is a concern, I'm grateful our school system is trying to help our kids and their addictions. It's a real mess that even the kids recognize is a problem.
I agree. Our high school kids don’t have a strict plan in place but they can’t use them in class and they shouldn’t in my opinion. My concern would be a strict “in the locker mandate”. That’s what our middle school currently does.
Yes- and I was worried about that too- they don't use lockers at our high school- so they didn't have a lot of options, lol! It's been a hassle for the teachers to enforce it. Before this year it was not strict, some teachers didn't care if the kids used their phones, some were more strict- but this year there is a whole other level of seriousness and strictness to it- and Haidt's book has been directly mentioned. Their research has been really helpful to light a fire under administrators and teachers (and hopefully parents too.) And like I said, even my daughter is grateful (I was afraid she would struggle against it- but I think the kids are all relieved!)
What is wrong with just an Smart Watch with LTE capability (Calls/ SMS and some data),
and are great to keep in touch in emergency .....?
There are some draw backs:
- Long LTE calls from the watch drain the battery and over heat the watch.
(But are great for short calls, where there is mobile/cell coverage).
- Not all LTE Smart Watches are equal and some do not support SMS/Text Messages
and forcing you to use an extra app on the phone :(
--Samsung LTE watches can do SMS/Calls.
--Google only do Calls and forcing user to do SMS via their phone app!!
(but Ware OS supports sending/receiving SMS, but Google choose
to not to allow it's users this on their LTE Smart Watches)
- Not all Mobile Operators/Cell Carriers support cheap
eSIM cards for LTE Watches that are not used very often and if they do,
they are asking for premium prices and unnecessary allowances.
PAYG plans are ideal, but again unsupported
by many operators/carriers on LTE Smart Watches.
- Manufacturers of Smart Watches are trying
to force the users to pair their watch with their device to collect more data about them :(
and use the watch together with their mobile phone instead of allowing the users to use LTE Smart Watch just on it's own, without collecting any DATA about the user and it's sometimes very difficult to use the LTE Smart Watch without having to pair it with a mobile phone and specific mobile/cell carrier :(
I think it's important to understand that our desire to hear from our kids during or after an emergency is for our emotional needs only--the ability to have their phones during a lockdown situation does not make them more safe, and in fact makes them less so. School safety experts have been clear that the ubiquitous presence of phones during an emergency complicate things in a lot of ways: distracts the kids from complete focus on the task at hand (whether running or hiding), alerts attackers to their locations via sounds/lights of the phones, speeds the spread of potential misinformation that can confuse law enforcement response, jams communication lines that first responders are trying to use, accelerates the arrival of parents to an actively unfolding emergency which creates a more chaotic environment for law enforcement to manage, etc.
I 100% get the emotional need to hear from my kid in a situation like this. But it's important to reinforce the notion that it does NOT make them safer. The authorities are being communicated with whether your child has a phone or not. Your child will find a way to contact you as soon as things have calmed down and it's safe for them to do so.
The fact that they send their kids to phone-free schools is incredible to me. They are engaged in a mass-delusion campaign. I'm glad future generations will (hopefully) be able to enjoy phone-free learning. I know I didn't. I distinctly remember one day when a student walked through the halls, blasting the pornhub intro from his phone (and this was at a private Christians school). It's sick what kids have to deal with.
You might find this interesting. The Guardian interviews four pre-teens denied phones until they're older and their responses are hysterical, as you'd expect from kids, finding phones incredibly dumb (mostly because of the dumb uses their peers put them to, not much different from the dumb uses adults put them to), Keep up the great work, Danny, Psychologist, Chicago: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/sep/23/children-who-dont-have-smartphones?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I think human fragility and strength often surpass our own imagination. Sometimes, one sentence can bring me to tears. Other times, I find myself gritting my teeth and walking a long road.
I loved the bit in that recent NYT piece where one of the ACLU youth reps said the quiet part out loud: social media was SOOOO useful to her after she was cyber-bullied
When half of teens want social media banned, we clearly have a problem with social media.
"It is especially beneficial for teens from historically marginalized communities."
Set this argument back 30 years: anorexia is especially beneficial for minority children.
Set it back 60 years: smoking is especially beneficial for black women.
Give me a break.
When you're invoking the "sacred victim" narrative to justify continuing to peddle an obviously harmful product, you have jumped the shark. As a side note, the "sacred victim" narrative has pretty much worn out its usefulness, as most people see through it now.
Of course Zuckerberg would spin it into a lie that he believes, that he's helping the kids.
They don't believe it. I used to work in Silicon Valley. Tech company managers and executives are parental Luddites. They don't let their own kids have this stuff, but make money foisting it on yours. Like so much else our ruling class does.
I see that and agree. But somewhere I think they also have convinced themselves they are helping the ‘rest of the people’ bc of their intelligence and ability to know how to save them / us.
Many LGBTQ+ teens self-report social media/the internet as instrumental in the development of their sexual/gender identity, which is why the argument is that rescinding access will have a negative access of those teens, whose primary issue with social media is hateful/abusive content.
Everyone invokes the "sacred victim" narrative all the time now, whether it is appropriate or not.
My understanding is that this particular bill has the very bad side effect of forcing all social media to verify the identity of all users, so as to verify their age. Good bye anonymity, pseudonymity, and similar; hello privacy violations and even more data sold to spamvertisers.
This may not matter very much for big name social media like Facebook, some of which seem to have a policy of requiring real world identification and then "accidentally" using it to out at-risk people to stalkers and similar.
It's possible in principle for social media companies to collect this data, then neither sell it nor have it stolen by hackers. In practice, I expect my privacy to be violated to "save the children".
Bottom line: this is the wrong remedy for the problem at hand.
Frankly, what we don't want done to children shouldn't be done to adults either, short of affirmative consent. FaceBook et al. shouldn't need to know someone is a child to decide not to attempt to addict and upset them, aka "engage" them. And the same for some of their other objectionable habits.
Yes, it's weird that issues like addiction, exploitation and extremism are viewed as risks exclusive to kids. Even if kids may suffer more from these conditions, the status quo shouldn't be desirable for adults either.
Fully agree it's the wrong remedy. Meta shouldn't be offering a solution by way of another digital product. There should be no trust in Meta's solutioning; the standards are so low, i.e., Meta finally offering something up.
I am so happy what you guys have done in particular for our youth, and Dr. Haidt, what you have done for, I believe, society as a whole. (I have been reading your work for almost a decade and The Righteous Mind in particular was very meaningful to me.) I have a 12 year old and a 16 year old and our local school system is shifting this year and it's directly because of your work!! Thank you so much🙏 Keep up the good fight!
Thank you for both articles in The Atlantic and the Times. The evidence from research and personal use is indisputable. Smart phones harm kids and KOSPA is a step in the right direction. Schools need to figure this out already and thereby help families who struggle to contain social media addiction among their children. Technology must not dictate how schools educate.
Glad something is finally being done about this, sad that it comes down to a room full of bureaucrats having to do the job of parents. Why have parents allowed this “cancer” into their homes, and haven’t stood up to the school systems who require phones in classrooms? The smartphone has become the biggest crutch, and the biggest influence in our children’s lives sadly. We all know by now that they are designed to be addictive. We have allowed this “virus” into our homes, into the most intimate parts of our family life. We’ve given our children’s’ childhoods away.
The book Irresistible by Adam Alter…good stuff
Jon, I've read your work here and the book and I agree a lot as a parent and educator with the principles you are advocating for. Tech companies are always going to make disingenuous arguments, but there are real concerns with KOSA as it is written. It's come around some as it's made it's way through legislation, and I don't think we should toss the whole concept, but there's plenty left to be done on the bill to prevent it from being used to create some really negative outcomes.
Nothing is mentioned about games. My grandson spends virtually no time on social media, but hours playing video games. Is not that a problem also?
Now, everyone consider what The Anxious Generation says and apply it to *yourselves*....
I'd want to know what the EFF and ACLU think before I'd support this.
Question should be,
why are they silent on the topic? .......
Why is so many institutions silent?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/09/new-us-house-version-kosa-doesnt-fix-its-biggest-problems
I am concerned about phones and social media, but also banning phones completely concerns me. Human beings have to learn how to to coexist in a healthy manner with our current and future technologies and remain healthy in spite of their detrimental effects. Some of that is allowing the freedom with guidance to learn how to regulate and control and not be controlled by tech/social media. Easier said than done, I know. Limiting access to social media is less concerning, but banning phones in a school setting altogether is alarming to me when we have situations which require communication to authorities. If all communications are limited to "official" communications in school emergency situations, that is also disturbing. I have lived through a scare at my son's school. It was everything that he could just text me that he was okay.
I felt the same way regarding safety during a crisis, AP. Our school system this year has mandated that kids in high school will no longer be able to use their phones during the school day even between classes or during lunch. (Middle school and elementary were already not allowed phones in school.) But their only method of enforcement is that teachers and administrators give penalties for just "seeing" a phone. So, my 16 yo daughter simply keeps her phone in her backpack. Surprisingly it has worked! The enforcement has been strict enough that despite lots of "demerits" at the beginning of the school year while the kids got used to it- my daughter is actually grateful. She admits that it's an addictive device and she sees a positive difference for her and the school. Kids are simply too young to handle the power of the addiction and learn how to balance and regulate yet, just like we don't allow kids to figure out how to balance and regulate alcohol until they're older. I feel parents need to have some institutional muscle to help us in the fight to keep our kids sanity. So, while the desire for safety and communication during a crisis is a concern, I'm grateful our school system is trying to help our kids and their addictions. It's a real mess that even the kids recognize is a problem.
I agree. Our high school kids don’t have a strict plan in place but they can’t use them in class and they shouldn’t in my opinion. My concern would be a strict “in the locker mandate”. That’s what our middle school currently does.
Yes- and I was worried about that too- they don't use lockers at our high school- so they didn't have a lot of options, lol! It's been a hassle for the teachers to enforce it. Before this year it was not strict, some teachers didn't care if the kids used their phones, some were more strict- but this year there is a whole other level of seriousness and strictness to it- and Haidt's book has been directly mentioned. Their research has been really helpful to light a fire under administrators and teachers (and hopefully parents too.) And like I said, even my daughter is grateful (I was afraid she would struggle against it- but I think the kids are all relieved!)
What is wrong with just an Smart Watch with LTE capability (Calls/ SMS and some data),
and are great to keep in touch in emergency .....?
There are some draw backs:
- Long LTE calls from the watch drain the battery and over heat the watch.
(But are great for short calls, where there is mobile/cell coverage).
- Not all LTE Smart Watches are equal and some do not support SMS/Text Messages
and forcing you to use an extra app on the phone :(
--Samsung LTE watches can do SMS/Calls.
--Google only do Calls and forcing user to do SMS via their phone app!!
(but Ware OS supports sending/receiving SMS, but Google choose
to not to allow it's users this on their LTE Smart Watches)
- Not all Mobile Operators/Cell Carriers support cheap
eSIM cards for LTE Watches that are not used very often and if they do,
they are asking for premium prices and unnecessary allowances.
PAYG plans are ideal, but again unsupported
by many operators/carriers on LTE Smart Watches.
- Manufacturers of Smart Watches are trying
to force the users to pair their watch with their device to collect more data about them :(
and use the watch together with their mobile phone instead of allowing the users to use LTE Smart Watch just on it's own, without collecting any DATA about the user and it's sometimes very difficult to use the LTE Smart Watch without having to pair it with a mobile phone and specific mobile/cell carrier :(
I think it's important to understand that our desire to hear from our kids during or after an emergency is for our emotional needs only--the ability to have their phones during a lockdown situation does not make them more safe, and in fact makes them less so. School safety experts have been clear that the ubiquitous presence of phones during an emergency complicate things in a lot of ways: distracts the kids from complete focus on the task at hand (whether running or hiding), alerts attackers to their locations via sounds/lights of the phones, speeds the spread of potential misinformation that can confuse law enforcement response, jams communication lines that first responders are trying to use, accelerates the arrival of parents to an actively unfolding emergency which creates a more chaotic environment for law enforcement to manage, etc.
I 100% get the emotional need to hear from my kid in a situation like this. But it's important to reinforce the notion that it does NOT make them safer. The authorities are being communicated with whether your child has a phone or not. Your child will find a way to contact you as soon as things have calmed down and it's safe for them to do so.
What is even more astounding is the luck of interest from parents
This article has only 135 likes and 9 restacks :(
Todays article on BBC (''Argument won' on smartphones in schools, minister says)
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89l5q82qz5o
has a link to Gov.uk website with the "recent guidance" from them
but missing link to "Smartphone Free Childhood" website, promoting gov stance??
Your YT video (Jonathan Haidt X Smartphone Free Childhood talk - 21.03.24)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZHSxq3Nw0&t=2s
after being on-line for 6 months only has 14K views :(
and is missing links in the Video description to this and other websites mentioned
during that video call.............. :(
The fact that they send their kids to phone-free schools is incredible to me. They are engaged in a mass-delusion campaign. I'm glad future generations will (hopefully) be able to enjoy phone-free learning. I know I didn't. I distinctly remember one day when a student walked through the halls, blasting the pornhub intro from his phone (and this was at a private Christians school). It's sick what kids have to deal with.
Which schools?
Private schools with phone free learning or Public schools with phone free learning? ;)
How many thous involved in the mass-delusion campaign are educated in the public schools and represent you/country in the public office?
Would you give up this position and get your kids to mix with a working class?
You might find this interesting. The Guardian interviews four pre-teens denied phones until they're older and their responses are hysterical, as you'd expect from kids, finding phones incredibly dumb (mostly because of the dumb uses their peers put them to, not much different from the dumb uses adults put them to), Keep up the great work, Danny, Psychologist, Chicago: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/sep/23/children-who-dont-have-smartphones?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I think human fragility and strength often surpass our own imagination. Sometimes, one sentence can bring me to tears. Other times, I find myself gritting my teeth and walking a long road.
——A Life (written by Guy de Maupassant)
I loved the bit in that recent NYT piece where one of the ACLU youth reps said the quiet part out loud: social media was SOOOO useful to her after she was cyber-bullied