Technology

59207 readers

2520 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

400

EE warns parents against giving children under 11 a smartphone (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

153 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (30 children)

EE is advising parents that children under 11 should be given old-fashioned brick or “dumb” phones that only allow them to call or text instead.

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.

In May this year, MPs on the education committee urged the government to consider a total ban on smartphones for the under-16s and a statutory ban on mobile-phone use in schools as part of a crackdown on screen time for children.

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

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?

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.

I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?

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.

load more comments (29 replies)