401
EE warns parents against giving children under 11 a smartphone
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
401 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
59708 readers
1563 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
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.