A series of incidents linked to schoolchildren's social media usage and parental efforts to curb unrestricted smartphone access have sparked a major national debate on the issue.
Just because these people can’t vote yet doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have rights or be treated with dignity and respect like the rest of society.
I’m disappointed with people arguing that literally banning smartphones would somehow improve the social situation for anyone.
Just because you cannot see bullying or collect statistics about it quite as easily, does not mean it disappears. I’d argue the opposite: blocking others online is trivial compared to doing the same in-person.
We also have to acknowledge that some children simply are more introverted, and will want to stay more secluded than others. Forcing them to behave in other ways seems counterproductive.
Just because some parents (understandably) struggle with raising their kids shouldn’t mean that they’re all doomed to what amounts to nationwide collective punishment.
I for one support children’s rights, at least on this one point.
Edit:
Exact circumstances can, and will very, as every child is unique. Therefore, we should allow for case by case decisions. Luckily, the de facto situation already has the parents deciding, which makes sense in most cases IMO.
And taking away the phones of other people won’t stop online bullying either (e.g. spreading rumors without the victim’s knowledge).
Of all the points on which I support children’s rights, their right to own a cell phone is not exactly a priority. I’d say it should be up to the parnts to decide whether their kids should have cell phones - at which point it’s the right of the parents, not the children.
That said I think there might be something broken about how it is solved now - I would probably be in favour of a law banning certain types of software on the phones of children, such as abusive social media or games with microtransactions.
I would probably be in favour of a law banning certain types of software on the phones of children, such as abusive social media or games with microtransactions.
you can still be bullied online, if you arent online yourself. People can still spread rumors or damage your image with real world repercussions in the hellhole that is teenage social circles.
And this is little that parents of affected children can do about, and it is certainly no parental shortcoming that their child has become the victim of bullying. It can hit anyone and any family.
So while i also dontthink this is the best measure, the motivation is valid.
I think it’s a problem they don’t get vote in the first place. If 90-year-olds can, so can 15-year olds. My money is on the average 14-year-old to make better decisions (40% of 90-year-olds have dementia, so that’s a safe bet).
I’d say the age of criminal responsibility - between 12 and 15 in most of Europe - seems like a reasonable cut-off. If you’re too immature to vote on a law, you’re too young to go to prison for breaking it. We could however leave passive suffrage to the actual age of maturity (and full criminal responsibility).
I am especially interested in your stance on technology and introversion.
In which way do introverted children benefit from technology, and technology exclusively?
And how would the inability to access technology force them to behave differently?
I’m an introvert. And was as a child too. Talking to friends via msn messenger was my preference. If my mum had of removed my technology I’d of had no way of talking to my friends that was comfortable for me, it basically forces face to face social interaction if you want to talk to people.
Which triggered an anxiety response and made me very tired.
So I imagine banning tech from children will result in introverted children having to be in situations they don’t enjoy and not being able to feel comfortable communicating in ways they are comfortable.
It could result in children just shutting themselves away because they dont enjoy the face to face. Which can result in depression. But forcing them to be uncomfortable in social situations can result in serious anxiety and even more discomfort in social situations, if you’re forced into something it can create more of a distaste for that situation/ thing.
The times I was dragged to things with my mum, it made me hate parties etc all the more and my anxiety about them got worse.
Whereas if it’s something I chose to do for myself, it had less of a negative effect on me than if it’s something I was forced into.
So if introverted children prefer texting, messaging etc then you take that away from them, it can result in them having to do things they aren’t comfortable with, which can have an effect on mental health. As it’s forcing them into different things they don’t really want to be doing.
Just because these people can’t vote yet doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have rights or be treated with dignity and respect like the rest of society.
The problem is mostly not the people, but the social media services, that take advantage of them for as much profits as inhumanly possible, and in the process affect their personality in a wrong way.
Sometimes I too feel that they shouldn’t have a smartphone, but in reality it’s a problem with these corps and their motives, who affect everyone else too but has deeper effects for young people.
But the solution also involves parents raising their kids, instead of youtube, facebook, tiktok and whatever else. To some extent it also means having some oversight on what their kids see online.
Just because these people can’t vote yet doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have rights or be treated with dignity and respect like the rest of society.
I’m disappointed with people arguing that literally banning smartphones would somehow improve the social situation for anyone.
Just because you cannot see bullying or collect statistics about it quite as easily, does not mean it disappears. I’d argue the opposite: blocking others online is trivial compared to doing the same in-person.
We also have to acknowledge that some children simply are more introverted, and will want to stay more secluded than others. Forcing them to behave in other ways seems counterproductive.
Just because some parents (understandably) struggle with raising their kids shouldn’t mean that they’re all doomed to what amounts to nationwide collective punishment.
I for one support children’s rights, at least on this one point.
Edit:
Exact circumstances can, and will very, as every child is unique. Therefore, we should allow for case by case decisions. Luckily, the de facto situation already has the parents deciding, which makes sense in most cases IMO.
And taking away the phones of other people won’t stop online bullying either (e.g. spreading rumors without the victim’s knowledge).
Of all the points on which I support children’s rights, their right to own a cell phone is not exactly a priority. I’d say it should be up to the parnts to decide whether their kids should have cell phones - at which point it’s the right of the parents, not the children.
That said I think there might be something broken about how it is solved now - I would probably be in favour of a law banning certain types of software on the phones of children, such as abusive social media or games with microtransactions.
Maybe doing the same for adults wouldn’t hurt.
Yes, but not when the kid is 14 or 15. I think at that age it should be up to them and not their parents.
Right? Let’s find even more ways to restrict, alienate, and socially isolate young people. That can’t possibly backfire horribly…
you can still be bullied online, if you arent online yourself. People can still spread rumors or damage your image with real world repercussions in the hellhole that is teenage social circles.
And this is little that parents of affected children can do about, and it is certainly no parental shortcoming that their child has become the victim of bullying. It can hit anyone and any family.
So while i also dontthink this is the best measure, the motivation is valid.
I think it’s a problem they don’t get vote in the first place. If 90-year-olds can, so can 15-year olds. My money is on the average 14-year-old to make better decisions (40% of 90-year-olds have dementia, so that’s a safe bet).
I’d say the age of criminal responsibility - between 12 and 15 in most of Europe - seems like a reasonable cut-off. If you’re too immature to vote on a law, you’re too young to go to prison for breaking it. We could however leave passive suffrage to the actual age of maturity (and full criminal responsibility).
I am especially interested in your stance on technology and introversion. In which way do introverted children benefit from technology, and technology exclusively? And how would the inability to access technology force them to behave differently?
I’m an introvert. And was as a child too. Talking to friends via msn messenger was my preference. If my mum had of removed my technology I’d of had no way of talking to my friends that was comfortable for me, it basically forces face to face social interaction if you want to talk to people.
Which triggered an anxiety response and made me very tired.
So I imagine banning tech from children will result in introverted children having to be in situations they don’t enjoy and not being able to feel comfortable communicating in ways they are comfortable.
It could result in children just shutting themselves away because they dont enjoy the face to face. Which can result in depression. But forcing them to be uncomfortable in social situations can result in serious anxiety and even more discomfort in social situations, if you’re forced into something it can create more of a distaste for that situation/ thing.
The times I was dragged to things with my mum, it made me hate parties etc all the more and my anxiety about them got worse.
Whereas if it’s something I chose to do for myself, it had less of a negative effect on me than if it’s something I was forced into.
So if introverted children prefer texting, messaging etc then you take that away from them, it can result in them having to do things they aren’t comfortable with, which can have an effect on mental health. As it’s forcing them into different things they don’t really want to be doing.
This was me, too. Being able to communicate in writing was a godsend for me.
The problem is mostly not the people, but the social media services, that take advantage of them for as much profits as inhumanly possible, and in the process affect their personality in a wrong way.
Sometimes I too feel that they shouldn’t have a smartphone, but in reality it’s a problem with these corps and their motives, who affect everyone else too but has deeper effects for young people.
But the solution also involves parents raising their kids, instead of youtube, facebook, tiktok and whatever else. To some extent it also means having some oversight on what their kids see online.