Campaign to bar under-14s from having smartphones signed by 100,000 parents
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/13/campaign-to-bar-under-14s-from-having-smartphones-signed-by-100000-parentsOpen linkView original on lemmy.zipSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.ziphttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/13/campaign-to-bar-under-14s-from-having-smartphones-signed-by-100000-parentsOpen linkView original on lemmy.zip
19 replies
So... 100,000 parents decided they didn't want to parent and would rather the "guvment" do the parenting for them and for the rest of the country?...
Itโs not quite that simple, as you are kind of coerced into getting a phone at a very young age (usually ~8). So the good parents risk their kids being one of the weird kids without a phone, with all the ostracism and bullying that might come with that. Itโs quite a dilemma actually.
That's up to the parents to do. Not up to the government to do. That's not the government's job. That's the parents' job. I do agree that devices shouldn't be added to the school's curriculum until later, instead of at kinder as it is now. But legally banning phones for <14 is offloading responsibility to an entity that should never have that responsibility.
Now you're getting it! Let big government raise their kids rather than just parenting themselves!
There are far more than 100,000 parents who didnโt sign it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2023
Even if we assume that each signatory represents a unique family (i.e. no couples contributed two signatures) then 100k represents only half of a percent.
Millions never even heard there was something to sign.
deleted by creator
This would be equivalent of not letting under-14s into libraries or read anything practically for that matter in 1900s. Phones are not just used for social media or gaming, you are limiting the conversation abilities, accessibility of information, and freedom
Luckily they're not banning tablets or laptops or tethering or even WiFi. Early teens should figure all that out in a jiffy.
problem is, among the items you enumerated, phones (usually) are the cheapest (not comparing flagship phones here, you can get good-ish entry level phone at 150-200 USD (I use one) and goodish laptops start around 300 (and even then it is mostly underpowered chrmoebooks, many of of which are not good), tablets (entry level) start at about the same prize of phones, but for a given prize, you would get other specs lower (they have to cut cost somewhwere, and larger screen costs more). Now, these tablets can serve as a carrier for information, but that would not be the most ideal solution.
Also, everything requires a phone number, and everyone just talks using whatsapp or some other phone-only application. You cant expect them to keep in touch without one.
Even though I would very much like for this to change, this is true, having a phone number is very important
This is, of course, what the Nazis want. And we can't let them get what they want
If they ban smart phones, how will I teach my children to worship Satan?
I guess I might still have my D&D books somewhere around.
(This is a sarcastic reference to a judges excellent comparison. Also, I know exactly where my D&D books are. Also, I haven't gotten to the Satan worship yet, if it is in my D&D books. Maybe I missed a rule.)
Ah yes because we all know abstinence of a thing works so well /s
How many smartphones are even signed by that many parents? 2?
Talk about banning unicorns!
Have these parents never heard of Pinwheel, Gabb, Bark, etc? They exist for a reason. My two oldest have Pinwheel smartphones (Blu G91S, Motorola G Play 2024), and I have complete control over them. The kids know this as it was a condition of them having a phone at all.
Fuck that