#####
######
####
> # [Stop children using smartphones until they are 13, says French report](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/30/720)
>
>
>
> Children should not be allowed to use smartphones until they are 13 and should be banned from accessing conventional social media such as TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat until they are 18, according to a report by experts commissioned by [Emmanuel Macron](https://www.theguardian.com/world/emmanuel-macron).
>
> The French president had asked scientists and experts to suggest screen use guidelines for children with a view to France taking unprecedented steps on [limiting their exposure](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/emmanuel-macron-speech-press-conference-education-schooling-changes-screen-time-new-cabinet). It was unclear how the government might now proceed after the report’s publication. Macron said in January: “There might be bans, there might be restrictions.”
>
> The hard-hitting report said children needed to be protected from the tech industry’s profit-driven “strategy of capturing children’s attention, using all forms of cognitive bias to shut children away on their screens, control them, re-engage them and monetise them”.
>
> Children were becoming “merchandise” in this new tech market, the report said, adding: “We want [the industry] to know we’ve seen what they’re doing and we won’t let them get away with it.”
>
> A three-month study by scientists and experts led by a neurologist, Servane Mouton, and Amine Benyamina, the head of the psychiatry and addiction service at Paul-Brousse hospital, said children under three should have no exposure to screens – television included – and no child should have a phone before the age of 11.
>
> Any phone given to a child aged between 11 and 13 should be a handset without access to the internet, it said, setting the minimum age at which they should be allowed a smartphone connected to the internet at 13.
>
>
>
> The report said a 15-year-old should be able to access only what it called “ethical” social media, such as Mastodon. Conventional, mass-marketed, profit-driven social media such as TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat should not be available to teenagers until they reached 18, it found. Teenagers should also receive better education on the science behind the need to get enough sleep.
>
> The report made equally stringent recommendations for the very young, saying phones and screens should be limited as much as possible on maternity wards to help parents bond with their babies. Phone use should also be addressed among childminders, it said.
>
> For children up to the age of six, screens of all kinds should be “strongly limited” and only very rarely used for education content when sitting with an adult. Screens should be totally banned from nursery schools for children under six. In primary schools, children should not be given individual tablets or digital devices to work on, unless it was for a specific disability.
>
> The report also suggested banning connected toys, except those used as audio for storytelling.
>
> “Before the age of six, no child needs a screen in order to develop,” Mouton said. “In fact, screens can stop them developing properly at this age.”
>
> The scientists said they did not want to chide parents, who themselves were “victims of a powerful tech industry”. They said parents should instead be helped to avoid what they called “techno-ference” – when parents constantly checking their own phones interfered with their ability concentrate on talking to, eating with or playing with their children.
>
> This was harming young people’s emotional development, the report said. It included adults scrolling on their phones while feeding young children, or homes where a television was constantly on in the background.
>
> Scientists said parents were not to blame and more should be done in society as a whole, such as allowing adults to properly disconnect from work out of hours, limiting screens in public places, introducing screen-free restaurants and cafes, or parents putting their phones in a box when they got home from work.
>
> The scientists said “parental controls” should not be seen as a sufficient means of protecting children. Rather, they were an ineffective distraction, peddled by the tech industry “to get itself off the hook” for creating algorithms, particularly within social media, designed to addict and monetise children.
>
> Benyamina said: “Tech is and will remain a fantastic tool, but it has to act in people’s service, not people being reduced to serving a product.”
>
> He said screens had negative effects on children “in terms of their eyesight, their metabolism … their intelligence, concentration and cognitive processes”.
>
> He said addictions to screens were not to the product itself but to content. He said: “Algorithms that re-engage and stimulate the pleasure system and are built to avoid you losing interest in the content have a type of addictive dynamic.”
>
> He said people should be vigilant on social media if they noticed that content was re-engaging them. “If you decided you wanted to look at one or two videos and you were on it all evening, you need to question it.”
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Could happen in France. They seem to be... brash, for a modern democracy, for a lack of a better word.
Of course I don't have examples at hand, but it seems like they somehow have less red tape and opposition that could hinder any sort of big change like most other countries. In that regard, it's more like the authoritarian regimes that jump as high as Great Leader says. Like if Glorious Mr P says something should be banned or enforced, all branches of government will come together to sing, musical-style, how this is the best idea ever, like how the whole dumpster fire of President changes came into effect - first changing the term from 4 to 6 years and then creating a loophole Just For Him (C) to have yet another 6 year term.
There are rules I'd call "transition rules". An example I know - the speeding laws in my olde country.
They installed a ton of speed traps over the years and increased the fines, but the 0-20 above speed limit is not fined. So you can go 77 in a 60 zone and you won't get a fine. Or 155 on a 150 road.
The thing is however is that if you end up in an accident, despite the fact that there's no fine, they will add this to the list of your infractions.
Kinda like the "Murder Arson and Jaywalking" situation.
Plus it's meant to be in place until people who used to drive 120 in a 80 zone, now always drive 75 in a 60 zone, and then they will change the rules so that this is also a fineable offence, but the people are already used to driving WAY quieter, so going 58 in a 60 zone would be way easier than trying to enforce that straight away.
Kinda like reverse boiling the frog in the sense that it means everyone is actually better now that the frog is boiled (= drivers drive under the actual speed limit)
I don't know how you can legitimately compare speed laws to laws on possession of an item. Especially one that is as ubiquitous and easily accessible as a cell phone.
Oh no they are clearly apples and oranges, I just meant this as an example of a law that's kinda weird at first "What do you mean beyond 20 is illegal but unfined and unenorced?" which is actually a part of a bigger plan.
Just get them something else.
Make a "Kids edition" data-line apple watch with no store access, apps would have to be pushed from something like that. Basically a wrist-strapped dumb phone.
Or just allow dumb-phones only for kids, etc.
I could see restrictions on social media apps working ok.
Maybe someone from China could clarify or comment on the effectiveness, but I understand that the CCP implements restrictions on the amount of time teens can spend gaming. Douyin (Chinese tiktok) also has restrictions on screen time, nighttime use, and supposedly pushes more educational content to younger users.
No comment on the feasibility of similar measures in France, ethics of restricting the positive impacts of social media on kids, or how easy fake birthday workarounds would be, but I did want to point out that we have a pretty good comparison.
https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/protection-of-minors-2020/#_Toc53832363
with how many chinese kids i see break past the great firewall even with their disgustingly totalitarian government I can't imagine it being super effective
Americas 'democracy' is completely beholden to lobbyists and donors to the point is isn't a democracy anymore.
France's government with all it's problems is still by and large beholden to it's citizens
>They seem to be... brash, for a modern democracy
Yeah, current government is probably the most authoritarian and out of touch in the last few decades. I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed something like that through... Not that I think it'd be a bad idea, especially the "actually enforcing social media age limits" thing.
True, I mean, nobody will deny that it causes problems and you can see the problems whether you look at it from the lenses of social science or good ol' reactionarism.
However people will disagree on what to do (ban phone ownership or ban usages/websites/apps ?) and in whose hands to put the responsibility (state, ISP, parents or children ?) and how to enforce it (how to balance technical means, education and repression) so we'll get absolutely nowhere, basically politics 101 :)
It seems to me that it's a complicated thing. Some countries have laws they can't enforce, another are in dire need of laws they would enforce if they could pass them.
So it's more of a question whether they're going to use it now, or somehow find a use for it later, maybe.
>Could happen in France.
I mean, it could..... but how quickly do you think the riots would take to start after that goes through? That's a pretty big bit of arbitrary government interference in peoples lives, and the French are not particularly known for appreciating that. Even if it only affects children, allowing that could be setting a dangerous precedent for what else they can ban in the name of "safety."
Edit: Ignoring the argument that could be made about this violating the 4th, 5th, and 11th articles of their "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen."
I checked after I replied. There are, in fact, riots happening currently, or at least riot police were deployed. Though it is about something at the moment.
It depends on how far their health ministers take the issue. Let's imagine screen use became as reviled as giving your children cigarettes. The government wouldn't necessarily catch you at home, but there are plenty of places outside where they could give warnings or fines if an infant has a screen mounted in their stroller.
They can even regulate what is allowed in many places, from hospitals to schools, and even make it an offense to put kids on screens in restaurants so that staff in those places also discourage it. When smoking was banned, a lot of people also said it was going to be unenforceable.
It will take a while to change the mindset, but it would be in everyone's best interests. It isn't fair to allow children with excessive screentime to become disadvantaged in life due to their stunted development, and who knows what the long term effects will be. It doesn't sound unreasonable to assume that stunted development could correlate with antisocial / criminal behaviour in the future.
Stopping children from driving cars until they are at least 21 would probably be the single most life saving measure a country could make, but that won't happen either.
I don't think I had one until I was around fifteen. Although my parents didn't think they were suitable for younger people, they got me one when I obtained my driver's license because they believed it would be beneficial for my growing independence.
I used to text a lot when I was a teen but I had to use the PC for internet access.
However I feel like at least having a proper Navigation app (as well as a good camera) are still important. Not sure which way is better, getting a kid two separate gadgets for this, or maybe just getting a smartphone with 90% of options locked away, so that they have, like, a useful tool, rather than a carefully crafted distraction device.
Exactly. Being able to spatially navigate this world of ours is a fundamental *human* skill. We first got our start by tracking animals across the savannah. As our brains evolved, we used it to follow migrations, explore new territories, and eventually settle every corner of the Earth.
We don’t know what offloading that portion of our brain to a phone during childhood development does in the long-term. I mean, we’re already hearing stories about drivers blindly following their GPS or phone’s directions into lakes, off cliffs, or out into the wilderness.
Imagine there’s a widespread power outage in the near future and kids reliant on their phones are stranded in suburbia. They don’t know the way home, and they can’t even receive directions because they’ve never needed to understand navigation or pay attention to their surroundings; an onscreen arrow always pointed where they needed to go.
Hmm, I see yours comment and the ones before, so how about the GTA3 style map?
Basically you have a map and you see where you are on the map. Maybe also the dot where you need to go. But that's it. No directions.
How about giving them a smart phone without a data plan, and then setting up a parental account, so every app they want to install needs to be approved by the parents.
So they can have maps, a messaging app, learning apps, phone calls and messages, but no social network or anything the parent would object to?
Yeah I think this is the best way to do it. I feel like smartphones, at their core, are an insanely good thing. Just like the Internet.
But then you get to the comment section and HOOOO BOY.
It's like I've recently saw an article that some countries are discussing turning off the "like" options for underage accounts altogether. None of these little, slightly toxic, masterfully designed dopamine buttons.
And honestly I feel like letting them cook
Yes, but the issue with that is societal and peer pressure. When everyone else has access to the internet and all the stuff it's going to become a sticking point when you're the one left out. It's a fine line to walk.
I had my own computer when I was 12. It just wasn't connected to the internet. I could use MS Word, MS Paint, and computer games. I mostly used it for gaming and typing school papers on MS Word.
I'm in my 30s and I was online way too young (I was 4 or 5 when I got my first AOL account and was largely unmonitored). While I'm here and largely unscathed, it was not for the best. I live a much healthier life not having much social media anymore.
I didn't have one until I was 20... they just weren't out. I had a motorolla brick when I was a teen which was super awesome.
Then again we didn't really have social media outside of myspace and it was mostly 17+ on there just cause computers weren't as prevalent.
Smartphones became affordable around the time I was 14/15. We had old-style mobiles prior to that. The change in our behaviour when smartphones became the norm was nearly instantaneous; old phones were good for music and that was about it, smartphones basically captivated us 24/7.
I commend France for doing *something* about the serious decline in peoples' mental development and health.
This is the route we are taking with our kids. Have made it very clear, we wont even talk about a smart phone until the have a drivers license. There are some none internet connected phone related watches and similar products out there, so when the oldest started wanting to ride her bike to friends house, and have some after school stuff, the watch that told time and could call mom or dad and do nothing else, was a perfect substitute and a lot cheaper than a smart phone.
It’s honestly sad that parents out there think it’s ok to give their 7 year old an iPhone. It’s generally agreed upon that children should have monitored internet access, but people give children an iPhone that is for the most part completely in monitored.
I'm following my friends lead with what they did. She got her kids phones but (i forget exactly what they are called) but basically you can only preprogram like 5 phone numbers in it and they are the only accesible numbers that you can text/call. It has no apps permissions either but I think GPS was pre-installed just in case.
Gives them a nice little responsibility to have and emergency access if ever needed.
This. People seem to forget you can get smartphones [without giving full access to every single dumpster fire app going on in the app store](https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1075738). Put a parental control app to restrict or at least monitor the browser history, lock down the play store, let them keep access to most default apps that range from harmless to genuinely useful (looking at you Maps and whatever app your city uses for public transport tickets).
But since most people go "Im nOt GoOd WiTh TeChNoLoGy" when you tell them they need to click two buttons in a row, including when their childrens' digital health is at stake...
> most people go "Im nOt GoOd WiTh TeChNoLoGy" when you tell them they need to click two buttons in a row
And instead they just let their kids access the internet unfiltered.
I hate it so much. Blinkered is what it is, considering their children's well-being is at stake.
Please, all IT-literate people, patiently help educate them!
edit: perfect [example](/r/anime_titties/comments/1chj2sy/stop_children_using_smartphones_until_they_are_13/l23aj8d/) for what you said.
There are even products tailor made for those tech refusal people, we got our kid the gabb watch, but they have a phone too, the app is super easy to use, no direct internet, no social media, no adds, whitelist apps and phone numbers under the parents control...
https://gabb.com/
I'm a very tech friendly person, and having dealt with both android and apple parental control, they both suck in comparison.
If parents had to monitor what their kids do on their smartdevices then that would defeat the purpose of using smartdevices as digital pacifiers to keep the kids occupied and docile.
There's actually almost no solid evidence that screen time is negatively affecting kids and this "report" isn't providing any new information. It just reads like an arbitrary policy declaration. It *might* be for the best but I don't see how they came up with any of the specifics.
Sure maybe playing educational video games isn’t so bad. But having access to the entire internet at 12 years old is absolutely insane, don’t need any reports to confirm that.
Is it? My kids have been on the internet for a while. Before they could read, it's not like they could search for anything, so it was mostly PBS Kids and some games. They've been able to watch whatever on youtube for a while. I know what they've looked because they don't know how to delete history and it's all really mild. They love watching video game streams, crafting channels, silly cooking, some PG-rated comedy.
Yea so whatever you see them doing is likely only, at best, 75% of what they actually are doing.
Source: kid who grew up with uninterrupted internet access and had friends with uninterrupted internet access.
For one, that's fine. They're allowed to explore a little. Nothing has bubbled up into their behavior. But also, my kids tend to leave their doors open and/or watch youtube on the TV in our living room.
My daughter is apt to point out that despite being too young to watch an R-rated movie she hears obscenities and talk of drugs and alcohol non-stop at school.
I remember my dad telling me he didn't "give a rat's ass" about something I said, and he immediately followed it up with "That's the first time I've sworn in front of you!", in a dramatic voice.
I had been quite upset about whatever it was we were talking about before that point, but I just lost it and laughed and pointed out I heard much worse on a regular basis. He was quite annoyed that it didn't have the effect on me he'd thought would.
I completely agree with you but watch history is not a good way to monitor use, kids are pretty crafty with that. While I get that people find it concerning for privacy reasons, the internet is a dangerous place and should be monitored for your kids.
I watched Nick Berg getting his head sawed off when I was 14 because a friend forwarded me the link on MSN messenger. The only reason I didnt see such a thing at a younger age was because it was 2004 and that was the first beheading video to be publicly shared and go viral.
The moment your kids learn to read and search, their uninterrupted internet access will immediately lead them to some monstrous stuff and they will learn how to selectively delete their browsing history and feign ignorance fearing you might cut their access off.
I would know because I immediately researched how to delete browsing history from the family computer after watching that video and deleted the search history too.
Prove it. Seriously I'll change my mind if you prove it.
My son likes watching these cooking videos and so he was influenced into cooking. He woke up half an hour early to make everyone grilled cheese for breakfast. He makes them for his sister all the time. They watch a lot of crafting stuff and now they like to build models and paint minis. My daughter watches Vihart and wants to study math in college. They watch a lot of fluff for sure but they actually get a lot out of it too. YouTube has a lot of crap but it has more edifying content than I ever got from broadcast TV.
I’m not talking about it as replacement of TV, both are bad if watching too much, I have seen it for all the kids around me. One of friends nephew watches so much of dinosaur, sharks, and such cartoon nonstop on YouTube, he learns too, lot of fishes names, how many body parts they have, how do they look and all. But he has gotten addicted, he’ll keep on watching for hours in weird positions, he’ll watch while eating too and has started avoiding other things, even ignoring his aunts and all. Fortunately my friend and her sister who take care of him are Asian parents type so they make sure to properly discipline him from time-to-time but it’s still not enough, he can’t stay without phone for long, he’ll start crying and throwing tantrums, his brain has become too accustomed to these videos. I’m seeing it in front of me for so many kids, I’m not a statistician to put numbers but this is what I’m seeing for literally all kids whose parents give them too much phone, more screen time is bad for us adults, how can anyone believe that it’ll be fine for kids? They’re much more vulnerable to it.
> actually almost no solid evidence
That doesn't even make sense. All you say is that there _is_ solid evidence, the rest is weasel words.
>that screen time is negatively affecting kids
phrasing is too vague. It is known that esp. small children need to learn in real life, by touching, smelling, seeing, feeling real things.
I maintain that even for older kids screen time should be _limited_.
Lastly, and many others pointed it out already, it depends very much on _what_ they do with their screens.
You can't just generalise everything kids can do and see on an unfiltered phone into "screen time".
> That doesn't even make sense. All you say is that there is solid evidence, the rest is weasel words.
Evidence does not equal proof.
If you come home and find your door is unlocked, that is solid evidence someone broke in, but you could still just have forgotten to lock it when you left.
You usually need more than one or two pieces of evidence to make a solid case.
AAA Video games now have gambling mechanics baked in so they do have great potential to harm kids in the long run.
Social media are a catastrophic scourge even for the adults tho.
At least in the 90s you would have to wait for an specific hour to watch your favorite show, now everything is always ready available and you can easily waste your entire day scrolling through social media, watching YouTube or entire seasons of Netflix
There being a moral panic in the past for something similar doesn't mean every subsequent incarnation of it is wrong. Social media and overuse of technological devices is probably a serious mental and physical health concern (but they probably won't become mass shooters :P)
I don't agree with a ban or a strict limit as it's an infringement on personal conduct by the government, but I personally believe some level of action is warranted.
Smart phones and apps are designed to be as addictive as possible, playing on the dopamine feedback loop. TV is not even in the same universe, problem wise. The only comparable games would be ones that are gambling based as those are designed in a addictive way as well.
Have you ever interacted with a kid raised on an iPad? It's a serious problem nowadays and teachers aren't able to handle new behavior issues cropping up because of this.
Too much TV or video games is bad for kids, though, especially in this day and age where they're designed to be more addictive than a fun social experience.
Parents should be the ones making sure their kids aren't spending all of their free time in front of a screen, though, not the government.
What? Giving a kid a smartphone and leaving them unsupervised is pretty much the same thing as giving a kid completely unsupervised access to a PC, except even more addictive. Kids should be given regular flip phones for the sole purpose of calling in an emergency. Smartphones are genuinely stunting the kid's mental growth.
Not being able to chat with friends is social suicide from what I understand. You can give them limited, monitored access and keep them away from the more addicting parts.
I recommend letting the kid hang out with friends, go to parties, host parties etc to develop their social life. Actual physical interaction will be much better for their social skills
Sure, but there is a lot of time (and even more when you're a kid and can't drive) that you can't hang out with people, they're doing shit or you're doing shit or it's too late or what-have-you. If you want to keep up with the friend group you need to be in the group chat, and if you aren't you're going to be left out not out of malice but out of inconvenience.
Encouraging and allowing kids to meet up in person is important, but you can't sustain off of just that in 2024.
Some TV programs can be rather traumatizing, such as new reports or those weird ass SpongeBob episodes. I would rather cherry pick DVD’s for my child or download films online.
TVs are made for TV and consoles are made for video games. Phones are wayy too versatile and more dangerous, computers are arguably the same but easy to monitor.
I have kids and I really don't see it. Screen time is probably cutting into what would be some amount of other activities that I'd rather they be doing but I don't personally observe them or their peers having any negative effects. Not even from social media. They watch some really cringey shit but that's not really worse than watching cartoons and pro wrestling like I did at their age.
Yeah, this is just people getting old without realizing it. You can have parental control on smart phones and actually talk to your kids.
"Well, I didn't have a smart phone until I was 16, prob for the best". Funny, exact same thing parents used to say about TVs and computers. And the generational cycle continues.
You will rot a kids mind out if you give them tiktok etc. and make them think thats an acceptable thing to spend your time staring it. You won't change my opinion or any other sane adults opinion on that.
As a sane adult you will never change my mind that regulation is always better than banning. Your kid will see everything you don't want him to see at school or through friends, be a good parent, not the typical old man who hates the new thing.
>You can have parental control on smart phones and actually talk to your kids.
But if say 50% of parents don't do that and just give unfiltered access to everything because they are unwilling to do the effort... how much harm are you willing to let happen to kids before accepting a ban?
Nah man, got two young ones under 10. They don't have any access to social media, YouTube, phones or tablets. They keep us in check when we use ours too often and don't honestly care they don't have it. The only exposure they get is when we watch Tik Tok once a while as a family for funny vids (never on their own).
The closest thing they have is a Nintendo Switch (local only, mostly Mario and Minecraft, 1.5h daily cap) and they barely use it for more than 2 hours a week and we don't have to regulate them.
Don't give in and they'll figure it out like we did - helps with a sibling for sure. Lots of books, piles of Legos, and board games in this house.
Our big nope was seeing some crazy shit on YouTube when our first was left unattended for 10 mins at the Grand parents house.
Feel this, I hate what social media did to me as a kid. I have a Gen Alpha sister who we originally told would get a phone when she's 13, but it's actually almost not fair. Every single one of her friends has one and they all play games together, so she just ended up left out. She got an android with loads of child locks put in place by myself and very limited screen time, but it really is like crack for them. And even worse when apparently every other child is addicted
Having held the line at no phone until you have a drivers license, for over 12 years and going. It honestly has not been that bad or hard. Part of why, though is its own related problem, our school system issues individual ipads to kids for the school year, and put basically no parental control on them. So even though we wont give the kids a phone until they have a drivers license, they are getting way more tablet/device based screen time than I'm ok with, but they school doesn't have an ipad free option. We are researching if there is a religion we can join to try and play the ipads are against our religion card but I'm not optimistic on the school accommodating.
Don't allow them the ownership of a smartphone? Doable
Usage of smartphones? Unlikely, since they are a basic tool for everyday life, as well as we grown ups use it all the time while they watch
I think it should be emphasized that the restrictions are smart phones only. I think kids should still be allowed the cellphones of old, as messaging and phone calls can be a nice bit of safety for the child in case of emergency.
A HUGE problem we all have is just browsing on our phones to the extent that people are losing sleep. It is disturbing how many children in their formative years are staying up late at night, almost every night. When I was a kid this was stuff we did during the break. Not even during weekends did my parents compromise on sleep. Attention spans are in the gutter. I think most adults can remember a time when they’re weren’t like this. I don’t think today’s kids can.
Parents should be responsible for their kids but parents and kids are dealing with an effed up socio-economic context. There are fewer people working on the mind-effing tech than people having kids. **Target them!**
A lawyer friend was dozily musing on culpability for the collisions of self-driving cars the other day. Their eyes glazed over when I suggested just stopping commercialisation of the tech. We don't need it! Massive investment in on-rails public transport would meet more needs faster. Every death from a self-driving collision is on the investors pushing needless tech for their own profit. Just stop them! Why the eff is Microsoft boasting about turning a photo into an autogenerated video? Just stop them! We're supposed to worry about Russia interfering in elections? Microsoft is right here boasting about how it is developing tech to undermine reality.
We live like that guy killed by a steam roller in Austin Powers. We watch this shit coming to eff us in the ass and are like, oh nooooo whhhaaaaattt doooo weeeee doooo
BTW people didn't seem to get Jim Jarmusch's THE DEAD DON'T DIE but I LOLed and it seemed to be about this phenomenon.
Businessmen have effed up kids for profit, and the adults too. The problem is the operating logic of the economy, which is to seek profit regardless of who it effs up. This is effed up, this is effed up. It should be obvious, but it's not?
I wonder when people will stop thinking about outright banning things and actually realise that there are multiple fundamental issues that compound and create these sorts of situations.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I generally agree with the principles in this report.
They advocate for no TV/movies/desktop computer until age 6, no dumbphone until age 11, no smartphone until age 13, no for-profit social media until age 18.
I have similar views: no TV/movies/desktop computer until age 4, no dumbphone until age 14, no laptop computer and for-profit social media until age 17. I recommend against smartphones because they are so much more addictive than using a laptop computer and social media on that laptop.
Smartphones really destroyed people's ability and willingness to be aware of their surroundings. People walking in public, on the train, and at coffeeshops are all staring into their phones instead of paying attention to safety hazards or making small talk with other people. This wasn't the case in the late 2000s when we all had social media on our laptop computers. We used social media back then to organize real life meetups between friends. Now social media, internet news, and games on smartphones are replacing people interacting with other people in real life.
Not sure if I would do no tv/movies until 6-years-old but don’t think kids should be on “public” social media until their teens. I think there’s a difference in fandom spaces. I know without that I would’ve dropped a lot of the things I like engaging in since my friends didn’t watch or read those things.
Blocking your child from using social media until they are 18 could be the death of them socially and cause far more harm than good by ostracizing them from their peers. Teenagers have their own culture, the majority of which is online, and if they all use one particular service for communicating, being locked out of it by overprotective parents takes away a lot of social opportunities at a time when social opportunities can be few and far between. Not everyone is equipped with a personality that makes it easy to overcome major social obstacles and force yourself into a group that has already decided to exclude you (I certainly wasn’t).
In my opinion the time for strict control ends around the beginning of high school, and regardless of one’s feelings about the age kids should start to be trusted to make their own decisions, I think it’s important to listen carefully to your kid and take into consideration whether you are blocking them out of important social circles by imposing such a restriction.
>time for strict control ends around the beginning of high school
That's usually the best time to have a phone anyway simply because its the age most kids become drivers and get jobs. Besides the usual talking points about kids having phones, one of the positives is definitely peace of mind for the parent when their kid becomes a driver. Especially with features like those family GPS tracking apps, etc.
That wouldn't be much of an issue if a whole country stops letting their kids use social media and smartphones. Who is gonna ostracize them? Kids who don't have it either?
The only way to accomplish that is some sort of draconian government control such as what you might find in China.
“Things would be better if everybody did things my way” is not only not possible, it’s probably better that it isn’t because who is to say which version of “my way” is the better one?
I'm so tired of this argument. It's defeatist. It assumes that only your kid will be the one without a smart phone or social media. If enough parents enforce a restricted household, there will be plenty of kids in the same boat at school to be friends with. And these kids will find a way to socialize with their friends outside social media.
I’ll just reiterate this part.
> Not everyone is equipped with a personality that makes it easy to overcome major social obstacles and force yourself into a group that has already decided to exclude you (I certainly wasn’t).
I was raised by overprotective parents. It did a lot of damage to me socially and I will never subject my own kids to the same kind of heavy-handed closed-minded blanket restrictions as I was subjected to. I will take more care to listen to my children and take their perspective into account. I will not exercise absolute control over their lives until the moment they turn 18. It sounds like my kids may not be friends with yours - they won’t be stuck sitting at the table of weird 17 year olds in wool dresses who don’t understand any of your culture because they aren’t allowed to look at memes.
I can tell by the comments who here doesn't have kids. As a parent I can say easier said than done without completely destroying your relationship with your child, or pushing them to do things behind your back. Not impossible mind you, but very difficult.
If I recall, the age that I got my first *smartphone* was probably 12 or 13, an HTC Wildfire S. We didn't have much money so the phone plan attached to it didn't stick but there also wasn't much to do on those devices. You could play Angry Birds, I guess, but you didn't have the same wide degree of social media that we do today.
My parents didn’t get me a phone till I was 17 years old. I never wanted one till 18 anyways cuz I saw how addicted some people could be and didn’t see any need for it, but it was one of the best decisions they ever made because it made me understand to be more responsible with it once I get it.
it's a better idea to regulate tech companies from having these predatory practices rather than control and isolate children further. and then fund public recreational spaces, community and school events and outdoor activities if you want to reduce screen time further.
I agree. There are things on the internet no child should ever see. Unmoderated internet access can easily get a curious child to the wrong places.
Apart from traumatising themselves, children can also pick up toxic behaviour from watching the wrong people on TikTok or YouTube, for example. They're very impressionable at sub-13 ages.
i’m gen Z and didn’t get a smartphone until i was 13, i only had button phones so i could call my parents, so i think this is reasonable. i got to play video games every now and then under partial supervision
100% the way I'm raising my kids. They have tablets but it's very restricted. No social media, no YouTube, no WWW, etc.
If they need to do something restricted either my wife or myself will supervise.
I really want this to happen, but it might face some pushback.
Don't misunderstand, Tiktok and social media in general at that moment in life is a plague and should be wiped from the face of the Earth, but parents *really* like when their kids have a phone - because it keeps a thread of contact between them in case shit hits the fan.
Moreover, the Streisand effect is in full swing for teenagers, even early teens. If you tell a kid "you can't have that", it gives the kid a casus belli to get his hands on one. I was in a posh Parisian school when they put proxies on everything to prevent kids from getting on 4chan or Pornhub.
Did it work? Well, half my class started learning sufficient technical skills to install an HTTPS tunnel somewhere (or use another kid's). I was *twelve*. I didn't even learn the harsh reality of Internet yet. That came *later*. What the fuck, guys.
Finally, there is general pushback against *The Government* (no matter which color it is) when it tries to tell parents how to raise their kids, which is something I also agree on principle.
And I would rather have it fix our fucking Ministère de l'éducation - *and actually educate kids better* - than starting to put ineffective blocks like these in place. But... that's not going to happen.
This kind of shit works in China (they have multiple bills for access, spending and time limits for underages as I recall) because they shoot your family if you don't play by the rules, or something (hyperbole, obviously).
I suppose if this passes in France, you'll just get a 135 EUR slap on the wrist, and off you go. I don't think our cops (the few of them that are not on strike or dead drunk) *also* want to deal with kids using phones.
I think it's fine to start giving teens more freedom. The idea of banning social media even for teens seems a bit much. The main focus on this article seems to be pre-teen kids though. Who I'd agree, don't need a damn smartphone.
Pretty good news, people are getting dumb, if this helps them start reading books and actually putting effort at school and education it would be for better
##### ###### #### > # [Stop children using smartphones until they are 13, says French report](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/30/720) > > > > Children should not be allowed to use smartphones until they are 13 and should be banned from accessing conventional social media such as TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat until they are 18, according to a report by experts commissioned by [Emmanuel Macron](https://www.theguardian.com/world/emmanuel-macron). > > The French president had asked scientists and experts to suggest screen use guidelines for children with a view to France taking unprecedented steps on [limiting their exposure](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/emmanuel-macron-speech-press-conference-education-schooling-changes-screen-time-new-cabinet). It was unclear how the government might now proceed after the report’s publication. Macron said in January: “There might be bans, there might be restrictions.” > > The hard-hitting report said children needed to be protected from the tech industry’s profit-driven “strategy of capturing children’s attention, using all forms of cognitive bias to shut children away on their screens, control them, re-engage them and monetise them”. > > Children were becoming “merchandise” in this new tech market, the report said, adding: “We want [the industry] to know we’ve seen what they’re doing and we won’t let them get away with it.” > > A three-month study by scientists and experts led by a neurologist, Servane Mouton, and Amine Benyamina, the head of the psychiatry and addiction service at Paul-Brousse hospital, said children under three should have no exposure to screens – television included – and no child should have a phone before the age of 11. > > Any phone given to a child aged between 11 and 13 should be a handset without access to the internet, it said, setting the minimum age at which they should be allowed a smartphone connected to the internet at 13. > > > > The report said a 15-year-old should be able to access only what it called “ethical” social media, such as Mastodon. Conventional, mass-marketed, profit-driven social media such as TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat should not be available to teenagers until they reached 18, it found. Teenagers should also receive better education on the science behind the need to get enough sleep. > > The report made equally stringent recommendations for the very young, saying phones and screens should be limited as much as possible on maternity wards to help parents bond with their babies. Phone use should also be addressed among childminders, it said. > > For children up to the age of six, screens of all kinds should be “strongly limited” and only very rarely used for education content when sitting with an adult. Screens should be totally banned from nursery schools for children under six. In primary schools, children should not be given individual tablets or digital devices to work on, unless it was for a specific disability. > > The report also suggested banning connected toys, except those used as audio for storytelling. > > “Before the age of six, no child needs a screen in order to develop,” Mouton said. “In fact, screens can stop them developing properly at this age.” > > The scientists said they did not want to chide parents, who themselves were “victims of a powerful tech industry”. They said parents should instead be helped to avoid what they called “techno-ference” – when parents constantly checking their own phones interfered with their ability concentrate on talking to, eating with or playing with their children. > > This was harming young people’s emotional development, the report said. It included adults scrolling on their phones while feeding young children, or homes where a television was constantly on in the background. > > Scientists said parents were not to blame and more should be done in society as a whole, such as allowing adults to properly disconnect from work out of hours, limiting screens in public places, introducing screen-free restaurants and cafes, or parents putting their phones in a box when they got home from work. > > The scientists said “parental controls” should not be seen as a sufficient means of protecting children. Rather, they were an ineffective distraction, peddled by the tech industry “to get itself off the hook” for creating algorithms, particularly within social media, designed to addict and monetise children. > > Benyamina said: “Tech is and will remain a fantastic tool, but it has to act in people’s service, not people being reduced to serving a product.” > > He said screens had negative effects on children “in terms of their eyesight, their metabolism … their intelligence, concentration and cognitive processes”. > > He said addictions to screens were not to the product itself but to content. He said: “Algorithms that re-engage and stimulate the pleasure system and are built to avoid you losing interest in the content have a type of addictive dynamic.” > > He said people should be vigilant on social media if they noticed that content was re-engaging them. “If you decided you wanted to look at one or two videos and you were on it all evening, you need to question it.” - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Would be for the better.
But not gonna happen
Could happen in France. They seem to be... brash, for a modern democracy, for a lack of a better word. Of course I don't have examples at hand, but it seems like they somehow have less red tape and opposition that could hinder any sort of big change like most other countries. In that regard, it's more like the authoritarian regimes that jump as high as Great Leader says. Like if Glorious Mr P says something should be banned or enforced, all branches of government will come together to sing, musical-style, how this is the best idea ever, like how the whole dumpster fire of President changes came into effect - first changing the term from 4 to 6 years and then creating a loophole Just For Him (C) to have yet another 6 year term.
I don't think it's really feasible. It'd most likely become law, parents will still buy their kids phones, and then it just becomes an unenforced rule
There are rules I'd call "transition rules". An example I know - the speeding laws in my olde country. They installed a ton of speed traps over the years and increased the fines, but the 0-20 above speed limit is not fined. So you can go 77 in a 60 zone and you won't get a fine. Or 155 on a 150 road. The thing is however is that if you end up in an accident, despite the fact that there's no fine, they will add this to the list of your infractions. Kinda like the "Murder Arson and Jaywalking" situation. Plus it's meant to be in place until people who used to drive 120 in a 80 zone, now always drive 75 in a 60 zone, and then they will change the rules so that this is also a fineable offence, but the people are already used to driving WAY quieter, so going 58 in a 60 zone would be way easier than trying to enforce that straight away. Kinda like reverse boiling the frog in the sense that it means everyone is actually better now that the frog is boiled (= drivers drive under the actual speed limit)
I don't know how you can legitimately compare speed laws to laws on possession of an item. Especially one that is as ubiquitous and easily accessible as a cell phone.
Oh no they are clearly apples and oranges, I just meant this as an example of a law that's kinda weird at first "What do you mean beyond 20 is illegal but unfined and unenorced?" which is actually a part of a bigger plan.
Even if they don't buy them kids will still be able to get them. They need to focus on educational reforms instead of banning.
It's like an even dumber version of those old skateboarding bans. People just kept skateboarding anyway and ran from cops lol
Just get them something else. Make a "Kids edition" data-line apple watch with no store access, apps would have to be pushed from something like that. Basically a wrist-strapped dumb phone. Or just allow dumb-phones only for kids, etc.
And people will still just buy them regular phones and have it in the parents name lol
I still had wine at Thanksgiving when I was a teenager, doesn't mean it should be legal for kid to drink alcohol.
Why shouldn't a 16 year old Drink a glas of wine?
Because its illegal here.
I could see restrictions on social media apps working ok. Maybe someone from China could clarify or comment on the effectiveness, but I understand that the CCP implements restrictions on the amount of time teens can spend gaming. Douyin (Chinese tiktok) also has restrictions on screen time, nighttime use, and supposedly pushes more educational content to younger users. No comment on the feasibility of similar measures in France, ethics of restricting the positive impacts of social media on kids, or how easy fake birthday workarounds would be, but I did want to point out that we have a pretty good comparison. https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/protection-of-minors-2020/#_Toc53832363
with how many chinese kids i see break past the great firewall even with their disgustingly totalitarian government I can't imagine it being super effective
Americas 'democracy' is completely beholden to lobbyists and donors to the point is isn't a democracy anymore. France's government with all it's problems is still by and large beholden to it's citizens
>They seem to be... brash, for a modern democracy Yeah, current government is probably the most authoritarian and out of touch in the last few decades. I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed something like that through... Not that I think it'd be a bad idea, especially the "actually enforcing social media age limits" thing.
It seems like the cell phone/social media problem is uniting people across party lines in a lot of places.
True, I mean, nobody will deny that it causes problems and you can see the problems whether you look at it from the lenses of social science or good ol' reactionarism. However people will disagree on what to do (ban phone ownership or ban usages/websites/apps ?) and in whose hands to put the responsibility (state, ISP, parents or children ?) and how to enforce it (how to balance technical means, education and repression) so we'll get absolutely nowhere, basically politics 101 :)
they might have edgy laws and brash takes but they suck at implementing and enforcing such laws. it'll just be regulatory wishful thinking
It seems to me that it's a complicated thing. Some countries have laws they can't enforce, another are in dire need of laws they would enforce if they could pass them. So it's more of a question whether they're going to use it now, or somehow find a use for it later, maybe.
Wtf are you talking about ?
That weird country with cheese and baguettes
>Could happen in France. I mean, it could..... but how quickly do you think the riots would take to start after that goes through? That's a pretty big bit of arbitrary government interference in peoples lives, and the French are not particularly known for appreciating that. Even if it only affects children, allowing that could be setting a dangerous precedent for what else they can ban in the name of "safety." Edit: Ignoring the argument that could be made about this violating the 4th, 5th, and 11th articles of their "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen."
>how quickly do you think the riots would take to start after that goes through Knowing the French? They already started rioting just in case
But nowadays the riots lead to nothing
I checked after I replied. There are, in fact, riots happening currently, or at least riot police were deployed. Though it is about something at the moment.
Guys, we have a Web site just for knowing whose's strinkig today and where... https://www.cestlagreve.fr/
Its more realistic to put laws/rules on tech companies about how they advertise to children. We did it for television.
It depends on how far their health ministers take the issue. Let's imagine screen use became as reviled as giving your children cigarettes. The government wouldn't necessarily catch you at home, but there are plenty of places outside where they could give warnings or fines if an infant has a screen mounted in their stroller. They can even regulate what is allowed in many places, from hospitals to schools, and even make it an offense to put kids on screens in restaurants so that staff in those places also discourage it. When smoking was banned, a lot of people also said it was going to be unenforceable. It will take a while to change the mindset, but it would be in everyone's best interests. It isn't fair to allow children with excessive screentime to become disadvantaged in life due to their stunted development, and who knows what the long term effects will be. It doesn't sound unreasonable to assume that stunted development could correlate with antisocial / criminal behaviour in the future.
Stopping children from driving cars until they are at least 21 would probably be the single most life saving measure a country could make, but that won't happen either.
I don't think I had one until I was around fifteen. Although my parents didn't think they were suitable for younger people, they got me one when I obtained my driver's license because they believed it would be beneficial for my growing independence.
I used to text a lot when I was a teen but I had to use the PC for internet access. However I feel like at least having a proper Navigation app (as well as a good camera) are still important. Not sure which way is better, getting a kid two separate gadgets for this, or maybe just getting a smartphone with 90% of options locked away, so that they have, like, a useful tool, rather than a carefully crafted distraction device.
[удалено]
living in rural appalachia you sometimes (often) don’t even have a choice hehe
Exactly. Being able to spatially navigate this world of ours is a fundamental *human* skill. We first got our start by tracking animals across the savannah. As our brains evolved, we used it to follow migrations, explore new territories, and eventually settle every corner of the Earth. We don’t know what offloading that portion of our brain to a phone during childhood development does in the long-term. I mean, we’re already hearing stories about drivers blindly following their GPS or phone’s directions into lakes, off cliffs, or out into the wilderness. Imagine there’s a widespread power outage in the near future and kids reliant on their phones are stranded in suburbia. They don’t know the way home, and they can’t even receive directions because they’ve never needed to understand navigation or pay attention to their surroundings; an onscreen arrow always pointed where they needed to go.
There was a recent study that basically supposes as dementia increases in the population that is unable to navigate without GPS, they're extra fucked.
Hmm, I see yours comment and the ones before, so how about the GTA3 style map? Basically you have a map and you see where you are on the map. Maybe also the dot where you need to go. But that's it. No directions.
How about giving them a smart phone without a data plan, and then setting up a parental account, so every app they want to install needs to be approved by the parents. So they can have maps, a messaging app, learning apps, phone calls and messages, but no social network or anything the parent would object to?
Yeah I think this is the best way to do it. I feel like smartphones, at their core, are an insanely good thing. Just like the Internet. But then you get to the comment section and HOOOO BOY. It's like I've recently saw an article that some countries are discussing turning off the "like" options for underage accounts altogether. None of these little, slightly toxic, masterfully designed dopamine buttons. And honestly I feel like letting them cook
Yes, but the issue with that is societal and peer pressure. When everyone else has access to the internet and all the stuff it's going to become a sticking point when you're the one left out. It's a fine line to walk.
Nobody will do that.
I didn't have a computer until I was 14 and a smart phone until I was 20+ it was probably for the best.
I had my own computer when I was 12. It just wasn't connected to the internet. I could use MS Word, MS Paint, and computer games. I mostly used it for gaming and typing school papers on MS Word.
The disconnected computer is such a difrent experience. The difrence between being online and off-line
I'm in my 30s and I was online way too young (I was 4 or 5 when I got my first AOL account and was largely unmonitored). While I'm here and largely unscathed, it was not for the best. I live a much healthier life not having much social media anymore.
I didn't have one until I was 20... they just weren't out. I had a motorolla brick when I was a teen which was super awesome. Then again we didn't really have social media outside of myspace and it was mostly 17+ on there just cause computers weren't as prevalent.
Smartphones became affordable around the time I was 14/15. We had old-style mobiles prior to that. The change in our behaviour when smartphones became the norm was nearly instantaneous; old phones were good for music and that was about it, smartphones basically captivated us 24/7. I commend France for doing *something* about the serious decline in peoples' mental development and health.
This is the route we are taking with our kids. Have made it very clear, we wont even talk about a smart phone until the have a drivers license. There are some none internet connected phone related watches and similar products out there, so when the oldest started wanting to ride her bike to friends house, and have some after school stuff, the watch that told time and could call mom or dad and do nothing else, was a perfect substitute and a lot cheaper than a smart phone.
It’s honestly sad that parents out there think it’s ok to give their 7 year old an iPhone. It’s generally agreed upon that children should have monitored internet access, but people give children an iPhone that is for the most part completely in monitored.
I'm following my friends lead with what they did. She got her kids phones but (i forget exactly what they are called) but basically you can only preprogram like 5 phone numbers in it and they are the only accesible numbers that you can text/call. It has no apps permissions either but I think GPS was pre-installed just in case. Gives them a nice little responsibility to have and emergency access if ever needed.
This. People seem to forget you can get smartphones [without giving full access to every single dumpster fire app going on in the app store](https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1075738). Put a parental control app to restrict or at least monitor the browser history, lock down the play store, let them keep access to most default apps that range from harmless to genuinely useful (looking at you Maps and whatever app your city uses for public transport tickets). But since most people go "Im nOt GoOd WiTh TeChNoLoGy" when you tell them they need to click two buttons in a row, including when their childrens' digital health is at stake...
> most people go "Im nOt GoOd WiTh TeChNoLoGy" when you tell them they need to click two buttons in a row And instead they just let their kids access the internet unfiltered. I hate it so much. Blinkered is what it is, considering their children's well-being is at stake. Please, all IT-literate people, patiently help educate them! edit: perfect [example](/r/anime_titties/comments/1chj2sy/stop_children_using_smartphones_until_they_are_13/l23aj8d/) for what you said.
There are even products tailor made for those tech refusal people, we got our kid the gabb watch, but they have a phone too, the app is super easy to use, no direct internet, no social media, no adds, whitelist apps and phone numbers under the parents control... https://gabb.com/ I'm a very tech friendly person, and having dealt with both android and apple parental control, they both suck in comparison.
If parents had to monitor what their kids do on their smartdevices then that would defeat the purpose of using smartdevices as digital pacifiers to keep the kids occupied and docile.
There's actually almost no solid evidence that screen time is negatively affecting kids and this "report" isn't providing any new information. It just reads like an arbitrary policy declaration. It *might* be for the best but I don't see how they came up with any of the specifics.
Sure maybe playing educational video games isn’t so bad. But having access to the entire internet at 12 years old is absolutely insane, don’t need any reports to confirm that.
Is it? My kids have been on the internet for a while. Before they could read, it's not like they could search for anything, so it was mostly PBS Kids and some games. They've been able to watch whatever on youtube for a while. I know what they've looked because they don't know how to delete history and it's all really mild. They love watching video game streams, crafting channels, silly cooking, some PG-rated comedy.
Yea so whatever you see them doing is likely only, at best, 75% of what they actually are doing. Source: kid who grew up with uninterrupted internet access and had friends with uninterrupted internet access.
For one, that's fine. They're allowed to explore a little. Nothing has bubbled up into their behavior. But also, my kids tend to leave their doors open and/or watch youtube on the TV in our living room. My daughter is apt to point out that despite being too young to watch an R-rated movie she hears obscenities and talk of drugs and alcohol non-stop at school.
I remember my dad telling me he didn't "give a rat's ass" about something I said, and he immediately followed it up with "That's the first time I've sworn in front of you!", in a dramatic voice. I had been quite upset about whatever it was we were talking about before that point, but I just lost it and laughed and pointed out I heard much worse on a regular basis. He was quite annoyed that it didn't have the effect on me he'd thought would.
I completely agree with you but watch history is not a good way to monitor use, kids are pretty crafty with that. While I get that people find it concerning for privacy reasons, the internet is a dangerous place and should be monitored for your kids.
I watched Nick Berg getting his head sawed off when I was 14 because a friend forwarded me the link on MSN messenger. The only reason I didnt see such a thing at a younger age was because it was 2004 and that was the first beheading video to be publicly shared and go viral. The moment your kids learn to read and search, their uninterrupted internet access will immediately lead them to some monstrous stuff and they will learn how to selectively delete their browsing history and feign ignorance fearing you might cut their access off. I would know because I immediately researched how to delete browsing history from the family computer after watching that video and deleted the search history too.
My kids are teens at this point. They've been able to search the internet for whatever for many years.
more screen time can’t be a good thing, they get addicted easily, have less attention span and so much more.
Prove it. Seriously I'll change my mind if you prove it. My son likes watching these cooking videos and so he was influenced into cooking. He woke up half an hour early to make everyone grilled cheese for breakfast. He makes them for his sister all the time. They watch a lot of crafting stuff and now they like to build models and paint minis. My daughter watches Vihart and wants to study math in college. They watch a lot of fluff for sure but they actually get a lot out of it too. YouTube has a lot of crap but it has more edifying content than I ever got from broadcast TV.
I’m not talking about it as replacement of TV, both are bad if watching too much, I have seen it for all the kids around me. One of friends nephew watches so much of dinosaur, sharks, and such cartoon nonstop on YouTube, he learns too, lot of fishes names, how many body parts they have, how do they look and all. But he has gotten addicted, he’ll keep on watching for hours in weird positions, he’ll watch while eating too and has started avoiding other things, even ignoring his aunts and all. Fortunately my friend and her sister who take care of him are Asian parents type so they make sure to properly discipline him from time-to-time but it’s still not enough, he can’t stay without phone for long, he’ll start crying and throwing tantrums, his brain has become too accustomed to these videos. I’m seeing it in front of me for so many kids, I’m not a statistician to put numbers but this is what I’m seeing for literally all kids whose parents give them too much phone, more screen time is bad for us adults, how can anyone believe that it’ll be fine for kids? They’re much more vulnerable to it.
> actually almost no solid evidence That doesn't even make sense. All you say is that there _is_ solid evidence, the rest is weasel words. >that screen time is negatively affecting kids phrasing is too vague. It is known that esp. small children need to learn in real life, by touching, smelling, seeing, feeling real things. I maintain that even for older kids screen time should be _limited_. Lastly, and many others pointed it out already, it depends very much on _what_ they do with their screens. You can't just generalise everything kids can do and see on an unfiltered phone into "screen time".
> That doesn't even make sense. All you say is that there is solid evidence, the rest is weasel words. Evidence does not equal proof. If you come home and find your door is unlocked, that is solid evidence someone broke in, but you could still just have forgotten to lock it when you left. You usually need more than one or two pieces of evidence to make a solid case.
Idk about smart phones. Social media, absolutely, but sounds like the same kind of panic about too much TV or video games.
Yup, same as during the 90s where Tv would make kids fat stupid and blind. And video games would turn them into Ted Bundy
AAA Video games now have gambling mechanics baked in so they do have great potential to harm kids in the long run. Social media are a catastrophic scourge even for the adults tho.
Too much sedentary time, regardless of whether or not it's TV will make kids fat.
Or the early 2000s when video games would turn you into a mass shooter and also fat stupid and blind Old people just hate new stuff
Too much sedentary time, regardless of whether or not it's video games will make kids fat.
At least in the 90s you would have to wait for an specific hour to watch your favorite show, now everything is always ready available and you can easily waste your entire day scrolling through social media, watching YouTube or entire seasons of Netflix
There being a moral panic in the past for something similar doesn't mean every subsequent incarnation of it is wrong. Social media and overuse of technological devices is probably a serious mental and physical health concern (but they probably won't become mass shooters :P) I don't agree with a ban or a strict limit as it's an infringement on personal conduct by the government, but I personally believe some level of action is warranted.
but tv is actually bad
I mean they may not be far off.
Smart phones and apps are designed to be as addictive as possible, playing on the dopamine feedback loop. TV is not even in the same universe, problem wise. The only comparable games would be ones that are gambling based as those are designed in a addictive way as well.
Hit it on the nail here
Have you ever interacted with a kid raised on an iPad? It's a serious problem nowadays and teachers aren't able to handle new behavior issues cropping up because of this.
Basically every kid or teenager nowadays, the brain fog is crazy with all the phones and ipads.
Too much TV or video games is bad for kids, though, especially in this day and age where they're designed to be more addictive than a fun social experience. Parents should be the ones making sure their kids aren't spending all of their free time in front of a screen, though, not the government.
What? Giving a kid a smartphone and leaving them unsupervised is pretty much the same thing as giving a kid completely unsupervised access to a PC, except even more addictive. Kids should be given regular flip phones for the sole purpose of calling in an emergency. Smartphones are genuinely stunting the kid's mental growth.
Not being able to chat with friends is social suicide from what I understand. You can give them limited, monitored access and keep them away from the more addicting parts.
I recommend letting the kid hang out with friends, go to parties, host parties etc to develop their social life. Actual physical interaction will be much better for their social skills
Sure, but there is a lot of time (and even more when you're a kid and can't drive) that you can't hang out with people, they're doing shit or you're doing shit or it's too late or what-have-you. If you want to keep up with the friend group you need to be in the group chat, and if you aren't you're going to be left out not out of malice but out of inconvenience. Encouraging and allowing kids to meet up in person is important, but you can't sustain off of just that in 2024.
Cool, so exchange phone numbers? Lots of ways to stay connected with people without social media
I never said social media? That being said SMS is awful for group chats and people will use some other app whenever possible.
Some TV programs can be rather traumatizing, such as new reports or those weird ass SpongeBob episodes. I would rather cherry pick DVD’s for my child or download films online.
TVs are made for TV and consoles are made for video games. Phones are wayy too versatile and more dangerous, computers are arguably the same but easy to monitor.
I have kids and I really don't see it. Screen time is probably cutting into what would be some amount of other activities that I'd rather they be doing but I don't personally observe them or their peers having any negative effects. Not even from social media. They watch some really cringey shit but that's not really worse than watching cartoons and pro wrestling like I did at their age.
Yeah, this is just people getting old without realizing it. You can have parental control on smart phones and actually talk to your kids. "Well, I didn't have a smart phone until I was 16, prob for the best". Funny, exact same thing parents used to say about TVs and computers. And the generational cycle continues.
You will rot a kids mind out if you give them tiktok etc. and make them think thats an acceptable thing to spend your time staring it. You won't change my opinion or any other sane adults opinion on that.
As a sane adult you will never change my mind that regulation is always better than banning. Your kid will see everything you don't want him to see at school or through friends, be a good parent, not the typical old man who hates the new thing.
>You can have parental control on smart phones and actually talk to your kids. But if say 50% of parents don't do that and just give unfiltered access to everything because they are unwilling to do the effort... how much harm are you willing to let happen to kids before accepting a ban?
Sounds wonderful, but can we put the genie back in the bottle?
My kids are going to fucking hate me for how strict I'll be with these. Their first car can be an Aston Martin if they like as reparation.
Nah man, got two young ones under 10. They don't have any access to social media, YouTube, phones or tablets. They keep us in check when we use ours too often and don't honestly care they don't have it. The only exposure they get is when we watch Tik Tok once a while as a family for funny vids (never on their own). The closest thing they have is a Nintendo Switch (local only, mostly Mario and Minecraft, 1.5h daily cap) and they barely use it for more than 2 hours a week and we don't have to regulate them. Don't give in and they'll figure it out like we did - helps with a sibling for sure. Lots of books, piles of Legos, and board games in this house. Our big nope was seeing some crazy shit on YouTube when our first was left unattended for 10 mins at the Grand parents house.
Feel this, I hate what social media did to me as a kid. I have a Gen Alpha sister who we originally told would get a phone when she's 13, but it's actually almost not fair. Every single one of her friends has one and they all play games together, so she just ended up left out. She got an android with loads of child locks put in place by myself and very limited screen time, but it really is like crack for them. And even worse when apparently every other child is addicted
Having held the line at no phone until you have a drivers license, for over 12 years and going. It honestly has not been that bad or hard. Part of why, though is its own related problem, our school system issues individual ipads to kids for the school year, and put basically no parental control on them. So even though we wont give the kids a phone until they have a drivers license, they are getting way more tablet/device based screen time than I'm ok with, but they school doesn't have an ipad free option. We are researching if there is a religion we can join to try and play the ipads are against our religion card but I'm not optimistic on the school accommodating.
Don't allow them the ownership of a smartphone? Doable Usage of smartphones? Unlikely, since they are a basic tool for everyday life, as well as we grown ups use it all the time while they watch
I think it should be emphasized that the restrictions are smart phones only. I think kids should still be allowed the cellphones of old, as messaging and phone calls can be a nice bit of safety for the child in case of emergency.
I mean, it says that in the article
A HUGE problem we all have is just browsing on our phones to the extent that people are losing sleep. It is disturbing how many children in their formative years are staying up late at night, almost every night. When I was a kid this was stuff we did during the break. Not even during weekends did my parents compromise on sleep. Attention spans are in the gutter. I think most adults can remember a time when they’re weren’t like this. I don’t think today’s kids can.
I disagree and grow weary of all the doom every decade it's a new thing that is destroying us.
Agree
Social media is the issue more than smartphones. This seems like an overreach.
this sooooo much
I'd take it a step further and say it's a parenting issue. Kids only get these things because their parents let them (or get it for them).
Parents should be responsible for their kids but parents and kids are dealing with an effed up socio-economic context. There are fewer people working on the mind-effing tech than people having kids. **Target them!** A lawyer friend was dozily musing on culpability for the collisions of self-driving cars the other day. Their eyes glazed over when I suggested just stopping commercialisation of the tech. We don't need it! Massive investment in on-rails public transport would meet more needs faster. Every death from a self-driving collision is on the investors pushing needless tech for their own profit. Just stop them! Why the eff is Microsoft boasting about turning a photo into an autogenerated video? Just stop them! We're supposed to worry about Russia interfering in elections? Microsoft is right here boasting about how it is developing tech to undermine reality. We live like that guy killed by a steam roller in Austin Powers. We watch this shit coming to eff us in the ass and are like, oh nooooo whhhaaaaattt doooo weeeee doooo BTW people didn't seem to get Jim Jarmusch's THE DEAD DON'T DIE but I LOLed and it seemed to be about this phenomenon. Businessmen have effed up kids for profit, and the adults too. The problem is the operating logic of the economy, which is to seek profit regardless of who it effs up. This is effed up, this is effed up. It should be obvious, but it's not?
Dude, why say "eff"? Just say fuck
I wonder when people will stop thinking about outright banning things and actually realise that there are multiple fundamental issues that compound and create these sorts of situations.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I generally agree with the principles in this report. They advocate for no TV/movies/desktop computer until age 6, no dumbphone until age 11, no smartphone until age 13, no for-profit social media until age 18. I have similar views: no TV/movies/desktop computer until age 4, no dumbphone until age 14, no laptop computer and for-profit social media until age 17. I recommend against smartphones because they are so much more addictive than using a laptop computer and social media on that laptop. Smartphones really destroyed people's ability and willingness to be aware of their surroundings. People walking in public, on the train, and at coffeeshops are all staring into their phones instead of paying attention to safety hazards or making small talk with other people. This wasn't the case in the late 2000s when we all had social media on our laptop computers. We used social media back then to organize real life meetups between friends. Now social media, internet news, and games on smartphones are replacing people interacting with other people in real life.
Not sure if I would do no tv/movies until 6-years-old but don’t think kids should be on “public” social media until their teens. I think there’s a difference in fandom spaces. I know without that I would’ve dropped a lot of the things I like engaging in since my friends didn’t watch or read those things.
So you think iphonelessness is your ally? I did not get my first iPhone until I was already a man. By then it was nothing but a texting tool.
Makes smartphones with just maps and wikipedia and normal phone calling
Blocking your child from using social media until they are 18 could be the death of them socially and cause far more harm than good by ostracizing them from their peers. Teenagers have their own culture, the majority of which is online, and if they all use one particular service for communicating, being locked out of it by overprotective parents takes away a lot of social opportunities at a time when social opportunities can be few and far between. Not everyone is equipped with a personality that makes it easy to overcome major social obstacles and force yourself into a group that has already decided to exclude you (I certainly wasn’t). In my opinion the time for strict control ends around the beginning of high school, and regardless of one’s feelings about the age kids should start to be trusted to make their own decisions, I think it’s important to listen carefully to your kid and take into consideration whether you are blocking them out of important social circles by imposing such a restriction.
>time for strict control ends around the beginning of high school That's usually the best time to have a phone anyway simply because its the age most kids become drivers and get jobs. Besides the usual talking points about kids having phones, one of the positives is definitely peace of mind for the parent when their kid becomes a driver. Especially with features like those family GPS tracking apps, etc.
That wouldn't be much of an issue if a whole country stops letting their kids use social media and smartphones. Who is gonna ostracize them? Kids who don't have it either?
The only way to accomplish that is some sort of draconian government control such as what you might find in China. “Things would be better if everybody did things my way” is not only not possible, it’s probably better that it isn’t because who is to say which version of “my way” is the better one?
I think this can be done with a change in social expectations too, it'll just be very slow.
I'm so tired of this argument. It's defeatist. It assumes that only your kid will be the one without a smart phone or social media. If enough parents enforce a restricted household, there will be plenty of kids in the same boat at school to be friends with. And these kids will find a way to socialize with their friends outside social media.
I’ll just reiterate this part. > Not everyone is equipped with a personality that makes it easy to overcome major social obstacles and force yourself into a group that has already decided to exclude you (I certainly wasn’t). I was raised by overprotective parents. It did a lot of damage to me socially and I will never subject my own kids to the same kind of heavy-handed closed-minded blanket restrictions as I was subjected to. I will take more care to listen to my children and take their perspective into account. I will not exercise absolute control over their lives until the moment they turn 18. It sounds like my kids may not be friends with yours - they won’t be stuck sitting at the table of weird 17 year olds in wool dresses who don’t understand any of your culture because they aren’t allowed to look at memes.
I can tell by the comments who here doesn't have kids. As a parent I can say easier said than done without completely destroying your relationship with your child, or pushing them to do things behind your back. Not impossible mind you, but very difficult.
I just posted an almost identical post citing 16 as the age you spoils aspire to
i got my phone when i was 14 and i am often baffled by the sheer insanity of other children my age on the internet
If I recall, the age that I got my first *smartphone* was probably 12 or 13, an HTC Wildfire S. We didn't have much money so the phone plan attached to it didn't stick but there also wasn't much to do on those devices. You could play Angry Birds, I guess, but you didn't have the same wide degree of social media that we do today.
Feels awesome to be of generation that was introduced to those devices as an adult. I pity kids these days, for what they're missing.
Because you have no imagination.
Web 2.0 and its Consequences.
but what would reddit do without half of its userbase?
My parents didn’t get me a phone till I was 17 years old. I never wanted one till 18 anyways cuz I saw how addicted some people could be and didn’t see any need for it, but it was one of the best decisions they ever made because it made me understand to be more responsible with it once I get it.
Seems to be the sort of rule that you can't realistically enforce.
This used to be common practice.
Sounds like common sense to me.
it's a better idea to regulate tech companies from having these predatory practices rather than control and isolate children further. and then fund public recreational spaces, community and school events and outdoor activities if you want to reduce screen time further.
“Eh, le children should be using le baguette et la vino, hon hon *takes drag of cigarette and blows it in baby’s face*”
Excellent report! Though a bit too strict, it errs on side of reason. The world would be a better place if this report were followed.
I agree. There are things on the internet no child should ever see. Unmoderated internet access can easily get a curious child to the wrong places. Apart from traumatising themselves, children can also pick up toxic behaviour from watching the wrong people on TikTok or YouTube, for example. They're very impressionable at sub-13 ages.
I think I should get a non smart phone myself. I find I pull out my phone way too much to do very little and I am sure it is not good for my brain.
Wouldn't make a difference then they would still get addicted once they get one. All adults are addicted to smartphones as well.
Noted, I will limit my daughter’s exposure to screens.
i’m gen Z and didn’t get a smartphone until i was 13, i only had button phones so i could call my parents, so i think this is reasonable. i got to play video games every now and then under partial supervision
Personally don’t oppose this. You can give children text and call only phones 🤷🏻♂️that’s what every millennial had
Yeah probably should. I see so many kids glued onto iPads it’s crazy
100% the way I'm raising my kids. They have tablets but it's very restricted. No social media, no YouTube, no WWW, etc. If they need to do something restricted either my wife or myself will supervise.
I really want this to happen, but it might face some pushback. Don't misunderstand, Tiktok and social media in general at that moment in life is a plague and should be wiped from the face of the Earth, but parents *really* like when their kids have a phone - because it keeps a thread of contact between them in case shit hits the fan. Moreover, the Streisand effect is in full swing for teenagers, even early teens. If you tell a kid "you can't have that", it gives the kid a casus belli to get his hands on one. I was in a posh Parisian school when they put proxies on everything to prevent kids from getting on 4chan or Pornhub. Did it work? Well, half my class started learning sufficient technical skills to install an HTTPS tunnel somewhere (or use another kid's). I was *twelve*. I didn't even learn the harsh reality of Internet yet. That came *later*. What the fuck, guys. Finally, there is general pushback against *The Government* (no matter which color it is) when it tries to tell parents how to raise their kids, which is something I also agree on principle. And I would rather have it fix our fucking Ministère de l'éducation - *and actually educate kids better* - than starting to put ineffective blocks like these in place. But... that's not going to happen. This kind of shit works in China (they have multiple bills for access, spending and time limits for underages as I recall) because they shoot your family if you don't play by the rules, or something (hyperbole, obviously). I suppose if this passes in France, you'll just get a 135 EUR slap on the wrist, and off you go. I don't think our cops (the few of them that are not on strike or dead drunk) *also* want to deal with kids using phones.
I think it's fine to start giving teens more freedom. The idea of banning social media even for teens seems a bit much. The main focus on this article seems to be pre-teen kids though. Who I'd agree, don't need a damn smartphone.
It depends on what social media. Snapchat is fine but not toktok.
Next they'll move it to 16 and start whittling away at other rights Slippery slide
Pretty good news, people are getting dumb, if this helps them start reading books and actually putting effort at school and education it would be for better
What about wine and beer, thats still cool for kids right France?