I suspect it would be more likely social media companies.
BTW a bit unrelated (unless it is social media companies behind it), in the comments I saw somebody against the ban mentioning school shootings and worrying about not having contact with their child. I think banning smart phones and allowing “dumb” ones would be a good compromise for that specific issue.
We used to not have cell phones, and we were fine! I hate this kind of argument that implies it’s required. It absolutely is not. Sure, it would be nice to know if your kid is alright, but it’s not going to change the outcome. Should we accept all the negatives just for this small niche benefit? That doesn’t seem smart.
I think smartphones have ruined parents as much as kids. They feel compelled to know exactly where their kid is at all time. They don’t get the freedom to explore and learn for themselves anymore. Sure, being able to communicate is great when it’s needed, but I think there’s so many negatives that have come with that. I guess the option of payphones are gone, so there really isn’t an alternative left.
In our case, the phones are allowed to be on their person just not allowed to be brought out of the pocket or whatever except in case of emergency. Even between classes and lunch.
Some classes institute a “phone cabinet” where students are expected to put their phones in the classroom during class.
So the phones are always at hand, but not actively messing with their lives.
Using these as an excuse for arbritary additional restrictions doesn’t make your arguement stronger, it makes those restrictions morally suspect. This arguement means we need clearer frameworks on what is and isn’t a reasonable restriction on account of age to avoid the drinking age being a justification for erosion of rights
Sure, we give the kids alcohol, let them drive, let them vote- wait we don’t!? What do you mean there’s always been these kinds of differences!?
I wonder if some of those critics are by an odd coincidence funded by phone related entities.
I suspect it would be more likely social media companies.
BTW a bit unrelated (unless it is social media companies behind it), in the comments I saw somebody against the ban mentioning school shootings and worrying about not having contact with their child. I think banning smart phones and allowing “dumb” ones would be a good compromise for that specific issue.
We used to not have cell phones, and we were fine! I hate this kind of argument that implies it’s required. It absolutely is not. Sure, it would be nice to know if your kid is alright, but it’s not going to change the outcome. Should we accept all the negatives just for this small niche benefit? That doesn’t seem smart.
I think smartphones have ruined parents as much as kids. They feel compelled to know exactly where their kid is at all time. They don’t get the freedom to explore and learn for themselves anymore. Sure, being able to communicate is great when it’s needed, but I think there’s so many negatives that have come with that. I guess the option of payphones are gone, so there really isn’t an alternative left.
In our case, the phones are allowed to be on their person just not allowed to be brought out of the pocket or whatever except in case of emergency. Even between classes and lunch.
Some classes institute a “phone cabinet” where students are expected to put their phones in the classroom during class.
So the phones are always at hand, but not actively messing with their lives.
Using these as an excuse for arbritary additional restrictions doesn’t make your arguement stronger, it makes those restrictions morally suspect. This arguement means we need clearer frameworks on what is and isn’t a reasonable restriction on account of age to avoid the drinking age being a justification for erosion of rights