FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Teenagers 8.30pm social media ban
Teenagers 8.30pm social media ban
Jump to: Newest in thread
Teenagers under 16, are to be banned from all the main social platforms, to be announced by Kier Starmer.
This includes online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed.
There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night – after 8.30pm.
Is this fair or unfair? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Interesting that there is a ban on scrolling for teens up to 18 years old. But Keir told me that these kids are intelligent enough to vote and decide the country's future. If they can vote, surely they must be capable of controlling themselves from falling into the scrolling addiction? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *deepdiveMan 1 week ago
Canterbury and France (26) |
"Interesting that there is a ban on scrolling for teens up to 18 years old. But Keir told me that these kids are intelligent enough to vote and decide the country's future. If they can vote, surely they must be capable of controlling themselves from falling into the scrolling addiction?"
I think that the OP said restrictions - you appear to have changed that to an outright ban.
I am sure you must have miss-read the post 🫣
Easily done 👍 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ydaz70Man 1 week ago
Rotherham /newquay |
I for one think it's to late as proven in Australia there are ways around it already.tech companies aren't parents there here to make money so nady can shout from the roof tops it won't change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting that there is a ban on scrolling for teens up to 18 years old. But Keir told me that these kids are intelligent enough to vote and decide the country's future. If they can vote, surely they must be capable of controlling themselves from falling into the scrolling addiction?
I think that the OP said restrictions - you appear to have changed that to an outright ban.
I am sure you must have miss-read the post 🫣
Easily done 👍"
What's the big difference? Either way, if 16-18 year olds are smart enough to vote, what's the need for the state to act as a nanny? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone. "
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone.
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone."
I have no problem with under 16s having smart phones but make it mandatory to have parental controls on them and make the social media companies accountable. Hope them responsible for the content on their platforms, they use algorithms and AI very effectively to increase their revenue I'm darn sure they could make it work to prevent youngsters seeing unsuitable content. They need to be held accountable |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 1 week ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk."
Absolute paranoid nonsese. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 1 week ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
It is about time these companies are brought to heal. They are twisting the minds of our children and young.
I hear a lot of right wing nonsense about protecting our children. This is the one forum that our children need protected.
It is never to late to do something a something needs to be done.
Our children are dying due to the the shite these money oriented companies pump out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk.
Absolute paranoid nonsese."
How’s the social media ban for under 16s going in Australia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone.
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone.
I have no problem with under 16s having smart phones but make it mandatory to have parental controls on them and make the social media companies accountable. Hope them responsible for the content on their platforms, they use algorithms and AI very effectively to increase their revenue I'm darn sure they could make it work to prevent youngsters seeing unsuitable content. They need to be held accountable"
You are asking the tech companies to do something that's impossible to do. As long as the children have devices in their hand without supervision, they can do anything with it. Parental control software can be overridden by anyone who has the hardware in their hand.
What exactly is the need for children having smartphone? If they want to use the internet, they can access it at home or the schools on PCs or laptop. Not a perfect solution, but reduces their screen time and also chances of doing bad things drastically. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk."
How exactly should they be made "safe"? I am all ears. Especially with AI, any safety measure a person builds can be easily overcome. If they really cared about kids, they would have banned smartphones for kids. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone.
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone.
I have no problem with under 16s having smart phones but make it mandatory to have parental controls on them and make the social media companies accountable. Hope them responsible for the content on their platforms, they use algorithms and AI very effectively to increase their revenue I'm darn sure they could make it work to prevent youngsters seeing unsuitable content. They need to be held accountable
You are asking the tech companies to do something that's impossible to do. As long as the children have devices in their hand without supervision, they can do anything with it. Parental control software can be overridden by anyone who has the hardware in their hand.
What exactly is the need for children having smartphone? If they want to use the internet, they can access it at home or the schools on PCs or laptop. Not a perfect solution, but reduces their screen time and also chances of doing bad things drastically."
I can't believe that the combined might of the tech giants would find it impossible to come up with a way to prevent kids seeing unsuitable content.
The smart phone genie isn't going back in the bottle we need to deal with the situation as is not as we wish it was |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone.
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone.
I have no problem with under 16s having smart phones but make it mandatory to have parental controls on them and make the social media companies accountable. Hope them responsible for the content on their platforms, they use algorithms and AI very effectively to increase their revenue I'm darn sure they could make it work to prevent youngsters seeing unsuitable content. They need to be held accountable
You are asking the tech companies to do something that's impossible to do. As long as the children have devices in their hand without supervision, they can do anything with it. Parental control software can be overridden by anyone who has the hardware in their hand.
What exactly is the need for children having smartphone? If they want to use the internet, they can access it at home or the schools on PCs or laptop. Not a perfect solution, but reduces their screen time and also chances of doing bad things drastically.
I can't believe that the combined might of the tech giants would find it impossible to come up with a way to prevent kids seeing unsuitable content.
"
It's impossible because the physical hardware is in the hands of the same person you want to control the usage of. No amount of software is going to help.
"
The smart phone genie isn't going back in the bottle we need to deal with the situation as is not as we wish it was"
That's a cop out. One could say the same thing about social media. And yet here we are, trying to ban it. I personally know of some parents who did not give smartphones to their kids. They all seem to be doing fine. If anything, they are all doing extraordinarily well academically. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting that there is a ban on scrolling for teens up to 18 years old. But Keir told me that these kids are intelligent enough to vote and decide the country's future. If they can vote, surely they must be capable of controlling themselves from falling into the scrolling addiction?
I think that the OP said restrictions - you appear to have changed that to an outright ban.
I am sure you must have miss-read the post 🫣
Easily done 👍
What's the big difference? Either way, if 16-18 year olds are smart enough to vote, what's the need for the state to act as a nanny?"
The state acts in a protective 'nanny' manner for all kinds of things, for children and adults of many ages.
There are restrictions of which chemicals we can be exposed to or consume and many other aspects to protect wellbeing.
This would be a minor adjustment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting that there is a ban on scrolling for teens up to 18 years old. But Keir told me that these kids are intelligent enough to vote and decide the country's future. If they can vote, surely they must be capable of controlling themselves from falling into the scrolling addiction?
I think that the OP said restrictions - you appear to have changed that to an outright ban.
I am sure you must have miss-read the post 🫣
Easily done 👍
What's the big difference? Either way, if 16-18 year olds are smart enough to vote, what's the need for the state to act as a nanny?
The state acts in a protective 'nanny' manner for all kinds of things, for children and adults of many ages.
There are restrictions of which chemicals we can be exposed to or consume and many other aspects to protect wellbeing.
This would be a minor adjustment"
But in this case, they are acting as nanny only for 16-18 year olds. Either they should act as nanny for all the people or just act is nanny for 16 year old and younger. Why do they need to apply this rule to 16-18 year olds? It means that they believe that 16-18 year olds cannot think for themselves as much as the ones over 18 year olds. And yet, they think they are good enough to vote. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone.
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone.
I have no problem with under 16s having smart phones but make it mandatory to have parental controls on them and make the social media companies accountable. Hope them responsible for the content on their platforms, they use algorithms and AI very effectively to increase their revenue I'm darn sure they could make it work to prevent youngsters seeing unsuitable content. They need to be held accountable
You are asking the tech companies to do something that's impossible to do. As long as the children have devices in their hand without supervision, they can do anything with it. Parental control software can be overridden by anyone who has the hardware in their hand.
What exactly is the need for children having smartphone? If they want to use the internet, they can access it at home or the schools on PCs or laptop. Not a perfect solution, but reduces their screen time and also chances of doing bad things drastically.
I can't believe that the combined might of the tech giants would find it impossible to come up with a way to prevent kids seeing unsuitable content.
It's impossible because the physical hardware is in the hands of the same person you want to control the usage of. No amount of software is going to help.
The smart phone genie isn't going back in the bottle we need to deal with the situation as is not as we wish it was
That's a cop out. One could say the same thing about social media. And yet here we are, trying to ban it. I personally know of some parents who did not give smartphones to their kids. They all seem to be doing fine. If anything, they are all doing extraordinarily well academically."
It's the software that's the problem and the sm companies have control of that. The hardware isn't the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's the software that's the problem and the sm companies have control of that. The hardware isn't the problem."
Anyone with the hardware can jailbreak and install whatever version of software they want to install. Giving smartphones to children and asking the software companies to stop the them from accessing bad content is like giving weapons to children and asking the manufacturer to stop them from killing people.
The solution is simple - Don't give smartphones or weapons to the children in the first place. The children aren't gaining anything with smartphones. Parents should simply say no to the children. But as always, people would rather have the state and tech companies take the parenting responsibility, a responsibility which both the entities are incapable of taking up and have repeatedly failed trying to do so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's the software that's the problem and the sm companies have control of that. The hardware isn't the problem.
Anyone with the hardware can jailbreak and install whatever version of software they want to install. Giving smartphones to children and asking the software companies to stop the them from accessing bad content is like giving weapons to children and asking the manufacturer to stop them from killing people.
The solution is simple - Don't give smartphones or weapons to the children in the first place. The children aren't gaining anything with smartphones. Parents should simply say no to the children. But as always, people would rather have the state and tech companies take the parenting responsibility, a responsibility which both the entities are incapable of taking up and have repeatedly failed trying to do so."
Simply don't give children ammunition 🤷 they can't kill anyone then.
If you check back I said earlier in that parents need to monitor what their children are accessible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Here and there |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone.
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone.
I have no problem with under 16s having smart phones but make it mandatory to have parental controls on them and make the social media companies accountable. Hope them responsible for the content on their platforms, they use algorithms and AI very effectively to increase their revenue I'm darn sure they could make it work to prevent youngsters seeing unsuitable content. They need to be held accountable
You are asking the tech companies to do something that's impossible to do. As long as the children have devices in their hand without supervision, they can do anything with it. Parental control software can be overridden by anyone who has the hardware in their hand.
What exactly is the need for children having smartphone? If they want to use the internet, they can access it at home or the schools on PCs or laptop. Not a perfect solution, but reduces their screen time and also chances of doing bad things drastically.
I can't believe that the combined might of the tech giants would find it impossible to come up with a way to prevent kids seeing unsuitable content.
It's impossible because the physical hardware is in the hands of the same person you want to control the usage of. No amount of software is going to help.
The smart phone genie isn't going back in the bottle we need to deal with the situation as is not as we wish it was
That's a cop out. One could say the same thing about social media. And yet here we are, trying to ban it. I personally know of some parents who did not give smartphones to their kids. They all seem to be doing fine. If anything, they are all doing extraordinarily well academically.
It's the software that's the problem and the sm companies have control of that. The hardware isn't the problem."
Managing control is the problem, whether software or hardware. A prime example is age verification it only inconveniences those adults who do not wish to share more personal data, minors simply use a VPN, another obstacle easily overcome.
How was hardcopy pornography managed when it was on the top shelf of every news agent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's the software that's the problem and the sm companies have control of that. The hardware isn't the problem.
Anyone with the hardware can jailbreak and install whatever version of software they want to install. Giving smartphones to children and asking the software companies to stop the them from accessing bad content is like giving weapons to children and asking the manufacturer to stop them from killing people.
The solution is simple - Don't give smartphones or weapons to the children in the first place. The children aren't gaining anything with smartphones. Parents should simply say no to the children. But as always, people would rather have the state and tech companies take the parenting responsibility, a responsibility which both the entities are incapable of taking up and have repeatedly failed trying to do so.
Simply don't give children ammunition 🤷 they can't kill anyone then.
If you check back I said earlier in that parents need to monitor what their children are accessible. "
And whose responsibility is it to not give ammunition? Is it some random company or the parent's? There is nothing in this process that a private company can help with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if it's fair or unfair. I do think though that the multi gazillion £ SM companies could be doing more to protect youngsters as could their parents who appear to be happy to hand them a device that connects them to every oddball in the known universe then expect them to deal with it alone.
IMO teens shouldn't have smartphones in the first place. They aren't ready to access all the stuff on the internet without parental governance. They could just use an old Nokia style phone without internet or a camera. But instead of that, our politicians would rather have the companies collect IDs from everyone.
I have no problem with under 16s having smart phones but make it mandatory to have parental controls on them and make the social media companies accountable. Hope them responsible for the content on their platforms, they use algorithms and AI very effectively to increase their revenue I'm darn sure they could make it work to prevent youngsters seeing unsuitable content. They need to be held accountable
You are asking the tech companies to do something that's impossible to do. As long as the children have devices in their hand without supervision, they can do anything with it. Parental control software can be overridden by anyone who has the hardware in their hand.
What exactly is the need for children having smartphone? If they want to use the internet, they can access it at home or the schools on PCs or laptop. Not a perfect solution, but reduces their screen time and also chances of doing bad things drastically.
I can't believe that the combined might of the tech giants would find it impossible to come up with a way to prevent kids seeing unsuitable content.
It's impossible because the physical hardware is in the hands of the same person you want to control the usage of. No amount of software is going to help.
The smart phone genie isn't going back in the bottle we need to deal with the situation as is not as we wish it was
That's a cop out. One could say the same thing about social media. And yet here we are, trying to ban it. I personally know of some parents who did not give smartphones to their kids. They all seem to be doing fine. If anything, they are all doing extraordinarily well academically.
It's the software that's the problem and the sm companies have control of that. The hardware isn't the problem.
Managing control is the problem, whether software or hardware. A prime example is age verification it only inconveniences those adults who do not wish to share more personal data, minors simply use a VPN, another obstacle easily overcome.
How was hardcopy pornography managed when it was on the top shelf of every news agent? "
The newsagent kept it out of reach of kids. The kids were still able to enter the shop, they could buy any magazine they wanted except the top shelf stuff. Access was restricted by the vendor it really wasn't that difficult. The whole of society including the suppliers took responsibility for keeping top shelf stuff away from under age. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 1 week ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk.
Absolute paranoid nonsese.
How’s the social media ban for under 16s going in Australia?"
Dont actually know. What I do know ow though is that the answers will be long term and doing absolutely nothing is what got us here.
Next stupid statement please. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken. likewise it's very simple for apps themselves to monitor for jailbroken phones using root access detection too. it's also pretty simple for them to brick a phone registered as being owned by a minor that has been jailbroken or for an app to brick itself on that device.
in answer to the op's question is it fair? who cares ..... does it protect children from online twats? it's probably worth giving it a go to find out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken. "
 How exactly can Google or Apple remotely monitor if the phone is already jailbroken? The hardware will do whatever person handling the hardware asks it to do. Software has no control over it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken.
How exactly can Google or Apple remotely monitor if the phone is already jailbroken? The hardware will do whatever person handling the hardware asks it to do. Software has no control over it."
you're saying just shout at the phone and tell it what to do? far out
i don't know how to break this to you chap so i'll just come out with it ... in the real world people use software to control hardware  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk.
Absolute paranoid nonsese.
How’s the social media ban for under 16s going in Australia?
Dont actually know. What I do know ow though is that the answers will be long term and doing absolutely nothing is what got us here.
Next stupid statement please."
You should maybe look into it, although the tldr is that it’s failed. Doing ‘something’ isn’t enough, you have to do the right thing. And the right thing involves not running scared of the tech companies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk.
How exactly should they be made "safe"? I am all ears. Especially with AI, any safety measure a person builds can be easily overcome. If they really cared about kids, they would have banned smartphones for kids."
I’m sure they would find a way if their products were banned until they did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk.
How exactly should they be made "safe"? I am all ears. Especially with AI, any safety measure a person builds can be easily overcome. If they really cared about kids, they would have banned smartphones for kids.
I’m sure they would find a way if their products were banned until they did."
Yep. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk.
How exactly should they be made "safe"? I am all ears. Especially with AI, any safety measure a person builds can be easily overcome. If they really cared about kids, they would have banned smartphones for kids.
I’m sure they would find a way if their products were banned until they did."
That's just wishful thinking or a result of tech illiteracy.
It's insane that people think a software company can somehow block people who own the hardware from doing something on that hardware. You know that anyone can completely replace the software on the hardware they own right?
If what you said is possible, none of the terrorists would be able to use a technical device |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can kids not just create accounts and give an older date of birth to make them 18 or older?
That's where parents come in. "
That is where responsible parents come in.
Unfortunately there are hordes of irresponsible parents and they are the problem.
Some are just plain bloody stupid.
Some are the type who let their kids do whatever they want, sod civilised society.
A fair number are anarchists who actually want to help their scrotes cause mayhem.
Also, assuming that the average child nowadays has 4.2 parents, which parent is SWMBO or HWMBO?
There is sometimes probably a better chance of a single parent being a good role model than in cases where there are too many chiefs in charge of the brood.
I'm told that when Nigel Farage gets in, he is going to tighten up on lots of things. Let's just see if he has any plans on this matter! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken.
How exactly can Google or Apple remotely monitor if the phone is already jailbroken? The hardware will do whatever person handling the hardware asks it to do. Software has no control over it.
you're saying just shout at the phone and tell it what to do? far out
i don't know how to break this to you chap so i'll just come out with it ... in the real world people use software to control hardware "
In the real world, people entirely replace the OS on their devices all the time. Google and Apple can do fuck all about it other than voiding the warranty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken.
How exactly can Google or Apple remotely monitor if the phone is already jailbroken? The hardware will do whatever person handling the hardware asks it to do. Software has no control over it.
you're saying just shout at the phone and tell it what to do? far out
i don't know how to break this to you chap so i'll just come out with it ... in the real world people use software to control hardware
In the real world, people entirely replace the OS on their devices all the time. Google and Apple can do fuck all about it other than voiding the warranty "
eau contraire, they can but simply don't want to lose their revenue by doing so |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The idea is simple - The hands-on owner of a hardware controls what software runs on the hardware. If you do not want the kids to use the phone for nefarious purposes, don't give them the phone. You can't give them the hardware and hope that some software company that has no control over the hardware will stop the kids from doing bad things.
Unfortunately lots of people are too lazy to do basic parenting. They would rather tell themselves a lie about how the government and private companies would magically stop their kids from doing bad things on the phone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken.
How exactly can Google or Apple remotely monitor if the phone is already jailbroken? The hardware will do whatever person handling the hardware asks it to do. Software has no control over it.
you're saying just shout at the phone and tell it what to do? far out
i don't know how to break this to you chap so i'll just come out with it ... in the real world people use software to control hardware
In the real world, people entirely replace the OS on their devices all the time. Google and Apple can do fuck all about it other than voiding the warranty
eau contraire, they can but simply don't want to lose their revenue by doing so"
How can they? If someone completely replaces the OS with some open source build, Google or Apple wouldn't know what's going on in their phones. It's theoretically and practically impossible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken.
How exactly can Google or Apple remotely monitor if the phone is already jailbroken? The hardware will do whatever person handling the hardware asks it to do. Software has no control over it.
you're saying just shout at the phone and tell it what to do? far out
i don't know how to break this to you chap so i'll just come out with it ... in the real world people use software to control hardware
In the real world, people entirely replace the OS on their devices all the time. Google and Apple can do fuck all about it other than voiding the warranty
eau contraire, they can but simply don't want to lose their revenue by doing so
How can they? If someone completely replaces the OS with some open source build, Google or Apple wouldn't know what's going on in their phones. It's theoretically and practically impossible."
tech illiteracy at it's most obtuse |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can kids not just create accounts and give an older date of birth to make them 18 or older?
That's where parents come in. "
Im sure most kids are savvy enough to create social media accounts with older dates of births behind parents backs.
In my day we managed to drink and sneak out etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"root access detection is simple for the likes of google and apple to remotely monitor if a phone has been jailbroken.
How exactly can Google or Apple remotely monitor if the phone is already jailbroken? The hardware will do whatever person handling the hardware asks it to do. Software has no control over it.
you're saying just shout at the phone and tell it what to do? far out
i don't know how to break this to you chap so i'll just come out with it ... in the real world people use software to control hardware
In the real world, people entirely replace the OS on their devices all the time. Google and Apple can do fuck all about it other than voiding the warranty
eau contraire, they can but simply don't want to lose their revenue by doing so
How can they? If someone completely replaces the OS with some open source build, Google or Apple wouldn't know what's going on in their phones. It's theoretically and practically impossible.
tech illiteracy at it's most obtuse"
The only people who are technically illiterate are the ones who claim that a software company can do some magic remotely and control some hardware which doesn't even run their software anymore |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
I’m not a parent, if be interested what parents think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
I’m not a parent, if be interested what parents think. "
I'm a parent but my children are nearer 36 than 16, were teens when the net was in its relative infancy and they had to access it via the home pc which was in the dining room. We kept a close eye on their browsing history and headed off trouble on more than one occasion. I'm constantly surprised that parents who surely are aware of what's available on the net will give their kids access to it in private and never monitor what they're looking at but if they were bringing the same stuff home in book or magazine form and taking it to their bedroom would confiscate it!
I think a total ban is the only way currently although I don't agree with it. I believe a more rounded approach is required involving parents, government, big tech companies and phone network companies. We wouldn't ban kids from libraries just because they have copies of books that have content unsuitable for under 16s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 1 week ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity."
Your overly cynical, why only you know. However it is not an attractive feature to find fault or ne as cyclical to anything.
Ps
We have had 16 year olds voting in Scotland for years. No one has died and the country hasn't come to a shuddering stop due to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity.
Your overly cynical, why only you know. However it is not an attractive feature to find fault or ne as cyclical to anything.
"
Do you seriously believe that politicians care about your wellness? I have a bridge to sell if that's the case.
"
Ps
We have had 16 year olds voting in Scotland for years. No one has died and the country hasn't come to a shuddering stop due to it."
"No one has died" is a pretty low bar to set, don't you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Here and there |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity."
The most likely outcome is social media apps will be circumvented and under 16s could find themselves on services in a less regulated grey area. The government tend to do these things badly and I can already see problems occurring with age verification on websites and the ban announced today, close one door and another opens.
If the government are solutioninising for a quick win it will be the usual car crash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 1 week ago
NW London |
I don't think it's a case of being fair or unfair, I disagree with it on the grounds of being too Nanny State and too restrictive. I think there's the potential to create more problems than it will solve.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't think it's a case of being fair or unfair, I disagree with it on the grounds of being too Nanny State and too restrictive. I think there's the potential to create more problems than it will solve.
"
I don't think it's indicative of a nanny state that the govt is trying to legislate to limit kids seeing harmful content. The damage that's being done to some children is horrible and it's not going to affect adults. Children actually do need guardians and protection |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Very suspicious timing of this announcement. SKS said a couple of weeks ago that the tech companies had 3 months to sort it out before legislation.
Now, as distraction tactics for the defence investment plan, and just before the Makerfield by-election the announcement is brought forward and rushed out.
This government takes us all for fools. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 1 week ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity.
Your overly cynical, why only you know. However it is not an attractive feature to find fault or ne as cyclical to anything.
Do you seriously believe that politicians care about your wellness? I have a bridge to sell if that's the case.
Ps
We have had 16 year olds voting in Scotland for years. No one has died and the country hasn't come to a shuddering stop due to it.
"No one has died" is a pretty low bar to set, don't you think?"
I actually feel sorry for you. To be that cynical about everything, your life must be sad.
Seek help mate, there are nice positive people out there trying to make the world a better place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 1 week ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"Very suspicious timing of this announcement. SKS said a couple of weeks ago that the tech companies had 3 months to sort it out before legislation.
Now, as distraction tactics for the defence investment plan, and just before the Makerfield by-election the announcement is brought forward and rushed out.
This government takes us all for fools."
You could also argue it is 5 years too late. Perhaps if it was 5 years ago the death count could have been lower. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity.
Your overly cynical, why only you know. However it is not an attractive feature to find fault or ne as cyclical to anything.
Do you seriously believe that politicians care about your wellness? I have a bridge to sell if that's the case.
Ps
We have had 16 year olds voting in Scotland for years. No one has died and the country hasn't come to a shuddering stop due to it.
"No one has died" is a pretty low bar to set, don't you think?
I actually feel sorry for you. To be that cynical about everything, your life must be sad.
Seek help mate, there are nice positive people out there trying to make the world a better place."
I actually feel sorry for you. To be thay naive, your life must be sad.
But seriously speaking, would you be defending this decision if Farage brought in such a ban and asked all the people in the country to upload their identity to access social media? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't think it's a case of being fair or unfair, I disagree with it on the grounds of being too Nanny State and too restrictive. I think there's the potential to create more problems than it will solve."
"I don't think it's indicative of a nanny state that the govt is trying to legislate to limit kids seeing harmful content. The damage that's being done to some children is horrible and it's not going to affect adults. Children actually do need guardians and protection"
The definition of "Nanny State" is a government that imposes restrictions on people to protect them from their own actions. Banning children from spending too long on social media is nanny stateism. You can argue that it's the correct level of intervention, but you can't argue that it isn't a nanny state action. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity.
The most likely outcome is social media apps will be circumvented and under 16s could find themselves on services in a less regulated grey area. The government tend to do these things badly and I can already see problems occurring with age verification on websites and the ban announced today, close one door and another opens.
If the government are solutioninising for a quick win it will be the usual car crash."
VPN usage will sky rocket. Or in the worst case, they will access other dodgy websites which don't give a fuck about these regulations.
As is the case with most issues in the country, people don't want to take personal responsibility in solving their problems. They would rather point their fingers at the government in spite of being repeatedly shown that the government sucks at solving their problems.
And the politicians love this because they get to control people even more though they don't solve the problems. If the plebs started looking after themselves, you can't build an all powerful state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Here and there |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity.
Your overly cynical, why only you know. However it is not an attractive feature to find fault or ne as cyclical to anything.
Do you seriously believe that politicians care about your wellness? I have a bridge to sell if that's the case.
Ps
We have had 16 year olds voting in Scotland for years. No one has died and the country hasn't come to a shuddering stop due to it.
"No one has died" is a pretty low bar to set, don't you think?
I actually feel sorry for you. To be that cynical about everything, your life must be sad.
Seek help mate, there are nice positive people out there trying to make the world a better place."
Well the cynic in me came out when the Scottish children's commissioner said: she was "disappointed" by the prime minister’s speech, which "spoke to adults only, not to the children and young people who will be most affected by these decisions".
Voting age of 16, hey  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Here and there |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity.
The most likely outcome is social media apps will be circumvented and under 16s could find themselves on services in a less regulated grey area. The government tend to do these things badly and I can already see problems occurring with age verification on websites and the ban announced today, close one door and another opens.
If the government are solutioninising for a quick win it will be the usual car crash.
VPN usage will sky rocket. Or in the worst case, they will access other dodgy websites which don't give a fuck about these regulations.
As is the case with most issues in the country, people don't want to take personal responsibility in solving their problems. They would rather point their fingers at the government in spite of being repeatedly shown that the government sucks at solving their problems.
And the politicians love this because they get to control people even more though they don't solve the problems. If the plebs started looking after themselves, you can't build an all powerful state."
I can see not everyone understands the technical elements in this, but what is more concerning to me is the moral and responsible elements are not either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Here and there |
"YouTube ban seems excessive. A lot of hobby and educational stuff. "
That would be something from a tech perspective they could manage, by splitting out content based on age rating into a separate entity. Maybe another revenue stream |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 1 week ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"‘A full ban is the right choice," the prime minister says, adding he is not "prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children"
The cynic in me says that he doesn't give a fuck about children.
- They announced that they are giving voting rights to 16-18 year olds because they believed that kids of that age are generally left leaning and giving them votes would increase the voter base.
- Then they realised that right wing parties seem to do a good job in using social media to change the minds of youngsters. So their move to give votes to kids might backfire big time
- So they now want to stop them from accessing social media. As an added benefit, they could use it to get rid of internet anonymity.
Your overly cynical, why only you know. However it is not an attractive feature to find fault or ne as cyclical to anything.
Do you seriously believe that politicians care about your wellness? I have a bridge to sell if that's the case.
Ps
We have had 16 year olds voting in Scotland for years. No one has died and the country hasn't come to a shuddering stop due to it.
"No one has died" is a pretty low bar to set, don't you think?
I actually feel sorry for you. To be that cynical about everything, your life must be sad.
Seek help mate, there are nice positive people out there trying to make the world a better place.
I actually feel sorry for you. To be thay naive, your life must be sad.
But seriously speaking, would you be defending this decision if Farage brought in such a ban and asked all the people in the country to upload their identity to access social media?"
Ive a great life mate, trust me on that. However seek help for your cynicism, your life will get better when you trust people.
Now your talking in the hypothetical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Very suspicious timing of this announcement. SKS said a couple of weeks ago that the tech companies had 3 months to sort it out before legislation.
Now, as distraction tactics for the defence investment plan, and just before the Makerfield by-election the announcement is brought forward and rushed out.
This government takes us all for fools."
I started a thread about this . Apple have some form of software detecting what appears to be nude photo being sent . Screen came up asking if sure . Do admit no age id required . But for tech companies . Just adding more code . Possible nude photo detected. Person sending must verify age by using ID. I have not on my fully updated iPhone. Done the age verification to prove 18+. A phone does not know who is using . Yes most have say a way of locking phone . Once on phone . Anyone , any age could be using . ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Your overly cynical, why only you know. However it is not an attractive feature to find fault or ne as cyclical to anything.
Do you seriously believe that politicians care about your wellness? I have a bridge to sell if that's the case.
Ps
We have had 16 year olds voting in Scotland for years. No one has died and the country hasn't come to a shuddering stop due to it.
"No one has died" is a pretty low bar to set, don't you think?
I actually feel sorry for you. To be that cynical about everything, your life must be sad.
Seek help mate, there are nice positive people out there trying to make the world a better place.
I actually feel sorry for you. To be thay naive, your life must be sad.
But seriously speaking, would you be defending this decision if Farage brought in such a ban and asked all the people in the country to upload their identity to access social media?
Ive a great life mate, trust me on that. However seek help for your cynicism, your life will get better when you trust people.
"
I trust people. Not the politicians. It's not that hard to understand. That explains the naivety I guess.
"
Now your talking in the hypothetical."
Such a lame cop out. Reform is leading the polls today. So it's not really an extreme hypothetical. Whenever you support a ruling that lets the government take away your right or your data, you have to ask yourself the question on whether you will be ok with this ruling if the party you hate is in power. If the answer is no, you are making a wrong call there.
Politics go around in circles and one fine day, the party you hate will inevitably come to power. Pretty sure you will be happy handing over your personal identity proof to every website you visit when Farage is in power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 1 week ago
NW London |
"I don't think it's a case of being fair or unfair, I disagree with it on the grounds of being too Nanny State and too restrictive. I think there's the potential to create more problems than it will solve.
I don't think it's indicative of a nanny state that the govt is trying to legislate to limit kids seeing harmful content. The damage that's being done to some children is horrible and it's not going to affect adults. Children actually do need guardians and protection "
And that's where parents/guardians needs to take responsibility and accountability. It's not the States job to raise people's children for them.
There's enough technology and information out there to reduce the potential harm of social media without pandering to keyboard warriors or covering kids in bubble wrap. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pretty sure you will be happy handing over your personal identity proof to every website you visit when Farage is in power."
What leads you to believe that Farage would want that? My understanding of his policies is that he's in favour of less government, so I'd expect to see him repeal cookie laws and drop age verification. What do you see differently? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pretty sure you will be happy handing over your personal identity proof to every website you visit when Farage is in power.
What leads you to believe that Farage would want that? My understanding of his policies is that he's in favour of less government, so I'd expect to see him repeal cookie laws and drop age verification. What do you see differently?"
I just used Farage as an example there. It's a thought experiment for people who take internet privacy for granted - Will they be happy if a politician they hate comes to power has access to the same data? I could have used Kemi, Zack or Rupert Lowe as examples too.
I haven't followed Farage's promises as much to know his stance on these kind of laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I just used Farage as an example there. It's a thought experiment for people who take internet privacy for granted - Will they be happy if a politician they hate comes to power has access to the same data?"
I see your thinking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't think it's a case of being fair or unfair, I disagree with it on the grounds of being too Nanny State and too restrictive. I think there's the potential to create more problems than it will solve.
I don't think it's indicative of a nanny state that the govt is trying to legislate to limit kids seeing harmful content. The damage that's being done to some children is horrible and it's not going to affect adults. Children actually do need guardians and protection
And that's where parents/guardians needs to take responsibility and accountability. It's not the States job to raise people's children for them.
There's enough technology and information out there to reduce the potential harm of social media without pandering to keyboard warriors or covering kids in bubble wrap. "
Well we send our kids to state schools from age 4 and expect them to be protected and taught while they're there. How is asking the state to give parents an extra tool covering kids in bubble wrap?
I don't understand why people are unhappy about trying to stop kids from seeing unsuitable content and using every tool available to prevent it. 🤷♀️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't understand why people are unhappy about trying to stop kids from seeing unsuitable content and using every tool available to prevent it."
They aren't unhappy about that. They are unhappy at the idea that the government will spend lots of money on measures which will not stop kids seeing stuff they shouldn't. They are unhappy about the government mandating that we must all give our identities to dodgy companies who will misuse the information. And they're unhappy that whenever they express the opinion that they government are likely to get this wrong, people respond with "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't understand why people are unhappy about trying to stop kids from seeing unsuitable content and using every tool available to prevent it.
They aren't unhappy about that. They are unhappy at the idea that the government will spend lots of money on measures which will not stop kids seeing stuff they shouldn't. They are unhappy about the government mandating that we must all give our identities to dodgy companies who will misuse the information. And they're unhappy that whenever they express the opinion that they government are likely to get this wrong, people respond with "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
"
Since these measures are aimed at protecting children I'm not surprised children are mentioned.
I don't think it's the correct way of going about it but something needs doing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think a lot of people on here have forgotten what it was like to be a teen. The worst thing you could possibly do if you wanted me not to do something, when I was that age, was ban it.
Teenagers are very tech savvy, and very rebellious. This ban will not work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't understand why people are unhappy about trying to stop kids from seeing unsuitable content and using every tool available to prevent it.
They aren't unhappy about that. They are unhappy at the idea that the government will spend lots of money on measures which will not stop kids seeing stuff they shouldn't. They are unhappy about the government mandating that we must all give our identities to dodgy companies who will misuse the information. And they're unhappy that whenever they express the opinion that they government are likely to get this wrong, people respond with "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
Since these measures are aimed at protecting children I'm not surprised children are mentioned.
I don't think it's the correct way of going about it but something needs doing. "
Isn’t it the parents’ job to look after their children? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't understand why people are unhappy about trying to stop kids from seeing unsuitable content and using every tool available to prevent it.
They aren't unhappy about that. They are unhappy at the idea that the government will spend lots of money on measures which will not stop kids seeing stuff they shouldn't. They are unhappy about the government mandating that we must all give our identities to dodgy companies who will misuse the information. And they're unhappy that whenever they express the opinion that they government are likely to get this wrong, people respond with "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
Since these measures are aimed at protecting children I'm not surprised children are mentioned.
I don't think it's the correct way of going about it but something needs doing.
Isn’t it the parents’ job to look after their children?"
Yes and my first contribution to this thread said that but we don't parent in isolation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this was about protecting children they would be forcing the tech companies to make their apps safe. This is about trying to look as though they are doing something, because they are too scared to go up against the likes of Zuckerberg and Musk."
Kids will probably use Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram more then Facebook and even less using X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Teenagers under 16, are to be banned from all the main social platforms, to be announced by Kier Starmer.
This includes online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed.
There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night – after 8.30pm.
Is this fair or unfair? "
Be in the army and go to war but can't have a look at porn when in bed, poor lads.
The kids that are suffering from shit school attendance and anti social behaviour would be down to the parents.
Maybe if they spent more time with the kids some of the problems wouldn't arise.
Been shopping tonight, nipped in for a coffee and there was a young lad, about 8 or 9, desperately trying to get mums attention and she constantly fobbed him off while she scrolled away.
Not the kid, it's the useless mother.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Teenagers under 16, are to be banned from all the main social platforms, to be announced by Kier Starmer.
This includes online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed.
There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night – after 8.30pm.
Is this fair or unfair?
Be in the army and go to war but can't have a look at porn when in bed, poor lads.
The kids that are suffering from shit school attendance and anti social behaviour would be down to the parents.
Maybe if they spent more time with the kids some of the problems wouldn't arise.
Been shopping tonight, nipped in for a coffee and there was a young lad, about 8 or 9, desperately trying to get mums attention and she constantly fobbed him off while she scrolled away.
Not the kid, it's the useless mother.
"
Maybe it's the parents who need a social media ban then  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ydaz70Man 1 week ago
Rotherham /newquay |
"Teenagers under 16, are to be banned from all the main social platforms, to be announced by Kier Starmer.
This includes online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed.
There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night – after 8.30pm.
Is this fair or unfair?
Be in the army and go to war but can't have a look at porn when in bed, poor lads.
The kids that are suffering from shit school attendance and anti social behaviour would be down to the parents.
Maybe if they spent more time with the kids some of the problems wouldn't arise.
Been shopping tonight, nipped in for a coffee and there was a young lad, about 8 or 9, desperately trying to get mums attention and she constantly fobbed him off while she scrolled away.
Not the kid, it's the useless mother.
Maybe it's the parents who need a social media ban then "
now thats worth a thought |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Teenagers under 16, are to be banned from all the main social platforms, to be announced by Kier Starmer.
This includes online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed.
There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night – after 8.30pm.
Is this fair or unfair?
Be in the army and go to war but can't have a look at porn when in bed, poor lads.
The kids that are suffering from shit school attendance and anti social behaviour would be down to the parents.
Maybe if they spent more time with the kids some of the problems wouldn't arise.
Been shopping tonight, nipped in for a coffee and there was a young lad, about 8 or 9, desperately trying to get mums attention and she constantly fobbed him off while she scrolled away.
Not the kid, it's the useless mother.
"
It's a bit unfair to judge a parent based on a teensy snapshot of their life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Teenagers under 16, are to be banned from all the main social platforms, to be announced by Kier Starmer.
This includes online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed.
There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night – after 8.30pm.
Is this fair or unfair?
Be in the army and go to war but can't have a look at porn when in bed, poor lads.
The kids that are suffering from shit school attendance and anti social behaviour would be down to the parents.
Maybe if they spent more time with the kids some of the problems wouldn't arise.
Been shopping tonight, nipped in for a coffee and there was a young lad, about 8 or 9, desperately trying to get mums attention and she constantly fobbed him off while she scrolled away.
Not the kid, it's the useless mother.
Maybe it's the parents who need a social media ban then "
Funny really.
The most difficult job anyone of us will do is to raise a child to be self sufficient, happy and contented in adulthood.
Get it wrong, the consequences are catastrophic and lifelong.
But it's the job that needs the least qualifications. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *im125TV/TS 1 week ago
Fife |
Lostindreams has hit the nail on the head. Don't allow them to possess smartphones. Make it an offence!
Allow nokia type phones only. Stop expecting tech companies to control your kids, do it as responsible adults.
It makes absolute sense doesn't it?. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Don't really know where I stand on this tbh.
I think it's absolutely clear that social media is a cesspit and isnt good for anyone, never mind kids.
But I kind of feel it's on the social media companies to sort that out, which they're never going to do, so something has to be done.
It's all well and good saying that parents should restrict smart phone usage, or just not allow kids to be using smart phones in general. Again to an extent I'd agree but the world were living in makes that really difficult.
I'd say as well that when I was a kid in the 90s, I could go round the corner and play football with my mates on a field. Going back there now, there is no field to play on, there is no area for kids to play.
So yeah I guess limiting social media is a step, whether it really solves anything I don't know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The problem with parental controls is the kids share workarounds, or the information to get around them is out there.
Then you have parents who aren’t as tech savvy as the kids trying to implement controls on the devices…
I like the idea of a blanket ban on smartphones for under 16’s but implementing a ban on forbidden fruit could be very difficult…
It’s not just kids though is it. The UK’s productivity is shite. I can think of a good reason why & I’m as guilty as anyone, browsing on here when I’m supposed to be working from home  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lostindreams has hit the nail on the head. Don't allow them to possess smartphones. Make it an offence!
Allow nokia type phones only. Stop expecting tech companies to control your kids, do it as responsible adults.
It makes absolute sense doesn't it?."
If only it could be that simple.
From the aspect of keeping in contact, a simple talk and text phone is adequate except that increasing numbers of people ignore messaging if it isn’t something like whatsapp.
The main reason for needing a smartphone and also for web access is that education has changed so much that the kids couldn't even be able to do their homework and schoolwork research without internet access.
Parents might be able to revisit the past when providing their kids with basic telecomms but education, along with the rest of the world, has moved on. A laptop or tablet computer is now as essential as a 'rough book' once was..
The overall villain in the piece has been the development of digital technology.
We had quite a good existence in the analogue era but that was a while back now... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
From the aspect of keeping in contact, a simple talk and text phone is adequate except that increasing numbers of people ignore messaging if it isn’t something like whatsapp.
"
Pretty sure people still get SMS for important things like OTP. It's not that hard to configure your SMS to notify you loudly when some contacts message you.
"
The main reason for needing a smartphone and also for web access is that education has changed so much that the kids couldn't even be able to do their homework and schoolwork research without internet access.
"
Smartphones aren't the only way to access internet. Buy a laptop or a PC. So kids access it only at home when their parents are around.
"
Parents might be able to revisit the past when providing their kids with basic telecomms but education, along with the rest of the world, has moved on. A laptop or tablet computer is now as essential as a 'rough book' once was..
"
It hasn't moved on. Tell me why a smartphone is really needed for education over a laptop or a PC?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lostindreams has hit the nail on the head. Don't allow them to possess smartphones. Make it an offence!
Allow nokia type phones only. Stop expecting tech companies to control your kids, do it as responsible adults.
It makes absolute sense doesn't it?.
If only it could be that simple.
From the aspect of keeping in contact, a simple talk and text phone is adequate except that increasing numbers of people ignore messaging if it isn’t something like whatsapp.
The main reason for needing a smartphone and also for web access is that education has changed so much that the kids couldn't even be able to do their homework and schoolwork research without internet access.
Parents might be able to revisit the past when providing their kids with basic telecomms but education, along with the rest of the world, has moved on. A laptop or tablet computer is now as essential as a 'rough book' once was..
The overall villain in the piece has been the development of digital technology.
We had quite a good existence in the analogue era but that was a while back now..."
I agree that the world and education in particular has moved on. A phone with internet access is much cheaper than a laptop or pc though especially if you have more than one child or parents need to work from home.
The only way most children received any sort of education during lockdown was via the net.
Turning back the clock is not an option, it never has been |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I agree that the world and education in particular has moved on.
"
You know that phones are going to be banned in schools already right?
"
A phone with internet access is much cheaper than a laptop or pc though especially if you have more than one child or parents need to work from home.
"
Not true. Unless you are using your laptop for gaming, you can buy laptops for less than £200.
"
The only way most children received any sort of education during lockdown was via the net.
Turning back the clock is not an option, it never has been"
Most children used laptops for studies, at least in most families I know of. None of them needed smartphones during that time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I agree that the world and education in particular has moved on.
You know that phones are going to be banned in schools already right?
A phone with internet access is much cheaper than a laptop or pc though especially if you have more than one child or parents need to work from home.
Not true. Unless you are using your laptop for gaming, you can buy laptops for less than £200.
The only way most children received any sort of education during lockdown was via the net.
Turning back the clock is not an option, it never has been
Most children used laptops for studies, at least in most families I know of. None of them needed smartphones during that time."
You know an awful lot of people it seems. I'm happy that you live in a world where there are enough laptops in families for everyone to do their homework |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I agree that the world and education in particular has moved on.
You know that phones are going to be banned in schools already right?
A phone with internet access is much cheaper than a laptop or pc though especially if you have more than one child or parents need to work from home.
Not true. Unless you are using your laptop for gaming, you can buy laptops for less than £200.
The only way most children received any sort of education during lockdown was via the net.
Turning back the clock is not an option, it never has been
Most children used laptops for studies, at least in most families I know of. None of them needed smartphones during that time.
You know an awful lot of people it seems. I'm happy that you live in a world where there are enough laptops in families for everyone to do their homework "
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I agree that the world and education in particular has moved on.
You know that phones are going to be banned in schools already right?
A phone with internet access is much cheaper than a laptop or pc though especially if you have more than one child or parents need to work from home.
Not true. Unless you are using your laptop for gaming, you can buy laptops for less than £200.
The only way most children received any sort of education during lockdown was via the net.
Turning back the clock is not an option, it never has been
Most children used laptops for studies, at least in most families I know of. None of them needed smartphones during that time.
You know an awful lot of people it seems. I'm happy that you live in a world where there are enough laptops in families for everyone to do their homework
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop."
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I agree that the world and education in particular has moved on.
You know that phones are going to be banned in schools already right?
A phone with internet access is much cheaper than a laptop or pc though especially if you have more than one child or parents need to work from home.
Not true. Unless you are using your laptop for gaming, you can buy laptops for less than £200.
The only way most children received any sort of education during lockdown was via the net.
Turning back the clock is not an option, it never has been
Most children used laptops for studies, at least in most families I know of. None of them needed smartphones during that time.
You know an awful lot of people it seems. I'm happy that you live in a world where there are enough laptops in families for everyone to do their homework
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
"
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
"
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was "
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Also, I am curious why people believe that banning social media is good but they should leave WhatsApp alone. You know that WhatsApp has a lot of social media functionalities like Stories and Channels right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I agree that the world and education in particular has moved on.
You know that phones are going to be banned in schools already right?
A phone with internet access is much cheaper than a laptop or pc though especially if you have more than one child or parents need to work from home.
Not true. Unless you are using your laptop for gaming, you can buy laptops for less than £200.
The only way most children received any sort of education during lockdown was via the net.
Turning back the clock is not an option, it never has been
Most children used laptops for studies, at least in most families I know of. None of them needed smartphones during that time.
You know an awful lot of people it seems. I'm happy that you live in a world where there are enough laptops in families for everyone to do their homework
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?"
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
When I say 'work with the situation' I mean put measures in place to make it safer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
"
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
"
When I say 'work with the situation' I mean put measures in place to make it safer
"
You can't give a hardware device with all these capabilities to a kid and expect the government and software companies to make them safer. It's physically impossible for them to solve this problem. The only way you can solve it is by asking parents to take personal responsibility and not give the kids such a powerful device in the first place.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
"
It's 2026, not 1946.
My brother lives in the far east I'm not reverting to expensive landline calls or airmail letters |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
It's 2026, not 1946.
My brother lives in the far east I'm not reverting to expensive landline calls or airmail letters "
I am not asking you to revert to landline. No one stopped you from using smartphones. The question is why do kids need smartphones? They can have phones with call and messaging functionality. When they are at home, they can use laptops. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
When I say 'work with the situation' I mean put measures in place to make it safer
You can't give a hardware device with all these capabilities to a kid and expect the government and software companies to make them safer. It's physically impossible for them to solve this problem. The only way you can solve it is by asking parents to take personal responsibility and not give the kids such a powerful device in the first place.
"
Ever tried to watch sky/Netflix/Amazon prime without a subscription even though you have the hardware ?
Yes people stream the channels but that's not circumventing the security SOFTWARE |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
It's 2026, not 1946.
My brother lives in the far east I'm not reverting to expensive landline calls or airmail letters "
I'm guessing you might be over 18 so probably no need to worry 😉 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
When I say 'work with the situation' I mean put measures in place to make it safer
You can't give a hardware device with all these capabilities to a kid and expect the government and software companies to make them safer. It's physically impossible for them to solve this problem. The only way you can solve it is by asking parents to take personal responsibility and not give the kids such a powerful device in the first place.
Ever tried to watch sky/Netflix/Amazon prime without a subscription even though you have the hardware ?
Yes people stream the channels but that's not circumventing the security SOFTWARE "
Ever heard of people downloading all their content from piracy websites and torrent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
It's 2026, not 1946.
My brother lives in the far east I'm not reverting to expensive landline calls or airmail letters
I am not asking you to revert to landline. No one stopped you from using smartphones. The question is why do kids need smartphones? They can have phones with call and messaging functionality. When they are at home, they can use laptops. "
You asked me what else a smartphone is needed for, I answered 🤷♀️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why is that a surprise? Laptops are as cheap as phones.
And functionality wise, Laptops are better suited for education than a smart phone. I am yet to hear what exactly is the thing about smartphone that makes it better suited for education than a laptop.
Education is only one use for a smart phone or a lap top come to that
All the arguments above were about how smartphones are an absolute essential for education. If that's not the case and laptops can fulfil that purpose, what else is a smartphone needed for?
The world doesn't function according to individuals wishes and people have smart phones in preference to lap tops, that's how it is. 🤷♀️. I prefer to work with rhe situation rather than how I wish the situation was
Well. Then one could say that kids like social media. That's how it is 🤷♂️ We should just maybe work with the situation instead of banning it?
I know it's a novel idea but smart phones are used to make phone calls.
Something you can do with a phone without internet or cameras.
I keep in touch with my relatives in far fling corners of the world on my smart phone , play games, read books etc.
All the things you said can be done without a smartphone. People have been doing these without a smartphone. And many people still do it without a smartphone. Use a phone without internet or camera. Get second hand physical books or real board games. All these are much healthier habits than asking them to do these on a smartphone.
It's 2026, not 1946.
My brother lives in the far east I'm not reverting to expensive landline calls or airmail letters
I'm guessing you might be over 18 so probably no need to worry 😉"
You guess correctly  .
I really should know better 🤦 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Maybe just take phones off kids when they arrive at school.
If their nan dies, them mum can phone the school secretary and pass on the message.
Use school PCs for research etc.
Parents don't need to chat or ask what their little darling wants for tea, every passing hour.
At home, once homework is done and checked, fine to sit on social media all night.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe just take phones off kids when they arrive at school.
If their nan dies, them mum can phone the school secretary and pass on the message.
Use school PCs for research etc.
Parents don't need to chat or ask what their little darling wants for tea, every passing hour.
At home, once homework is done and checked, fine to sit on social media all night.
"
A lot of schools already do this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe just take phones off kids when they arrive at school.
If their nan dies, them mum can phone the school secretary and pass on the message.
Use school PCs for research etc.
Parents don't need to chat or ask what their little darling wants for tea, every passing hour.
At home, once homework is done and checked, fine to sit on social media all night.
A lot of schools already do this "
Obviously, not enough. 🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Some countries in the far east already heavily censor and enforce children's online activity. Personally, when you look at how some working class behave these days we'd say it's probably not going to have much of an effect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Some countries in the far east already heavily censor and enforce children's online activity. Personally, when you look at how some working class behave these days we'd say it's probably not going to have much of an effect."
Working class or the skiving sub-class? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
