Children have been around for 7 billion years. Only the last 20 years have children grown up with social media for even part of their childhood. Do you truly believe it has now become that critical to the childhood experience? Especially given avalanche of research demonstrating its harm?

The last 20 years haven't just seen an increase in social media usage though; it's seen a decrease in socializing between kids outside of school. It's easy to remove access to their socials. It's very hard to replace that with a function social life outside of school. That's a recipe for resentment and rebellion. That's not going to happen without input at a every level of society to bring back that mall/skate rink/play park culture that has all but disappeared. We need to stop calling parents irresponsible for not watching their child's every move. That's where the difficulty lies.

> it's seen a decrease in socializing between kids outside of school

Because of social media. Sports teams and after school clubs didn't go anywhere. Parks didn't go anywhere. Malls are in decline but the period of time they were an active social location was the 80s and 90s, which is a blip in the grand scheme of things. Community centers still exist, churches still exist, libraries still exist, basements and backyards and living rooms still exist. My neighborhood is full of young children who are always playing at the park, at each other's homes, at the pool. Yes, if you hand your kid a phone and a social media account to occupy their time, they will struggle to identify non-social media ways to interact with their peers. That doesn't mean those avenues no longer exist.

I agree with you that parents shouldn't be required to watch their child's every move, and I would go further and say that our modern society in general is actively working against parents ability to parent their children properly. But when it comes to social media, the facts remain: social media isn't remotely crucial for a child's growth or ability to socialize with their peers, they may in fact socialize better without it, and regardless, its extremely damaging and risky to their mental and emotional health.

> Malls are in decline but the period of time they were an active social location was the 80s and 90s, which is a blip in the grand scheme of things.

The ancient Greeks went to the marketplace (το αγορά) as a social location. That’s where agoraphobia, the fear of public spaces, stems from.

Exactly my point. Because of social media. It is both the reason people stay at home, and the reason we have nothing to go back to. I'm not suggesting social spaces don't exist. I'm suggesting that the culture and people that exist in them has disappeared. The genie is out of the bottle, and won't get back in.

Sports teams and school clubs haven't changed, and good parents take substantial advantage of them, sure. Community centers are all but dead in my town. The local youth centers I attended as a child have shut down. Churches exist; in my town, everyone who attends them is 60 and over. Libraries exist; they are near empty, or full of people quietly studying. Not a place for a kid to socialize. The local spaces that children used to hang out after school are empty, because everyone is at home playing games and using social media, and kids don't want to stop using them because the local spaces are empty. There's no winning.

These places are different than they used to be. The avenues exist, but there's no-one on them. If I told my kids to go play outside with their friends like people did in the 90s and prior, they'd be on their own. I'd need to start a societal revolution in my town with at least 50% of the other parents to get them to coordinate in sending their kids out as well. It seems like if it's not a validated group activity like sports or clubs, then people just keep their children at home.

If I didn't watch the Simpsons, play Nintendo and listen to the local alt rock radio station when I was a kid, I would have had very little in common with my peers. Same situation today, just different media. Turns out, shared experiences facilitate bonding. Who knew?

Funny, I didn't watch the Simpsons or listen to alt rock radio, but I had no issues socializing or finding friends. Turns out no one thinks the Simpsons or and alt-rock are essentials to children being able to properly socialize with one another. And yet people are arguing that social media, despite all its harmful effects, can't be withheld from a child without damaging them.

My parents did not let me watch Simpsons or any other American media, and I think it hampered my socializing. You either have to fake it to be in the conversation at school, or you just stay silent while everyone is talking about music/movies/tv show.

I basically learned how to lie, sneak around, and keep two separate worlds going, as long as I needed my parents’ financial support.

How much of youth culture while you were growing up was shaped by the Simpsons and alt rock, and how much of youth culture today is shaped by the internet and social media?

I would argue that almost all of Gen-Z culture today is driven by internet communities and social media, and raising a child without access to online media will make it difficult for them to relate to many (not necessarily all) of their peers.

I find it odd that you didn't need shared cultural experiences to bond with people in childhood. Not funny, just odd.

My point is that the Simpsons, like social media, is a single potential shared cultural experience out of many. I'm not arguing against shared cultural experiences, I'm simply arguing that social media isn't the only one out there and is therefore replaceable. Anyone who thinks the modern human experience has nothing outside of social media or the Simpsons should perhaps unplug, and as they say, "touch grass".

>Children have been around for 7 billion years.

[citation needed]

Don't give your kid a smartphone or laptop without only whitelisting certain sites. If they somehow get a device without permission, it gets donated.

Isolating them from their peers can be just as mentally devastating. I don't think there is a good solution to this.

Not sure why you are down voted but this is really a really really big issue.

This is why "large scale action" e.g. from school or better regulators are needed and why parents only can act very limited.

Don't force social isolation on your children just because idk. "this game is bad". Even if they social circle is "good" and doesn't start excluding or harassing them because of this (totally can happen, you can't really choose with whom you are in a class) it still is leads to a subtle isolation which might by itself not cause any mental issues, but can amplify existing issues, prevent mental scare from being healed etc. And such issues don't always come from "big bad thing" sometimes small bad things wrongly processed as a child can be enough to cause life long mental issues if the child has never the chance to reprocess/recondition/overcome them.

EDIT: Just to be clear doesn't mean children should have unchecked social media/game/etc. access.

Not allowing your children to own a phone ≠ Force social isolation.

It can in many circumstances. I live rural and we don't have a land line. It's hard to get the kids over to their friends as much as they want. My solution is to talk to the other parents. We all agreed to no tik too. I turn our wifi off after bed time. We have a phone contract with our 14 year old that stipulates the usual be nice and don't live on your phone rules.

They swim, ski, kayak and play school volleyball and badminton so there's lots of opportunities for that sort of interacting but I think it would be pretty harsh to cut them off of their phones. If I could get 3/4 of their friends parents to agree I would for sure until they are 16.

social isolation isn't a yes/no question it's a gradient

and in many situation it is pretty much guaranteed to at least cause slight degree of social isolation, in some (like very rual) it might cause a large degree of social isolation

similar having a phone isn't a yes/no question, things like parent control exist, even through they often slightly suck

Not being on Tiktok is not social isolation nor is it mentally devastating. I think many here are projecting their own addictions when they make these hyperbolic assertions.

And conversely without understanding the isolations modern children experience that your counterassertions fall short explaining the current situation we're in.

If your solution is "go play outside with other kids" and the park is empty because all other kids are busy doing isolated things or on tic tok, then you have a problem.

The park isn't empty though. The sports teams aren't empty. The after school groups aren't empty. The church groups aren't empty.

Thankfully, there are other ways of interacting with one's peers, most of which create more meaningful connections than social media.

To put it more bluntly: if social media is the only thing standing between a child and total isolation, that child has far bigger problems.

Maybe sign your kid up for little league?

Little league? Social media?

Are we talking children or teenagers?

What's frequently missed is that most organization of meet-ups, birthday parties, talking to romantic interests, going to concerts et al, all happens on social media and in group chats now, and has done for the best part of fifteen years in the West. For the prior generation, if you aren't online, you aren't cool, and you won't know about cool things that are happening.

The current generation seems to have a fascination with dumb phones and eschewing tech obsession if the media spin is to be believed versus the numbers on social media apps. Both can be valid things that are occurring though, but I'm willing to bet that the dumb phone movement is a small one or a LARP for elitist cool points.

>What's frequently missed is that most organization of meet-ups, birthday parties, talking to romantic interests, going to concerts et al, all happens on social media and in group chats now, and has done for the best part of fifteen years in the West.

Yeah, no. People still talk to each other.

I leave it to you to exercise some adaptability and find suitable workarounds. This is a small problem. I guarantee you that you solve harder ones on a daily basis.

>People still talk to each other.

At Church on Sunday? No, that has collapsed.

At other social civic meetings... um, no not there.

Social gathering and civic interaction in the US has become highly commercialized and put into non-public places such as social media.

Got kids? Enroll them in youth sports. You'll meet and talk with other parents at games and practices. It's how I ended up joining an indoor soccer league.

Check out your local recreation center. It's how I joined a local fencing club.

Check out meet ups in your area. It's how I join a language exchange group that meets weekly.

Check out your local library. They often have book clubs, kid and adult events, and more.

There are tons of options that people used before social media which still exist today. It's trivial to find them. The biggest problem is that many people don't want to move out from behind the screen.

Most libraries are gone here in the UK, FWIW. Post-pandemic, most rec centers are struggling or gone too.

Hospitality in general is struggling here. Pubs disappearing too.

Meet ups. Hobby clubs (chess, cycling, etc.). User groups (Linux, Mac, Python, etc.). Take some lessons for a sport. Take a fitness class. Art classes. Group music lessons. Volunteer for non-profits. Find a local artist group, a local woodworking group. Local business groups like a chamber of commerce.

Basically, find anything which interests you that places you in a context where you bump into the same group of people regularly. From that, connections with develop.

For many, the biggest challenge isn't finding a place to be but actually getting themselves out there in the first place.

As neither a parent nor a teenager, I find this a weird one to leave with me. I merely repeated some valid concerns, to which you presented no solutions, just snippiness.

What workarounds am I looking for? And for whom? Why aren't the people concerned looking for their own workarounds?

Your "concerns" are little more than whining about minor inconvenience.

If you value convenience over the well-being of your children, you'll have a convenient life and children who are unwell.

Do what you think is best, but don't pretend it's impossible to live well without social media. It's laughable. It deserves snippiness.

I don't think you really understand the extent to which restricting kids from social media can isolate them from their peers.

Even if you have a teenager who is social at school and through extracurriculars, many meaningful social interactions are happening online or through social media.

For example, almost every team/club these days has a "group chat", where kids spend time bonding outside of practice / organized events. Even if your child shows up to every organized event, they still may feel isolated due to being excluded from the conversations happening outside of practices.

Also, social media is the predominant force that is shaping Gen-Z culture. Being excluded from such a large driver of your peer's culture can definitely create feelings of isolation. Imagine if you had grown up in a household where music wasn't allowed, and how that could have made conversations with your peers more difficult. And social media is a significantly bigger cultural force than music was when you were a kid.

These are just a couple of examples, if you'd like I can list more ways that social media is semi-necessary for many kids to avoid feeling excluded.

I'm not saying this is necessarily always a bad thing (there are definitely strong arguments to be made for abstaining from some elements of society), but I would make sure you're communicating with your child and that you understand their social situation.

I barely use social media at this point and am very socially isolated as a result. Although not sure how much I care about my own isolation.

Countercultures always look really small. If everyone was actually doing it it wouldn't be much of a reaction to the prevailing culture of everyone being connected and having snippy political discussions in neighborhood discussion groups.

All of this organization doesn't actually happen on social media in my social group. We pretty much all just text each other, and everyone I know and care to spend time with does this. The people who are utterly reliant on Facebook to organize their lives have filtered themselves out of my friend group.

When I was young, the kids who played little league were, how do I put this? Dicks. It's not about shoving two like-aged children next to each other and yelling "bond!", it's about a child being able to navigate their own social life and, hopefully, find and bond with people they relate to. Limiting the activities a child can participate in, especially when those activities are widespread among their peers, will of course limit their ability to find their people and form those bonds.

"When the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at his finger."

I trust you can find alternatives to little league. I also trust you can understand the broader point.

Feel free to actually make a point instead of cryptically alluding to one. Obviously, there are a finite number of activities in any community. Restrict the number of activities available to your child, restrict their capacity for finding and forming bonds with like-minded people. Simple as that.

Don't forget how brutal the last two years has been on these ages. They are in a bad spot still.

They can deal with it. In middle school, I was called a faggot, relentlessly, for not owning a Jansport backpack. I am 100% serious. They'll find friends, I'm pretty sure of it.

But if they don't have social media, how will they see other kids calling them names for not owning the right backpack outside of school? Think of the harm to their socialization!

I was called plenty of unpleasant stuff, including that. I didn't find any friends and I left at sixteen because of it. I'm not so sure. At thirty, I'm still fairly socially isolated outside of work.

I still hope that one day we'll find a way to stop that (to a big extent).

Some day, we'll all have Jansport backpacks.

Still using mine from 5th grade 20+ years later. The oldest thing I own.

And what about the ones that didn't? Otherwise you're just talking about survivorship bias.

I flatly refuse any argument that assumes buying your kid a smartphone and allowing them on social media will solve their problems of social isolation. If a child is socially isolated from their peers, that is sad, and I personally do not know how to help them. But I still don't buy the argument that FB, Insta, TikTok, etc. are the solution because, what, their peers are on them?

Also, if some of these kids are being bullied, social media can exacerbate the problem. I allude to this in another comment where I speculate that if my mother had bought me the backpack, I think these kids would have still bullied me over something similar.

At least with schools there was the school day and trip there and home. After that you were probably alone and not constantly connected even on weekends.

hmm.. by the time i was a junior in high school i remember everyone just carried around a binder and a book for their next class or two.

i can't remember if it was because having a backpack became uncool, or the school mandated no backpacks because of columbine.

i do specifically remember trenchcoats were not allowed and one very likeable and somewhat popular kid had to give his up (that was sort of his "look").

anyone remember?

I had 14 friends on myspace back in its heyday. I could not play runescape because my computer was too old. I had dialup until 2008. It actually was not mentally devastating. Hell, I still have all those friends and we barely have a way to communicate NOW. When you go to school 8 hours of every day and see your friends, you don't really need a stupid app to interact with them. Hell, blocking out social media doesn't prevent you from texting or messaging your friends! Discord though is social media IMO, anything that forms a "group" that can have leaders and followers and bullies is social media.

> you don't really need a stupid app to interact with them

Yes, you do, because they will not want to interact with you if you're not on the preferred app. This is the case even with adults: I somewhat regularly meet people who will flatly refuse to talk to you if you don't have a green bubble, or an Instagram account, or whathaveyou. These are educated professionals in their 20's and 30's.

Hang out with less shitty people.

> I somewhat regularly meet people who will flatly refuse to talk to you if you don't have a green bubble, or an Instagram account, or whathaveyou. These are educated professionals in their 20's and 30's.

Find better friends?

I didn't say they were my friends, I said the opposite, people I just met

That's a good indicator that they're people to avoid.

Cool, that's what I'll tell my kids when they're socially ostracized by most of their school.

I don’t have time right now to go into details but it was surprisingly simple, from a filter rules perspective, to create an “iMessage only” access point.

So there is no isolation from peers, but also no other usage of the device.

We turn it off completely at 9pm.

Edit: oh, the other important detail is that they have no-data SIM cards. Tello sells text and talk only sims for $8/mo or whatever. Weirdly, when they are away from home, apple finds a way to tunnel blue bubbles through (sms only) … not sure how … bottom line is, at home, it’s iMessage or nothing.

How are they isolated? If kids are involved in sports and extra curriculars they will have plenty of social interaction. Nothing on social media is good for young minds. Everything is a pitch trying to sell some sort of viewpoint. I'm the parent, I'll provide morals and insight into topics I think are important that aren't or shouldn't be covered in school. I don't need Jim.lottahoes78 teaching my kid anything.

> Everything is a pitch trying to sell some sort of viewpoint.

What about cities? What about stores? What about TV? What about magazines? What about the radio? What about school? What about music? What about books?

Whilst I agree with you, where do we draw the line? Personally, having worked in advertising/marketing for over a decade and grown completely disenchanted with it and pivoted to just doing creative shit, I don't think we should advertise to kids, period. It's exploitative and gross.

Our state banned billboards like 80 years ago. Make that happen in your state. They are valueless.

Which state is that? I didn't realize that was a thing in the US, but it sounds great.

Vermont banned roadside billboards 55 years ago, maybe that's the state?

Does it, how else would I find 423 lawyers as I drove to the store? J/K

I agree with you. Marketing to kids is wrong. I think social media is more insidious though. They are not selling products they are selling view points and often at the expense of others. Believe this or you're a Nazi. Don't drink this beer. Social media is the battlefield of the culture wars and I don't want my kids to be casualties.

It's fair to call out that if one kid doesn't have a phone and everyone else does, it may be hard on them. Phones are a way to be "in" and in the know, if you don't have one then you may be on the outside looking in.

A few things.

1. Fuck being on the inside. Work with your kid and their self-esteem and their friends to realize that shit-talking and drama online is shallow, painful and makes you a worse person.

2. Work with the parents in your kid's social circle to talk to them about social media impact, and maybe make sure that in-person time after school is happening. Alternatively, "just" get your kid involved in after-school programs that require social activity. Band, choir, sports, hobby clubs.

3. Don't cut off social media/computing entirely. Abstinence from it full-time would be really hard to enforce. Yes, look at putting parental controls. Yes, consider limiting which apps they can have. Put time limits on it, and yeet any unapproved devices.

At around thirteen it's almost impossible to get into calm rational discussions with things as emotionally charged as this.

I dont really think them not being on social media is akin to 'Isolation' from their peers. Thats really overblowing the situation. There are hundreds of other ways to meet your friends.

I don't get why a lot of this discussion assumes children can't communicate with peers without social media. Calling and texting are still a thing. So is coordinating during school to plan meetups after school. Besides, I think very few people are saying children should have a total ban on all forms of social media and communication. We need to find methods to restrict/reduce social media and then ease those restrictions as the children mature, with a focus to minimize the negative aspects of social media usage and still allow communication with peers.

For example, when our children were small, we didn't allow phones or social media, but allowed them to text/call friends with our phones. As they got older, we introduced Google Voice via family desktop computers so they had their own number for texts/calls, but given that it was on a desktop computer, it had limited usage. After that, we introduced a family smartphone that was shared among our younger children so they could text and have some limited social media, mainly group chat apps based on their clubs/sports. Once they became teenagers, we allow them their own phone, but still had restrictions on apps installed, types of websites available and time spent. Gradually over time, we introduce new apps, discuss app usage and review how things are going with the goal of increased independence over time.

For managing restrictions, we've used a lot of things, but never found a perfect solution. Bark works pretty well for signalling us of potential problems while giving our children a level of privacy. I use a Firewalla router to manage home internet access restrictions and Google Family Link to manage mobile devices. Both are mainly used to restrict time-based access (no middle of the night access) and for temporary restrictions to allow us to focus on things like homework and family events.

I can see why a lot of parents put no restrictions up or just ban too much. It takes a lot of work to create a nuanced set of restrictions that gradually give more independence as the child matures. Unfortunately, we've seen friends of our children who have had a lot of issues due to totally unrestricted internet access. We need to find and foster more middle grounds for easing children into social media and related technologies. Neither full unrestricted access nor total bans are helpful.

Aren't there at least a few studies that indicate better long-term mental health outcomes among kids who don't use social media until later in life? Sorry for the lack of citation, but if that is true, wouldn't that pretty much obviate this problem? If, on balance, the outcome is better, then whatever short terms shocks they may experience are better than the alternative.

Abstaining from social media is not isolation. There are more healthy ways to interact with friends without the perils of social media platforms.

This is why regulation is useful even though it's imperfect. If it's against the law for under 18s to use social media, parents no longer need to justify allowing their kids access because all of their peers allow it. By necessity, more traditional means of socialization will reemerge.

You may be right. But free speech and free markets have done a lot of good, along with the bad. Trying to rein them in gets a lot of pushback, because the alternatives have been pretty terrible too.

I didn't have a cell phone while all my friends did, I wasn't isolated.

“Teenage suicide is at an all time high… I sure wouldn’t want my kid to stop being terminally connected to those kids and whatever could possibly be causing that!”

Purely for argument sake: would the above apply if peer kids were in gang, or into drugs or alcohol or whatever?

Social media is no different from those, IMHO of course.

You're probably not thinking hard enough here.

That isn't isolating them from their peers.

it is guaranteed at least subtle socially isolating them

No more so than it's isolating them by giving them a curfew, telling them they can't hang out in certain places, not giving them a car, etc.

That level of "isolation" seems innocuous at worst to me (even though it may seem like the end of the world to the kids).

Then you are either older, lucky or never introspected.

I assume lucky for a moment.

The problem is less that conversations are more delayed or ad-hoc but more that they can potentially miss out on "group events". And that is where the problem starts. Because they also can't join in on conversations about that event, etc. This means while the rest of the group will frequently have situations where they emotionally bond you get are not included and in turn get subtle unintended socially isolated.

If you are a socially very adapted child you can probably compensate this just fine.

If you have other more important friend groups it probably also doesn't matter too much.

If there is a group of people (not just a small minority) in the same situation as you in the same social circle it also probably is fine.

but if not it really can hurt, and you likely only notice how damaging it was for your social life after the damage is already done and hard to recover even if you now convince your parents to give your more leeway

and that's under the assumption the social group in question is "nice" but you e.g. can't choose the people you go to school with and a not so nice social group can use this to intentionally exclude it or use it as a starting point for bullying which often is only addressed when it has gone out of hand to a point where a parent or teacher stepping in can't fix anything anymore

and sure above's arguments often matter much more for e.g. multiplayer computer games then for "having a phone", through not having a phone also means e.g. not having a camera and not being able to make and share group photos with your social group

instead of denying access to a phone, social media, etc. it's better to control it in a careful and reasonable way. E.g. don't forbid the playing of idk. Fortnight, but explain the problems with it and maybe limit the hours and similar a child can spend, but allow the child to decide when to spend them and allow some degree of saving up hours etc. Similar for social media, etc.

Same applies for going out etc. as far as I can tell it's best for you child to allows it a wide leeway just not unlimited and properly educate them about dangers.

EDIT: deleted the last paragraph it was off topic

> Then you are either older, lucky or never introspected.

That sounds a lot like when kids say "you just don't understand!" to parents restricting their activities.

The reality is that the parents usually understand fully, but also understand other aspects that the kids don't yet.

> that they can potentially miss out on "group events".

I doubt this is a common or inevitable consequence. First, kids spend a great deal of time in person with their peers at school. Even if something is only planned online, they can still get the details by asking in person. Second, they can use a home computer to do that stuff. A phone isn't mandatory.

> not having a phone also means e.g. not having a camera

If that's important to a particular child, give them a camera. They do still exist.

> it's better to control it in a careful and reasonable way.

I agree. But you can't really do that if they have a smartphone. You can do that if they have to use a computer at home to go online.

I fully understand that kids will consider the lack of a smartphone to be essentially social suicide. They'll feel like it's an existential problem. But it's not. Good parenting often requires parents to do things that kids think are abusive, but are actually necessary to give them the best shot possible at having a good, healthy adult life. One of the main jobs of a parent is to gradually introduce children to reality. Emphasis on "gradually".

> parents usually understand fully

> I doubt this is a common or inevitable consequence.

I think if you speak with a psychotherapeut which keeps up with the current state of research/sience the answer would be: no many parent have no idea what they are doing, and it is VERY common. It's common enough that some people claim abusing this dynamic is the main source of income for Fortnight ...

> If that's important to a particular child, give them a camera. They do still exist.

this fully misses the point, it's not about making photos, it's about sharing them and slightly about funny filters etc. and do you think a parent who doesn't allow their child to have a phone would allow them to chair photos without a lot of friction?

> no many parent have no idea what they are doing

Absolutely true, but not relevant to the point that I was trying to make. Kids often claim that parents don't understand the kid's point of view, but parents usually do. That was all I was saying. I wasn't claiming that parents were experts on parenting.

> it's not about making photos, it's about sharing them and slightly about funny filters etc.

I understood the point. You can do that with a digital camera. It just takes extra steps and is less immediate.

> do you think a parent who doesn't allow their child to have a phone would allow them to chair photos without a lot of friction?

Maybe not all, but many absolutely will. I did with my children, and I wasn't unusual in that. The issue isn't sharing or talking with friends, the issue is unfettered exposure to social media.

> the issue is unfettered exposure to social media.

I half agree, but think the issue is more "exposure to unfettered social media" (a bit of a word stunt* I guess, but I'm sure you get what I mean).

Through as a parent I agree that there is only so much you can do about social media itself, so you have to find a compromise like you did.

*it's more like the access/view the child has to (a potential subset) of a social media providers content then the social media itself

Every kid through history was horribly isolated before we got smartphones and social media, I guess.

They're already spending the best hours of every weekday for like 3/4 of each year with their peers. More, if they do any other activities that involve other kids. Seems like quite a bit. I'm skeptical that they'll be harmed if they can't catch up on the latest bullying-memes, creep shots of other students, and tips for getting old guys to send you money online (all real examples, and none of them one-offs—trends) at 1AM on a school night.

Putting aside that this time estimates can vary widely depending on culture, that there was covid, and that a lot of this time isn't spent doing things with their peers but in a classrome which also might happen to contain their peers I thinks it's still a flawed analysis.

Because if you look at the time they can choose what to do, like in brakes between classes or in brakes in the classe (e.g. PE) a bunch of it is spend talking, like talking about the latest trend, the grate experience they had yesterday etc. All of which the child with too strict parent can't proper join in. Then after school they join again, but today often over internet instead of meeting physically, and again the child with the too strict parents is left out.

I'm not sure if you living in a fundamental different world then I am, but it's really hard for me to understand how this is hard for anyone to understand. (If you live in the US I guess this might very well be true.)

This never was a discussion about fully unchecked phone usage. The best practical solution for something is most times some some in-between solution.

> The best practical solution for something is most times some some in-between solution.

I'm very curious as to what you recommend for an in-between solution. It seems to me that either the child has a phone or they don't. How is it possible to effectively restrict their use of the phone short of not allowing them to have it unless a parent is present?

Parental controls of the phone. I.e. the child physical has the phone but the parent virtually owns/controls it.

Which sadly are currently often sorely lacking especially for younger children and even for the limited functionality often need too much technical understanding (e.g. knowing that "adult-content filters" tend to not work and at least for young children whitelists are preferable while sadly also often cumbersome).

Our main trouble is that there are like 30 Web- or streaming-capable devices in our house, not even counting ones that are packed away, and getting the balance between "usable by adults with little friction; locked down for kids" right on all of them is a real pain. Only the Apple-ecosystem stuff is relatively easy to manage, as far as that goes.

Worse, some of them are school devices that we can't manage. And having to physically manage device access is another annoying, never-ending task.

Except this is the first time in more than a couple of generations that kids were locked out of schools for up to two years.

If your kid is never isolated, how can they possibly develop healthy behaviors around boredom and isolation?

I hope you understand and just decided to pretend not to that _social_ isolation is not about physical isolation or boredom or having free time with nothing to do.

While the "simplest" way to archive social isolation is to be physically isolated you can be social isolated while having people around you 24/7.

This is such a misleading red hearing argument.

There is a huge difference between given a child a phone and giving them unchecked phone and internet access.

> Some things your kid should not do!

Yes and socializing after school is definitely NOT on the list of things a child should not do.

Stop thinking in terms of yes or no, the world doesn't work like that.

You mean like we made it illegal to sell cigarettes or pot (where it is legal) to children... whoa, it's almost like we can have laws limit stuff.

That's what soccer leagues are for. Or chess club for the non-athletically inclined.

Sounds like MAAD: Mutually Assured Attention Destruction.

Not sure if it's reasonable, but a very simple answer is to get your kid a feature phone, if the intent is to be able to stay in touch/emergency contact (we let our kids bike to middle school and it was nice to be in touch). We didn't get them smart phones until high school.

Though if my kids are any indication, it's still 50/50 - one is on tiktok/snapchat/insta constantly, and the other could care less.

Some parents in our social circle have been getting their kids smart watches. This allows talk to text and phone calls, but pretty much no internet. These devices are also good for parental controls like allow listing phone numbers (first thing our friends son did was make crank calls :)

I frequently recommend the apple watch with cellular to families... it has nice built in support to be set up for a child, the watch form factor is nice for lots of kids (harder to lose), and you are still getting a premium product (important for the families that I work with).

I thought Apple Watches required an iPhone to pair with? Is that not the case?

You can get them with a radio built in.

Yes, but I thought they still required pairing with a iPhone to set up. Once set-up is complete they can be used independently, but my impression is that it requires pairing to an iPhone, at least initially.

I think in the future, we should look into device-level age verification. You scan your Driver's License on your iPhone once; and after that, your iPhone tells the website that you are 16 and over without providing any other information unless the user expressly grants it. This solution would not make everyone happy, but politics is all about tradeoffs.

By keeping everything on the device-level, we would hopefully reduce the need for third-parties, ISP-level filtering, or providing too much information. The downside is that for open-source phones, in order for the system to be secure, there would likely need to be a similar Age ID check at checkout for any device that can bypass said filter. This would not be the first time that the US Government strongly "encouraged" device manufacturers to build-in rating system equipment (remember V-Chip?).

And as for "some kids might bypass it," I don't really care. Speed Limits are easily and frequently bypassed, but that doesn't mean it would be safe to get rid of them.

> You scan your Driver's License on your iPhone once

And who's checking that ID? In what form is the record of it being kept, and where? I would not use a device that had this sort of requirement. There's too much surveillance as it is.

The solution to this with children is easy -- don't get them a smartphone.

> And who's checking that ID? In what form is the record of it being kept, and where? I would not use a device that had this sort of requirement. There's too much surveillance as it is.

I would do it on a state-by-state level. Your phone verifies your age with, say, the state of California one time, and then it's set and California has no idea what you visit or why.

And if you don't like this due to hacking risk; remember that the State of California literally has your photo, social security number, address, height, weight, gender, and more. Hacking risk increase is minuscule from what it already is. And not just California - any state can look you up if they want; otherwise, how would traffic tickets or arrests for interstate drivers happen?

> The solution to this with children is easy -- don't get them a smartphone.

Or we ban children from possession or purchase of smartphones under a certain age. Which, I would be favor of, but may be too politically unpalatable.

I'm not concerned about a hacking risk, I'm concerned about tracking and surveillance.

Yea! What could go wrong asking the government to record your identity to your technology!? Surely YOUR favorite party will always be in power and this power would never fall into the hands of the bad people.

> remember V-Chip?

Remember it didn’t work and was only pushed for by a bureaucracy that eventually did nothing but make regulation into the TV market and surely some Clinton connected suppliers of the IP very happy?

It had about a 10% usage, tops, according to the people that pushed for it and made money off it's regulatory implementation.

No is the answer whenever someone proposes “the aught to be a law”. There almost always aught’n’t.

V-Chip was actually great for the small niche of parents that cared enough about their kids, had a large amount of cable TV channels, thought some of them were inappropriate, and were willing to put in effort to read an instruction manual.

The problem was that generation was so fucking lazy they refused to read a paragraph of an instruction manual to stop the "12:00" blinking on their VCRs, and spent all their time blaming everyone else for the problems they were causing, like violent videogames.

> I don't think preventing kids from accessing social media entirely is viable or reasonable.

One solution to this is to have a public computer in the house that the children can use. As they age and become more responsible you can give them more computing privacy. In the mean time you can kind of get an idea if they're developing bad habits and address it.

I like this idea.

And, letting them use it only after 20:00, encourages them to hang out with friends after school (instead of running home to play games alone all afternoons and evenings).

Don't discount multiplayer gaming as socialization with friends. My mother hated how much I was on the computer, but I had ample friendships and computer related hobbies and learning, and well my entire life is spent on a computer. That's just how some lives are nowadays.

If they are just queuing with randoms or spending all their time watching a stupid twitch streamer, that's not socialization though. I don't think you can actually form connections with other gamers anymore with the way modern matchmaking works.

There's something to be said about missing out on other dimensions of social life when socializing online. I would argue that it's not a substitute and poor preparation for the human condition.