Is it possible to fight Internet addiction without banning stuff? While it helps to ban smartphones during school, it won't stop these kids from logging on for 5 to 7 hrs after school. We need to find ways to make people (not just kids) more resilient to Internet addiction without resorting to widespread bans, which are both hard to implement, unlikely to keep people away long term and dangerous for other reasons.
I do not think kids and everybody else are standing a chance against all the money that is thrown at making and keeping them addicted.
So I fear if we do not want them to be addicted we have to prohibit things (it does not need to be smartphones, it could be mechanisms on these devices).
Bingo. The decline of smoking wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for banning smoking in most public places and everywhere indoors, removing cigarette vending machines, etc.
I agree it is not unreasonable, but I'd also note that bars have their livelihood at stake. While a child has their phone at stake, you cannot threaten their livelihood without a trip to prison.
There are no material stakes to the child other than losing their entertainment device. Might as well break the rules.
Limited restrictions for specific times and places is totally reasonable, I read the parent comment in a larger scope as it was about stopping addiction.
If you would like to prohibit e.g. gambling mechanisms in games or social media you need a legal framework and then you investigate and fine the firms that don't adhere to the rules. This works very well in the EU as seen by the example of apple and facebook last week. It's not perfect but what is?
The EU still largely allows for lucrative gambling mechanisms, they just can't be predatory or deceptive. Which I agree is probably the best approach, coupled with advertisement restrictions etc.
What incentive do companies have to do this? It seems quite profitable for them?
I am quite strict here with my comment; but honestly, I can't see much reason other than making new products that are made as an "anti" movement, but companies will just find new ways to get people hooked -- because it is profitable for them to do so.
No, I don't think there's a way without regulating addictive feed-based content machines.
As much as we would like to tout some individualised solution for this, there's no way for all individuals to be trained to resist products designed for maximising its usage. There are armies of smart people being paid to think about ways that will make users be "engaged" with their products for as long as possible for it to be profitable, armies of experts in user behaviour, developers that can churn out good quality digital products, designers who can make the experience feel smooth. It's all geared to be addictive since the incentive is to capture as much attention as possible.
Is it possible to fight gambling addiction, alcohol addiction, nicotine addiction, drugs addiction, without banning them? Yup, it's costly, relies on a lot of regulation, control from the State on what kind of behaviour these companies can engage, and so on.
The addictive thing is not the smartphone but what it gives access to, without a conversation about what kind of regulations could curtail the addictive side of the real culprit, social media, there's no way out on an individual basis.
Banning smartphones in schools is akin to banning cigarettes' commercials, you aren't banning the stuff completely but at least trying to curtail its reach. We need more of this, social media has a lot of benefits so I don't think it should ever be outright banned, we do need more talk about its downsides and potential mitigations on a societal level.
I think you're right in a way because if school wants to prepare kids for work, then they'll have to get competent with tech.
But at the same time, I think banning smartphones is perfectly fine because you can still use computers and stuff. It's not like they're going back to quills and ink.
Smartphones fry your attention span and enable bullying. And if parents want to have emergency contact, you can always have a simple mobile phone with texting/calling.
>I think you're right in a way because if school wants to prepare kids for work, then they'll have to get competent with tech.
They are failing spectacularly on that front anyways. You don't learn useful skills by being handed a remotely administered tablet or Chromebook, which is what schools provide.
Growing up we had computer class in school, where we did BASIC programming and worked on typing, and this wasn't a particularly good school system. Moving towards "you'll learn computers and typing by having them in your face all the time" feels like a considerable regression in both computer and general skills.
I saw this in the Netherlands: Chromebooks with which the children did their research online, submitted their homework online, got them graded online, organized their workgroups, schedules and meetings online ...
Actually </s> they were learnig vital skills like Agile Sprint management! (I don't know if they ever physically met for standup meeetings)
Using a dumb-phone is the reason a pre-teen neighbor of mine got bullied. So much that she ended up stealing money to get herself a smartphone. Shortly afterwards the parents folded and became less strict with their anti-consumerism stance.
Absolutely smartphones should be banned, at least during lessons, and at best during the whole time in the school, recess, etc.
Giving a child a dumb-phone in an environment where everybody else uses a smartphone doesn't work. If smarphones are not banned then _all_ will end up with a smartphone, and socialisation difficulties, etc...
This is a case where individual freedoms end up in collective damage. Maybe I'm an outlier here but I'd ban all kinds of social media all the time.
1. Correct, I think you've changed my mind on this and I'll investigate further. Though they should probably get foundational knowledge on tech literacy.
2. True, though less true over time. Even in the non-tech jobs you're now constantly using technology. In the trades, you need to know how to operate a CNC machine. As a nurse, you're operating medical devices that are getting more and more powered by technology.
Maybe it does help increasing resiliency by forcing them not use the device for the day? Whether it does that will be found during the next few years. Why is it unlikely in long term?
You pose this as a question, but I find it's quite easy to say "we need to achieve this some other way" but then not having a concrete suggestion what that other way could be.
In Uruguay in the 1980s there was no TV before 10am. I liked watching cartoons a lot, but I'm glad this made me do more interesting stuff in the mornings.
