The UK could ban the sale of smartphones to kids under 16

[midian182]

A hot potato: The use of smartphones by children has long been a contentious subject. In the UK, ministers are considering giving parents more control by banning the sale of the devices to anyone under the age of 16. It's a move that has the support of most parents in the country.

The discussions come as the UK clamps down on smartphones use among young people. In February, the government issued guidance on the use of the devices in English schools in order to reduce disruption and improve behavior. It was suggested that schools could ban handsets by requiring students to leave phones at home, hand them in upon arrival, store them in inaccessible lockers, or prohibit their use in classrooms.

Banning phone sales to under 16s is one of the measures being considered to protect children from the potential dangers of social media, as well as other online threats such as crime, cyberbullying, exposure to pornography, and hacking.

A recent survey of 2,496 parents of school-age children in England found 58% believe the government should ban smartphones for under 16s. It also revealed that four out of five parents felt smartphones were harmful to children and young people. Another survey found 64% thought a ban on selling phones to under 16s was a good idea. Only 20% felt it was a bad idea.

Parentkind survey

The mother of Brianna Ghey, a 16-year-old schoolgirl murdered last year, has called for "children's phones" designed specifically for under 16s that cannot run social media apps, which sounds like "dumb" or feature phones.

The Guardian notes that some politicians are nervous about the government overstepping its boundaries and microparenting. One source said the government was only meant to make parents more aware of online child protections, such as website restrictions and parental controls in apps.

A poll last year found that 97% of children have a phone by the age of 12 in the UK, while 99% of teens have one by the time they are 17.

Meta has just announced it is expanding its campaign to protect young Instagram users by testing a feature that will blur explicit images sent in direct messages to minors. It's hoped that in addition to stopping people from seeing unwanted nudes, it will also help prevent sextortion incidents.

Masthead: RDNE Stock project

Permalink to story:

The UK could ban the sale of smartphones to kids under 16

 

[m4a4]

Not a fan of gov't doing an outright ban of smartphone sales to 16 and under, considering it's just a more convenient PC. They'll still have access to other PCs (which undermines their reasoning).

The Guardian notes that some politicians are nervous about the government overstepping its boundaries and microparenting. One source said the government was only meant to make parents more aware of online child protections, such as website restrictions and parental controls in apps.

Yeah, this sounds more like what should be happening.

 

[atomicgirl]

Not a fan of gov't doing an outright ban of smartphone sales to 16 and under, considering it's just a more convenient PC. They'll still have access to other PCs (which undermines their reasoning).

"The government" isn't doing anything other than what the constituents lobbied for or filed complaints about. Arguing that "the government" has overstepped its bounds is Libertarian Agitprop pretending that there is a false dichotomy between a government and its people. That's not how Western democracies work.

 

[m4a4]

"The government" isn't doing anything other than what the constituents lobbied for or filed complaints about. Arguing that "the government" has overstepped its bounds is Libertarian Agitprop pretending that there is a false dichotomy between a government and its people. That's not how Western democracies work.

What the heck are you going on about? I said I wasn't a fan based on poor reasoning, but here you are with some word vomit against libertarians...

 

[saladbarsmash]

Parents would approve of the govt doing this? How about the parents just do their job as a parent and the govt wouldn't need to get involved. I won't let my two sons have a phone until they're 17ish and it will be a crappy flip phone with just text and calling.

 

[atomicgirl]

This is not only something that any sane, rational country should be doing but should've done long ago.

The problem with smartphones isn't so much that kids are exposed to "bad content" but can become victims of the ones that use them for evil. To make matters worse, minors who engage in criminal behavior short of rape and murder are protected from prosecution because of legal grey areas.

 

[atomicgirl]

What the heck are you going on about? I said I wasn't a fan based on poor reasoning, but here you are with some word vomit against libertarians...

Sigh...pretending to not understand what I said with faux outrage.

 

[Squid Surprise]

This is not only something that any sane, rational country should be doing but should've done long ago.

The problem with smartphones isn't so much that kids are exposed to "bad content" but can become victims of the ones that use them for evil. To make matters worse, minors who engage in criminal behavior short of rape and murder are protected from prosecution because of legal grey areas.

If you bothered to read the article, you’d note that 99% of kids under 17 ALREADY have smartphones…

How about, instead of reactionary policies that will accomplish nothing, try educating kids (and adults) on responsible smartphone use.

Oh wait, I’m not British so am unqualified to post in this thread…

 

[m4a4]

Sigh...pretending to not understand what I said with faux outrage.

Ah, so you can't actually reply to what I said in context and make your irrelevant point make sense. Got it.

 

[m4a4]

If you bothered to read the article, you’d note that 99% of kids under 17 ALREADY have smartphones…

You might want to reword that.

A poll last year found that 97% of children have a phone by the age of 12 in the UK, while 99% of teens have one by the time they are 17.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You might want to reword that.

I was being nice… since the law is for 16 and under - no need to add the 12-year-old stats … but yes, that even further proves my point

 

[atomicgirl]

Parents would approve of the govt doing this? How about the parents just do their job as a parent and the govt wouldn't need to get involved. I won't let my two sons have a phone until they're 17ish and it will be a crappy flip phone with just text and calling

Wow, talk about being out of the loop. This is like saying, "Don't pass laws restricting minors from getting a driver's license or consuming liquor, because I as a responsible parent would never let my kid drink or drive until 18."

Do you not understand that these laws aren't just about protecting kids from harmful content that "parents should be monitoring", but from the ones whose parents couldn't give a crap that their sociopathic darlings are using apps and smartphones to stalk, harass and even terrorize their peers?

Here's a quote from someone from a different site, who's been begging YouTube to take down videos that classmates made of him when he was a kid. These videos were recorded without his permission; YouTube refuses to take them down, and he has no other legal recourse to do it.

Videos that were uploaded that I didn't know about
Original review Mar 16, 2024
I have on multiple occasions asked YouTube to take remove 3 videos that I am in that I didn't realize were uploaded back in 2010 when I was a teenager. I was going through a tough time and someone who claimed to be my friend was making in fun of me regarding a situation with my Father and other things that were not going well in my life.
I have had messages from YouTube saying that they will look into it and they never do.
The only thing YouTube has done is put a age limit one of the videos when I clearly asked for all three videos to be removed.
These videos were taken without my knowledge and I would like to see these videos permanently removed from YouTube. Please get back to me when possible.

Maybe instead of spewing Libertarian talking points about "parents doing their job," try to actually understand what the issue is. You can do "your job" as a parent all you want, but that's not going to magically protect your kids from classmates with irresponsible parents using their smartphones to harass or target them in a criminal act. Sociopathic kids are protected by legal grey areas (where harassment, doxxing, etc. are swept under the rug as "kids being kids" or "bullying as a part of life"). Big Tech gives victims no way to defend themselves, because removing videos would harm their bottom line and goes against their principles that it would "censorship" to take down clips like this. Parents don't typically get prosecuted for their kid's actions.

 

[m4a4]

I was being nice… since the law is for 16 and under - no need to add the 12-year-old stats … but yes, that even further proves my point

I meant, only saying "kids under 17" (instead of "kids by 17") makes it sound like kids ages 0-17

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Banning minors from buying phones wont fix anything, between parents and all the other kids in the world the phones will percolate through the system. There should be restrictions on social media access for those under 16, with stiff penalties if caught doing so, for both the social media company AND the offending minor/minor's parents.

Wow, talk about being out of the loop. This is like saying, "Don't pass laws restricting minors from getting a driver's license or consuming liquor, because I as a responsible parent would never let my kid drink or drive until 18."

Do you not understand that these laws aren't just about protecting kids from harmful content that "parents should be monitoring", but from the ones whose parents couldn't give a crap that their sociopaths are using apps to stalk, harass and even terrorize them?

Here's a quote from someone from a different site, who's been begging YouTube to take down videos that classmates made of him when he was a kid. These videos were recorded without his permission; YouTube refuses to take them down, and he has no other legal recourse to do it.


Maybe instead of spewing Libertarian talking points about how "parents doing their job," try to actually understand what the issue is. You can do "your job" as a parent all you want, but that's not going to magically protect your kids from classmates with irresponsible parents using their smartphones to harass or target them in a criminal act. Sociopathic kids are protected by legal grey areas (where harassment, doxxing, etc. are swept under the rug as "kids being kids" or "bullying as a part of life"). Big Tech gives victims no way to defend themselves. Parents don't typically get prosecuted for their kid's actions.

And there you go again dismissing anything you dont like and trying to slander "libertarians". It is not the governments job to raise children. Historically, that has not gone well. The "proof" you provide has nothing to do with the topic either, poorly run megacorps are not going to act better over a UK phone ban. Banning phones will not make the parents who dont give a crap start giving a crap, and those kids will get phones anyway.

And unlike alcohol or cars, phones are a lot easier to hide.

Ah, so you can't actually reply to what I said in context and make your irrelevant point make sense. Got it.

Atomic has gotten quite a reputation for doing this despite having barely 100 messages on the forum. Take from that what you will.

 

[SiJiL]

How many of these current under 16s that have a phone bought it themselves? I'd guess <5%.
So not sure how stopping them buying a phone themselves will change anything.

 

[m4a4]

Atomic has gotten quite a reputation for doing this despite having barely 100 messages on the forum. Take from that what you will.

Considering how unhinged the reply was out of the gate, I'm not surprised.

 

[atomicgirl]

Considering how unhinged the reply was out of the gate, I'm not surprised.

Fine. So I won't respond to you anymore. Have a nice day, and kindly ignore my posts as well. Except something tells me that you won't.

 

[atomicgirl]

And unlike alcohol or cars, phones are a lot easier to hide.
Atomic has gotten quite a reputation for doing this despite having barely 100 messages on the forum. Take from that what you will.

So predictable. Chase down an opponent's profile, post a ridiculous summary about the nature of their posts, then go back and forth with other members of the commenting ring making more exaggerated commentary about the nature of that person's commenting history as a form of well-poisoning. Then get members of the same commenting ring to upvote each other's posts. Derail discussion further.

 

[atomicgirl]

Ah, so you can't actually reply to what I said in context and make your irrelevant point make sense. Got it.

Why do you and the exact 3-4 people always upvote each other's posts across every single story?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

My 11yo daughter has a dumb phone precisely to limit the harm she can unwittingly do to herself through social media, which is IMO responsible parenting.

Unfortunately, her friends (basically all of them) have smart phones, which I think is irresponsible parenting and potentially opens my daughter up to a bunch of the risks I'm trying to keep her from, but what can I really do about that? I can't keep her in a basement or have her have no friends.

I know this site has a turbo-libertarian bent, but the government (US government, in this case) does have a vested interest in the mental and physical health (and constitutional responsibility, depending on your read of the general welfare clause) of its citizens.

Children are already broadly banned from buying or using all kinds of stuff and the really depressing thing is the bans tend to generally work in driving down purchasing and usage of things like Tobacco and Alcohol (or sugary/fatty foods if you're a Californian) because really we like to imagine we're these infinitely free beings when really the vast majority of us will simply go along with the herd.

 

[Che Cazzo]

And there you go again dismissing anything you dont like and trying to slander "libertarians". It is not the governments job to raise children. Historically, that has not gone well. The "proof" you provide has nothing to do with the topic either, poorly run megacorps are not going to act better over a UK phone ban. Banning phones will not make the parents who dont give a crap start giving a crap, and those kids will get phones anyway.

And unlike alcohol or cars, phones are a lot easier to hide.
Atomic has gotten quite a reputation for doing this despite having barely 100 messages on the forum. Take from that what you will.

AtomicGirl replied correctly to you. But your feigned outrage about the "slander of Libertarians" (although they are truly despicable opportunists!) really weakens your already weak argument.

 

[VariableSpike]

Not a fan of gov't doing an outright ban of smartphone sales to 16 and under, considering it's just a more convenient PC. They'll still have access to other PCs (which undermines their reasoning).


Yeah, this sounds more like what should be happening.

Exactly, for younger people, the education should be there for parents and ways to adequately control it, but not the government microparenting, unless they're like China and want to treat parents like stupid people (that does happen to be fair, but casting every parent and every child under the same net is stupid)

 

[themastergoose]

I'm UK based, and I'm not a fan of our government always getting involved in a lot of things they shouldn't and snooping on a lot of things they shouldn't. The article refers to it as micromanagement, but I'm pretty sure we're straddling democratic rule with some communist styled ideas thrown in based on some of the things the government are currently trying to implement.

Either way, banning phone sales to under 16's won't change much, as I don't know of many under 16's having the £1200 required for say an iPhone or Galaxy (and everyone largely seems to have one or the other flagships), and also being 2 years under the minimum age to buy one from their carrier on a credit agreement.

 

[Che Cazzo]

Some people (usually always the same people) want to have it both ways: If the government didn't do anything, they blame the government.

And if the government did do something to protect people and their kids from themselves, they blame the government as well!

 

[toooooot]

20 years ago it would sound crazy. Today, this is possibly right thing to do.
It is extremely unhealthy, especially mentally, to stare at the screen all day.
And the worst is the effects do not appear suddenly, it is a continuous worsening of mental health.