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

[Burty117]

This comment section was a wild ride. Comparing smartphones to the perils of Alcohol and driving a car. Amazing.

I don't understand why web filtering isn't better implemented. Surely just parents spending an hour implementing some DNS filtering service so they can decide what their children can and cannot access? Or allows them to set time limits?

All phone manufacturers have to do is lock the DNS settings behind a parent login or passcode or something.

I feel like this isn't an insurmountable issue that really just needs some education. I reckon if technology companies sold kit that made web filtering much easier for parents to implement, this is practically a non-issue as it would be down to the parents to block social media, porn etc...

Also, banning sales to under 16's won't do anything at all, they don't buy the phones, the parents do...

In fact, why didn't they ask "why did you buy your kids smartphones and not take them away when you think it's harming your child"...

 

[Neatfeatguy]

My daughter didn't get a smart phone until she was 14. Before that we were able to get a phone watch (can't even remember what it was called) that functioned off G3. She was given that at age 12 and had to prove she could be responsible with it. She didn't wear it often, but she kept it in her backpack for most of the time and she had to answer it if we called. If she needed to call mom, dad, grandparents or 911 she had the capability to do so and we could setup the watch to receive calls from a few other people if she wanted to add her friends to the call list.

Once she got her cell phone I blocked all social media site access and restricted her phone from installing any apps without my permission. She tells me she doesn't like social media because she sees some of her friends act like complete id iots using it. They're always trying to post something to get likes and when she tries to talk with them she tells me that a lot of them cannot hold a simple conversation because they don't know how and it's really sad. She also hates the bullying that gets used on it. Once my daughter graduates high school in a couple years I'll remove any locking software on her phone and she can do what she wants with it.

As I drop my son off at school in the morning (he's in 5th grade right now) I see kids that are in kindergarten sitting around playing on their smart phone.....seriously? My son won't get a smart phone for a few more years, just like how it worked with his sister. Sadly since G3 has been phased out that phone watch can't be used anymore so he'll just have to continue to make due without anything until he makes it into 8th grade. At that point he'll get a phone, but it'll be locked down like his sister's is.

The issue at hand here is that it isn't the phone that is the problem. The problem is the way that parents allow their kids to use the phones. There are programs/software out there that allows parents to lock so much down on phones, but they don't know about them or don't want to use them or are too lazy to parent and just let the phones do the parenting.

 

[brucek]

This sounds like great business PR. The smartphone companies can point to their support for this as proof of social responsibility, all while knowing that relatively few children under 16 had independent money, identification, credit cards, etc. that are necessary to set up a fully functioning smart phone anyway.

 

[atomicgirl]

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.

Ranting about "the government's job to raise children" is a cornerstone of Libertarian ideology/agitprop. They've been making this argument to hell and back, 1000 times over, going all the way back to the 1970s when watchdog groups were trying to lobby for measures to restrict minors from accessing pornography. In the 1980s, they made the same arguments when government agencies were trying to get parental advisory labels on music and video games.

These arguments are a corrupt, absolutist take on two specific concepts--personal freedom and responsibility. They're also a corruption of how governments work in a Western democracy. In theory, the government, for the sake of personal freedom, should live and let live and stay out of people's personal lives. In theory, it's not the job of a government to be responsible for the irresponsible--for example, pass laws to stop people from drinking, because some people will become alcoholics.

But there are times when even in spite of everyone's best efforts, that's not feasible, because of Corporate Social Irresponsibility. For example, in a perfect world, if kids are terrorized with smartphones or exposed to bad content, there should be multiple ways for parents to protect them or get the perps prosecuted. But a combination of legal grey areas and Big Tech itself enabling bad actors and loopholes has made it difficult to protect kids in spite of the best efforts of responsible parents and law enforcement agencies.

These parents then lobbied and went on mass campaigns to get politicians and various agencies to get something done. Big Tech dragged its feet, so now governments--at their behest--are considering this legislation to ban smartphone sales to kids.

So, this legislation has never been a question, as you put it, of "The Government" thinking it has a responsibility to raise people's kids. The parents were out of options to reign in Big Tech and asked their politicians to step in. Libertarians always like to conveniently leave out the fact that the public pushes for the laws that "The Government" passes, to pretend that The Government exists in a vacuum and consists of an oligarchy that just does what it wants. That's not how legislation works.

What's hysterical about all this righteous indignation and outrage is that in the end, scratch a Libertarian and you get a Neoliberal. Nobody who ever counters legislation designed to reign in corporate abuses based on absolutist takes on "personal responsibility" and "Nanny State" ever really rejects regulations based on philosophical grounds. It's all about the Neoliberal's bottom line. Obviously, people who have a stake in a completely deregulated smartphone and app market are the ones having the biggest cow over this legislation. If a ban like this were put into place, people stand to lose a lot of money.

So, let's cut the fake indignation routine. The only people who are really agitated by these types of proposals are investors and people who have a financial stake in smartphones and the ecosystems they rely on. Banning sales to minors would cause everyone to take a major hit. Just admit it, but stop pretending that this is an ethical issue for you. It's not, and it never was.

 

[Squid Surprise]

These parents then lobbied and went on mass campaigns to get politicians and various agencies to get something done. Big Tech dragged its feet, so now governments--at their behest--are considering this legislation to ban smartphone sales to kids.

I appreciate how you started your post by accusing someone else of ranting…. And then ranted

But…. Let’s just narrow down your drivel to that paragraph… who are “these parents”? Where was this grass roots movement to ban smartphones?

I suspect that it came from politicians looking for a way to appease a certain demographic to redirect their anger from the crap job they’ve done running their country.

How about we bring prohibition back - that worked GREAT in the 1920s!

 

[brucek]

Banning sales to minors would cause everyone to take a major hit.

I'm very skeptical about this. How many minors were purchasing their own phone to begin with? Which mobile service providers allow an under 16 to register their own account and using what payment mechanism? Children under 16 are not permitted to work for pay in the UK, no?

Banning _use_ by minors would be a big deal but that doesn't sound like what this proposal is.

 

[Burty117]

Ranting about "the government's job to raise children" is a cornerstone of Libertarian ideology/agitprop. They've been making this argument to hell and back, 1000 times over, going all the way back to the 1970s when watchdog groups were trying to lobby for measures to restrict minors from accessing pornography. In the 1980s, they made the same arguments when government agencies were trying to get parental advisory labels on music and video games.

These arguments are a corrupt, absolutist take on two specific concepts--personal freedom and responsibility. They're also a corruption of how governments work in a Western democracy. In theory, the government, for the sake of personal freedom, should live and let live and stay out of people's personal lives. In theory, it's not the job of a government to be responsible for the irresponsible--for example, pass laws to stop people from drinking, because some people will become alcoholics.

But there are times when even in spite of everyone's best efforts, that's not feasible, because of Corporate Social Irresponsibility. For example, in a perfect world, if kids are terrorized with smartphones or exposed to bad content, there should be multiple ways for parents to protect them or get the perps prosecuted. But a combination of legal grey areas and Big Tech itself enabling bad actors and loopholes has made it difficult to protect kids in spite of the best efforts of responsible parents and law enforcement agencies.

These parents then lobbied and went on mass campaigns to get politicians and various agencies to get something done. Big Tech dragged its feet, so now governments--at their behest--are considering this legislation to ban smartphone sales to kids.

So, this legislation has never been a question, as you put it, of "The Government" thinking it has a responsibility to raise people's kids. The parents were out of options to reign in Big Tech and asked their politicians to step in. Libertarians always like to conveniently leave out the fact that the public pushes for the laws that "The Government" passes, to pretend that The Government exists in a vacuum and consists of an oligarchy that just does what it wants. That's not how legislation works.

What's hysterical about all this righteous indignation and outrage is that in the end, scratch a Libertarian and you get a Neoliberal. Nobody who ever counters legislation designed to reign in corporate abuses based on absolutist takes on "personal responsibility" and "Nanny State" ever really rejects regulations based on philosophical grounds. It's all about the Neoliberal's bottom line. Obviously, people who have a stake in a completely deregulated smartphone and app market are the ones having the biggest cow over this legislation. If a ban like this were put into place, people stand to lose a lot of money.

So, let's cut the fake indignation routine. The only people who are really agitated by these types of proposals are investors and people who have a financial stake in smartphones and the ecosystems they rely on. Banning sales to minors would cause everyone to take a major hit. Just admit it, but stop pretending that this is an ethical issue for you. It's not, and it never was.

So you reckon a massive amount of under 16's bought their own iPhone's and Galaxy's? You reckon none of these parents bought their kids their smartphones? You don't reckon the parents are paying for the monthly bill? And you reckon parents themselves don't have the ability to remove said Smartphone?

 

[themastergoose]

I'm very skeptical about this. How many minors were purchasing their own phone to begin with? Which mobile service providers allow an under 16 to register their own account and using what payment mechanism? Children under 16 are not permitted to work for pay in the UK, no?

Banning _use_ by minors would be a big deal but that doesn't sound like what this proposal is.

As I alluded to further up, you are correct:
- You can not get paid employment here in the UK until you are 16 years of age
- You can't obtain credit or enter into contracts until you are 18 years of age

Those two barriers alone financially stop most under 16's in their tracks, and it's bank of mum and dad to the rescue. As you say, it's not kids buying the phones so this proposal is somewhat pointless.

 

[atomicgirl]

So you reckon a massive amount of under 16's bought their own iPhone's and Galaxy's? You reckon none of these parents bought their kids their smartphones? You don't reckon the parents are paying for the monthly bill? And you reckon parents themselves don't have the ability to remove said Smartphone?

It was always a foregone conclusion that parents bought their children these phones, so why even bring it up? To, once again, make the same argument that the parents lobbying for the banning of smartphones should just sell them, because the "responsibility" falls on them?

Again, this response shows how the reductionism of Libertarianism has kept you from seeing The Big Picture. But as frustrated as I am right now, I'm going to run this entire thing down one more time:

Parents who bought their kids smartphones were sold on this being a harmless device that was just going to be a helpful way to keep tabs on their kids. They didn't sign up for the sheer and utter unmitigated B.S. of Tik Tok, data mining of minors, cyber bullying, doxxing, etc. That came after they had bought these phones.

They held onto them anyway, but with the expectation that either Big Tech or law enforcement would do something about the harm that was being done to kids. But not only were there legal grey areas in terms of kids using technology to harass and stalk each other, Big Tech hid behind them as an excuse to do nothing, as well as Libertarian arguments about "parental responsibility" (see Tik Tok CEO) and "government overreach". So parents' hands were tied.

After years of fruitless efforts, parents then lobbied their leaders to do something and leaders have decided to consider banning smartphones.

The consideration is an attempt to call Big Tech's BLUFF. Big Tech has been refusing to clean up its act in terms of apps and privacy violations regarding children because it would lose money if it did, and it's been doing that by constantly arguing Libertarian talking points like "freedom of speech" and "censorship." Big Tech could only take these arguments so far, so the UK government, as well as others considering this type of ban, are saying in so many words, "Oh, you won't do anything about the complaints from parents, based on arguments about censorship and responsibility when we all know that it's only because putting in measures to protect children would affect your bottom line? Well, you know what would affect your bottom line even worse? If we just banned the sale of smartphones altogether."

That's what this type of legislation amounts to. Big Tech will be forced to make a choice. Either it can lose $1B by making smartphones safe for kids or lose $11B when it can no longer sell to them in a major market like the UK and if the US and Canada follows suit.

This entire issue is never what you and others keep trying to make it out to be, that it's about The Government (Big Gubmint, according to US Libertarians) acting as an independent body of oligarchs just doing what it wants, overstepping boundaries and trying to take over the job of raising anybody's children. This is not reality, no matter how much you feel or want to argue that it is.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

Schools are just day care centers, education is a secondary consideration of at all.

 

[atomicgirl]

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!

This reminds me of this phenomenon in America where those same types scream that The Government needs to stay out of Big Business and let it do whatever it wants. But then when Big Business screws over customers and lays off thousands of workers to increase their bottom line, these same people blame The Government for wrecking the economy.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It was always a foregone conclusion that parents bought their children these phones, so why even bring it up?

Well, because that's the title of the article we're all supposed to be commenting on?

Before you decided ranting, you forgot to read said article perhaps?

All the government is doing here is debating banning the SALE of smartphones to minors - which, as many posters on here have pointed out (and you've agreed with them!) isn't really happening...

So... what's your beef exactly?

 

[Burty117]

Well, because that's the title of the article we're all supposed to be commenting on?

Before you decided ranting, you forgot to read said article perhaps?

All the government is doing here is debating banning the SALE of smartphones to minors - which, as many posters on here have pointed out (and you've agreed with them!) isn't really happening...

So... what's your beef exactly?

I don’t think they have any beef, just not enough brain cells to process the article in its entirety and completely ignoring the meaning of the word “parenting” from what I can tell.

Look at the response I got from asking “if the parents bought the phones, why can’t they take them away”. Absolute garbage response. I’ll just add to my block list I think, makes the comment section easier to read without all that garbage in it.

 

[Endymio]

... those same types scream that The Government needs to stay out of Big Business... But then when Big Business screws over customers and lays off thousands of workers to increase their bottom line, these same people blame The Government for wrecking the economy.

You prefer they stay silent, while the government wrecks the economy? Companies don't lay off workers who are generating profits -- and if a worker isn't doing that, they're not simply hurting "the bottom line", they're dragging down the entire economy as a whole. The end result of your starry-eyed vision is seen in places like the former USSR, where workers toiled away in guaranteed jobs producing shoddy products that no one wished to buy, while store shelves were bare of basic essentials.

 

[mailpup]

Back on topic please. Also, kindly leave out all the personal comments. Thank you.

 

[DukeJukem]

We don't need this type of a law. Far too invasive. Simply make all phones come with a proper parental control app that will limit time in certain apps or completely block them from being used on said phone...like say a tablet can do.

Jesus...not a hard solution to figure out. Gotta actually try to be a parent though in order to enforce those things. Some people are simply too lazy or even cheap to set up free software or pay $5 dollars for something that can lock kids out of certain activities on phones. Worried about what they see on the internet outside of the play store? Use some dns filters or setup some form of blocking in your router.

We don't need the government to parent the parents into not parenting.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Why does everyone keep making the argument about kids buying it for themselves? It would also (ideally) prevent parents buying the phones for their kids or from the carriers from knowingly selling the phone to someone who plans on giving it to their kid.

Yes, it is sad that the government needs to step in and parent kids, but someone has to.

If parents were any good at making responsible choices for their kids, half these friggin nanny state laws wouldn't need to exist in the first place. But anyone can make kids, and most people are either too busy or just don't care to actually raise them.

One silver lining would potentially be a better selection and quality in the feature/dumb phone market. Its slim pickins out there if you are one of the more responsible folks trying to get their kids something basic to phone home with.

 

[brucek]

Why does everyone keep making the argument about kids buying it for themselves? It would also (ideally) prevent parents buying the phones for their kids or from the carriers from knowingly selling the phone to someone who plans on giving it to their kid.

Yes, it is sad that the government needs to step in and parent kids, but someone has to.

If parents were any good at making responsible choices for their kids, half these friggin nanny state laws wouldn't need to exist in the first place. But anyone can make kids, and most people are either too busy or just don't care to actually raise them.

One silver lining would potentially be a better selection and quality in the feature/dumb phone market. Its slim pickins out there if you are one of the more responsible folks trying to get their kids something basic to phone home with.

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

Second Sentence: "In the UK, ministers are considering giving parents more control by banning the sale of the devices to anyone under the age of 16."

The text appears specific that the legislation prevents sales to under 16s. It does not include any text that I saw discussing a prohibition on parents buying them for their children, or on children using devices they've otherwise obtained.

Either TechSpot has misreported the issue, or some commenters are choosing to discuss an alternate reality they find interesting but that is not under actual contemplation or at least is not reported in this article.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

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

Second Sentence: "In the UK, ministers are considering giving parents more control by banning the sale of the devices to anyone under the age of 16."

The text appears specific that the legislation prevents sales to under 16s. It does not include any text that I saw discussing a prohibition on parents buying them for their children, or on children using devices they've otherwise obtained.

Either TechSpot has misreported the issue, or some commenters are choosing to discuss an alternate reality they find interesting but that is not under actual contemplation or at least is not reported in this article.

-Fair point, title is very ambiguously written, but I think the tenor of the conversation lands more around preventing under 16 from owning a phone rather than the technical or procedural elements of how that is accomplished.

If the bill is written as preventing literal direct sales and not "straw" purchases then it's just a poorly written bill regardless of whatever guiding principles might form the foundation.

 

[brucek]

-Fair point, title is very ambiguously written, but I think the tenor of the conversation lands more around preventing under 16 from owning a phone rather than the technical or procedural elements of how that is accomplished.

If the bill is written as preventing literal direct sales and not "straw" purchases then it's just a poorly written bill regardless of whatever guiding principles might form the foundation.

For me, it's the "giving parents more control" part that makes it 100% explicit that the intent is to allow parents to make the decision as to whether their child may have a phone. If the law were outlawing phones for children under 16 there'd be no aspect of control to discuss.

 

[Endymio]

For me, it's the "giving parents more control" part that makes it 100% explicit that the intent is to allow parents to make the decision as to whether their child may have a phone. If the law were outlawing phones for children under 16 there'd be no aspect of control to discuss.

You've all been fooled by bad reporting. There is no law drafted, nor even a specific plan. Some MPs have suggested a total ban on use, others a sales ban, while still others for a measure that would simply mandate the availability of "child versions" of smart phones, which by default block all social media apps. The reality is that any such measure is highly unlikely to take place.

 

[loki1944]

Big deal; kids can focus better without one

 

[Gregtombstone]

At this stage its acknowledged that smart phones and unfettered access to the internet is bad for young people. Apart from the destruction of the attention span due to the way content is delivered we are allowing kids to view the worst of pornography which by and large portrays woman as subservient to the sexual desires of men, often in violent scenarios. The tech companies spend vast sums on psychology to develop their products and services to push your endorphin buttons. Try not looking at your phone next time it pings for an hour. Imagine how young brains are being shaped by the Facebook's , Tictoks etc to just serve there marketing targets. I don't think smartphones should be available to under 16s and they should also be restricted in what they can view online until the age of 18. I had very hands off parents who allowed me to drink from a young age 13, I gave up aged 30 as I realised I had a problem with alcohol. 30 plus years sober I wish they had been stricter, the early introduction did me no favours. 12 year olds watching hard porn will grow up with ****ed up ideas of relationships and I honestly wonder how parents who give kids smartphones can turn a blind eye to this. PS. I agree with Atomic Girl.

 

[Squid Surprise]

At this stage its acknowledged that smart phones and unfettered access to the internet is bad for young people. Apart from the destruction of the attention span due to the way content is delivered we are allowing kids to view the worst of pornography which by and large portrays woman as subservient to the sexual desires of men, often in violent scenarios. The tech companies spend vast sums on psychology to develop their products and services to push your endorphin buttons. Try not looking at your phone next time it pings for an hour. Imagine how young brains are being shaped by the Facebook's , Tictoks etc to just serve there marketing targets. I don't think smartphones should be available to under 16s and they should also be restricted in what they can view online until the age of 18. I had very hands off parents who allowed me to drink from a young age 13, I gave up aged 30 as I realised I had a problem with alcohol. 30 plus years sober I wish they had been stricter, the early introduction did me no favours. 12 year olds watching hard porn will grow up with ****ed up ideas of relationships and I honestly wonder how parents who give kids smartphones can turn a blind eye to this. PS. I agree with Atomic Girl.

So you think the government should ban smartphones to everyone by this logic?

Because regardless of the dubious law being discussed here - that will almost certainly have zero effect anyways - children will still get their hands on smartphones.

Much like television, smartphones are here to stay. If we want to mitigate their dangers, we need to educate children (and adults) on how to use them safely and parents need to ENFORCE smartphone rules with their kids.

 

[Endymio]

So you think the government should ban smartphones to everyone by this logic?

No, just young people. His language was very specific in his post.

Because regardless of the dubious law being discussed here - that will almost certainly have zero effect anyways -- children will still get their hands on smartphones.

Children still get their hands on alcohol, tobacco, and sometimes even heroin and guns. By your logic, we shouldn't waste time on ineffectual laws against such.

we need to educate children (and adults) on how to use them safely and parents need to ENFORCE smartphone rules with their kids.

And when parents don't properly safeguard their children -- what then? If a parent leaves their 9 year old alone in a car while they spend a few hours carousing in a bar, if they leave their 12 year old alone in their apartment while they spend a few days carousing at the beach, we ARREST those parents. So why should the state not step in when parents allow their children unsupervised, unfettered, unlimited access to social media?