←back to thread

139 points stubish | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.885s | source | bottom
Show context
hilbert42 ◴[] No.44439416[source]
A resident of said country here. Another questionable measure by Government to protect our mollycoddled, insufficiently-resilient society.

That said, a better approach would be to limit kids under certain age from owning smartphones with full internet access. Instead, they could have a phone without internet access—dumb phones—or ones with curated/limited access.

Personally, I'm not too worried about what risqué stuff they'll see online especially so teenagers (they'll find that one way or other) but it's more about the distraction smartphones cause.

Thinking back to my teenage years I'm almost certain I would have been tempted to waste too much time online when it would have been better for me to be doing homework or playing sport.

It goes without saying that smartphones are designed to be addictive and we need to protect kids more from this addiction than from from bad online content. That's not to say they should have unfettered access to extreme content, they should not.

It seems to me that having access to only filtered IP addresses would be a better solution.

This ill-considerd gut reaction involving the whole community isn't a sensible decision if for no other reason than it allows sites like Google to sap up even more of a user's personal information.

replies(12): >>44439443 #>>44439508 #>>44439898 #>>44440671 #>>44440703 #>>44440989 #>>44441053 #>>44441680 #>>44441756 #>>44443272 #>>44450028 #>>44464625 #
1. frollogaston ◴[] No.44439983[source]
or just don't get them smartphones
replies(1): >>44440125 #
2. pmontra ◴[] No.44440125[source]
Misinformation and propaganda are not only on smartphones.
replies(2): >>44440226 #>>44449892 #
3. fc417fc802 ◴[] No.44440226{3}[source]
Still those do make it awfully easy to subscribe to notifications that actively push all sorts of problematic things onto you at an alarming rate. A high rate of exposure to something can lead to problems where there otherwise wouldn't be any.
4. DiggyJohnson ◴[] No.44440332[source]
> it would suck for the ruling class though because we'd have to stop feeding kids religion

This seems out of place and unrelated. If anything Gen Z and presumable Alpha, eventually, are more religious than their parents.

5. graemep ◴[] No.44441316[source]
> it would suck for the ruling class though because we'd have to stop feeding kids religion

The ruling class in the west are generally extremely anti-religious. They have a good reason to be - the biggest religion in the west is anti-wealth (the "eye of the needle" things etc.) and generally opposed to the values of the powerful.

The US is a sort of exception, but they say things to placate the religious (having already been pretty successful in manipulating and corrupting the religion) but very rarely actually do anything. I very much doubt the president (or anyone else) in the current US government is going to endorse "give all you have to the poor".

6. frollogaston ◴[] No.44449892{3}[source]
This doesn't mean they should have smartphones