Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones United States

A Colorado Group Wants To Ban Smartphones For Kids (apnews.com) 389

An anonymous reader quotes the AP: Colorado officials have cleared the language of a proposed ballot measure that would establish the nation's first legal limits on buying smartphones for children. Backers of the move to forbid the sale of smartphones to children younger than 13 would now need about 300,000 voter signatures for the proposal to make the 2018 ballot. The ban would require cellphone retailers to ask customers about the age of the primary user of a smartphone and submit monthly reports to the Colorado Department of Revenue on adhering to the requirement. Retailers who sell a phone for use by a youngster could be fined $500, after a warning.
A Denver-area dad is leading the campaign -- a board certified anesthesiologist who says children change when they get a cellphone. "They go from being outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy, to reclusive. They want to spend all their time in their room. They lose interest in outside activities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Colorado Group Wants To Ban Smartphones For Kids

Comments Filter:
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:38AM (#54645273)

    easy to clip this on to a bill banning burner phones then to just go for a age ban.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:44AM (#54645305)

      Is there any actual evidence that phones are bad for kids?

      My kids got phones when they were 8. We can find them if they get lost, it makes it easy to coordinate pickups. It gives us more freedom to let them go and do what they want, since they can call if they get in situation they can't handle. In fact, we don't let them leave home without their phones. I don't see the downside. I don't think I need an anesthesiologist to tell me how to raise my kids.

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:47AM (#54645313) Journal
        Was a Low-Tech Parent (Sept. 10, 2014) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0... [nytimes.com]
        • by Beau1080p ( 4928265 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:32AM (#54645405)
          The thinking is that technology interferes with creativity and young minds learn best through movement, hands-on tasks, and human-to-human interaction. Take for instance Waldorf schools. Students at these schools are gaining math, patterning, and problem-solving skills by knitting socks. They aren’t exposed to fractions through a computer program. Instead they learn about halves and quarters by cutting up food. Sounds a bit like summer camp? Well, yes, but parents in Los Altos and at over 150 similar schools across the country say the Waldorf method works and they’re sending their kids to top colleges, from Oberlin to Berkeley. That's my five-and-one-half-cents!
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            parents in Los Altos and at over 150 similar schools across the country say the Waldorf method works

            Can you cite any actual evidence that they are right?

          • I'm totally not pro computer/smartphone for kids. But I doubt that Waldorf schools are much better than ordinary schools (at least here in Germany). If you draw such a conclusion, you must control for other differences, e.g., having wealthier parents and probably other stuff.

            • by enjar ( 249223 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:27PM (#54649555) Homepage
              I checked the website of the Waldorf schools in my (US) state. Preschool is $17K/yr, K-8 is $23K/yr, 9-12 is $29K/yr. There is some "tuition help" listed, but only up to 50% off for those who qualify. These schools are in some of the most affluent areas of my state, with real estate prices regularly flirting with $1M+ for pretty "normal" houses. They also have some of the best public schools in the state. So yeah, at least in my area, anyone who attends Waldorf school is going to be self-selected as someone who can not only afford to live in the most expensive towns but above that has enough income to spend ~$25K (or n*$25k/yr if there are siblings) to send their kids to school. I'm willing to bet these kids would be "successful" no matter what, since their family has access to wealth and resources that aren't available to quite literally the other 99% of society.
          • Yes, involving the whole body in learning is far better than squeezing all input through a 3.5" screen, and all output through the thumbs.

            However, parents in Los Altos can afford Oberlin to Berkeley- that's my 2 cents in change.

          • Not having any children I don't have any input on the best method to educate them but it sounds a lot like the best programming language wars. Whatever the merits or pitfalls of a particular language (or method) ultimately what differentiates a good coder vs a bad one, is not their choice of programing language but rather the time and effort the programer dedicated to the mastery of their skills
      • by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:56AM (#54645627) Homepage Journal
        Of course there is plenty of evidence. The same evidence that proved that having computers in their bedrooms was destroying their future. Like all the crap we get fed it is always based on a few anecdotal cases that we are expected to believe are automatically the rule in every case.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by MangoCats ( 2757129 )

          Hey, we elected a senile spray-tan with a toupee (or at least a very convincing imitation of one), why not vote for some more "common sense" conservatism?

      • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:10AM (#54645647)

        Is there any actual evidence that phones are bad for kids?

        They aren't trying to ban cellular telephones for kids, they are trying to ban smartphones for kids. The important difference here is that one is a telephonic communications device and one is a small computer. The reason this matters is because it's the applications that engineered to maximize user interaction using neuroscience. This can lead to very real addictions regardless of age in a similar fashion to gambling addiction. Are there adults that are addicted to their smartphones? Most definitely.

        I'm not arguing in favor of the ban, I'm just answering your question.

      • by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @05:47AM (#54646015)

        "They go from being outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy, to reclusive. They want to spend all their time in their room. They lose interest in outside activities."

        Of course there's evidence of this, it just changes every couple of years. Previous candidates: Heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons, [...] stamp collecting, trading cards, [...] Morris Dancing, [...] cave painting [...] banging rocks together. I've left out a few hundred of them just to save space.

        • Argle Bargle, that was an excellent arglebargle. Made me laugh. I agree.

          Morris Dancing? I found this: Bad rap for morris dancing [smh.com.au]

          Quote from below [slashdot.org], edited: "Radio in the 1940s, TV in the 60s, D&D in the 80s... There has never been a shortage of parents who didn't understand new technology and needed a scapegoat to blame their bad parenting on."
        • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @09:54AM (#54646963)

          Of course there's evidence of this, it just changes every couple of years. Previous candidates: Heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons, [...] stamp collecting, trading cards, [...] Morris Dancing, [...] cave painting [...] banging rocks together. I've left out a few hundred of them just to save space.

          I was the victim of Morris Dancing addiction. My basement was filled with Hurdy Gurdys and thrift shop flower Garlands. I sold my body on the streets to buy an accordion I abandoned and rejected family and friends. I was on a downward spiral that would only end with my demise. Damn those Morrisites and their fancy geegaws and velocipedes.

          Then I bought a smartphone, and kicked my addiction on facebook. Type yes if you agree.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Every kid pre cell phones had the freedom to go where they wanted and do what they want. My mom used to tell me to be back when the street lights came on and off I went on my bike. No cell phone. You need to stop being a helicopter parent and let your children be children.

        • Don't blame the parents. Parents who try to do what you say (let their kids roam around unsupervised) are derided as "free range parents" and get arrested by the cops, and their kids seized by CPS due to "negligence".

      • The board certified anesthesiologist may be missing the point: these kids who no longer appear outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy to him may be not reclusive at all, but instead finding a wider world through their phone connection to it.

        Same thing happened to teenagers who got cars in the 1950s, they used to be around the house doing homework, chores, going to bed on time, etc. and suddenly they're always gone, hanging out with new people at all hours doing god-knows-what.

        Not saying that

        • But the 50s car kids still appeared outgoing, energetic, etc. We've known for a while that social media depresses people, so that's probably what is going on with smartphone usage.
    • Sounds like kids could still use dumb phones (including most burner phones) to make calls and send/receive texts? The issue seems to be access to the Internet? I can see benefits to little Bobbie being able to tell mom where he/she ended up after the school bus broke down. Not owning a smartphone myself, I have no idea what evil influences smartphones expose pre-teens to.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:41AM (#54645281)

    sounds like the guy who came up with this should grow some balls and put his foot down and say no to his kids instead of relying on the government to make a law so he can have an excuse

    • by duke_cheetah2003 ( 862933 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:26AM (#54645671) Homepage

      sounds like the guy who came up with this should grow some balls and put his foot down and say no to his kids instead of relying on the government to make a law so he can have an excuse

      This. I'm not for legislating parenting techniques. If smartphones are causing kids to become reclusive, then educate the public about it. No need for a ban. Just teach parents that smartphone use for children needs to be monitored and limited. I personally believe it should be limited like any other electronic entertainment, like television, video games, and computers. But a law? No.

      • by MangoCats ( 2757129 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @06:56AM (#54646155)

        I personally believe it should be limited like any other electronic entertainment, like television, video games, and computers. But a law? No.

        Gambling, prostitution, (paper) porn, alcohol, and any number of other "strongly motivating" forces in this world have been legally restricted "for the good of the nation." There is a significant segment of the population that simply can't deal with easy access to things that provide them a strong dopamine reward. Do cell phones fit this category? For some, yes.

        Do we need a law? No more than we need laws for gambling, prostitution, cocaine, heroin, etc. Probably more mature and effective to provide education, counseling and easy access treatment programs, but that doesn't seem to be the American way.

    • Because he can't control your kids without the government, and he's not satisfied just being the voice of the past to his own.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      I think a law isn't a workable idea at all, but I suspect part of the reason he wants a law is to mitigate the side effects of telling your kid "no" while many other kids get "yes" and now your kid is on the outside, not sharing in electronic communication.

      My son is 12 and we haven't given him a phone, but we know parents who gave their kids phones at 9 or 10 and the number of his peers with phones has grown as he's entered middle school.

      We have a group of 4 families that socialize together. One of the fam

      • I think a law isn't a workable idea at all, but I suspect part of the reason he wants a law is to mitigate the side effects of telling your kid "no" while many other kids get "yes" and now your kid is on the outside, not sharing in electronic communication.

        The problem is that this guy is, well... he's a piece of shit. We know he's a piece of shit because his answer to "this is hard" is "make a law that affects everyone and will cost money and will be abused". You know what the solution is to parents who don't want to be perceived as the bad guys, so they won't parent unless there's a law to back them up? It's for them to grow some fucking courage, because raising children is not a job for cowards who need other people to do their job for them.

        If you want your

        • by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @08:02AM (#54646401)

          I think your oversell the power of parenting in social situations. I can't run my son's social life for him in school, and if some large plurality of kids have smartphones and now he's excluded from a lot of social activity because he literally can't participate in it, now I have to deal with the fallout at home.

          It's been manageable thusfar, but the writing is on the wall. We already hear complaints about not being able to spend time with other kids because activities are arranged via text or snapchat or whatever. I think up to now, it's largely been a positive because he's not had a chance to be an impulsive 12 year old via electronic communication, but eventually I also don't want my kid to feel like he has no social connections, either.

          Parents make a million and one mistakes parenting. If it was easy and if we all had ideal role models (ie, our own parents), then everyone would be perfect. But it's not easy, every kid is different and our role models are as flawed as we are.

          The guy's law is entirely non-workable for so many reasons, but I at least see where he's coming from.

  • My daughter's phone has helped her be more outgoing, she rides the bus downtown knowing she can call in help if she gets stuck, she communicates among her friends and arranges outings. There is good and bad in the cell phone usage but she's not glued to the phone playing games incessantly.
  • Amazingly... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:52AM (#54645325)
    Perhaps kids still are outgoing, energetic, and interested in the world. Just through the portal of their phone, through which they can learn about literally anything and come into contact with billions of people around the planet. As opposed to just being able to learn about things around them and meet only people nearby.
    • Re:Amazingly... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @04:39AM (#54645833)

      Or perhaps kids all turn into social recluses at some point during their cycle and the guy just happened to have bought his kid a smartphone when that happened.

      I remember spending lots of my time in my room, reading books, listening to music, making music. I didn't have a smartphone growing up.

    • by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

      How about this: Perhaps it's a matter of finally having found like-minded people who they feel understand their issues much better than they feel the people in their immediate surroundings do.

      I remember how liberating it was when I found IRC back then. Finally I had found people sharing my interests instead of people at best being completely bored by them.

      Sure, to my parents it looked like I was wasting my time in front of a screen but personality-wise I felt better than I had in years.

      Perhaps this is just

  • So... (Score:4, Funny)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedyNO@SPAMtpno-co.org> on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:13AM (#54645365) Homepage

    ...this presumably highly intelligent anesthesiologist discovered "teenagers".

  • Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yorgasor ( 109984 ) <ron.tritechs@net> on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:19AM (#54645377) Homepage

    Just what we need, more of the government telling us how to raise our kids. I personally haven't given my kids smartphones until they were 15. But I can certainly see circumstances other people might have in giving their kids smartphones and everyone's circumstances are different. Just because it may be a bad idea in general, doesn't mean it's a bad for everyone. Keep the decision making in the hands of those who know the kids and their circumstances best.

    • Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:00AM (#54645633) Homepage Journal
      My son had a PC in his room when he was about 9. In retrospect I know think that was too early and I do not think it was a great idea. I feel much the same about smart phones but do I think we should have legislation? HELL NO. I think there should be more rational advice and people should think more about human interaction with their children but this is not something to waste police time over. We need less police interaction. Children should never be involved with the law over something so trivial.
      • Your kid may disagree. I had my first computer when I was 10. Best (ok, actually, the only good) decision my dad ever made for me.

    • Just what we need, more of the government telling us how to raise our kids.

      The problem is: the government does the will of the people (before the crazies come in, corporations are people remember ;-) ), combined with: the squeaky wheel gets the most oil.

      It's these nutter do-gooders who think they speak for the rest of us, and worse they actually speak to people who matter and people who are relevant in affecting the rest of us. I remember in my city some parent's toddler died when falling into the swimming pool. Sad story, parent didn't protect their child. Well several years and

  • Great Idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Madalik ( 4932483 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:23AM (#54645387)
    You ever see a kid with books, they spend their time reading instead of playing outside and socializing. We should ban children from reading so we can have better adjusted children.
    • You described me when I was a kid.
      I never enjoyed playing those stupid games kids used to play when I was young. Some were okay but most did not interest me. So I kept reading books, draining the local library.
      Amazingly, that didn't turn me into a weirdo. Granted, I have less friends than the average, but those who are my friends easily qualify as "best friends".

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I know you're being sarcastic, but there was quite an outcry about novels when they first came out. It was time better spent learning a skill or trade. All those classic pieces of literature foisted on our youth by English teachers around the country were once considered worthless distractions. In fact a significant portion of great works of literature were hated in their day.

      The problem is, take kids away from their phones and then in 10 years watch all the bellyaching that these young adults don't know ho

  • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:30AM (#54645401)

    I have no plans to give my daughter, or any future children of mine, a smartphone. Ever*. I already limit iPad time (it's mine, not hers), because I want her to remain interested in other things. But, I don't need any government, or even other parents, telling me how to raise my children.

    * my position is that when she can afford it, she can buy it. She's not banned from having one; she's just not going to get it from me.

    • I bet she's already stealing pocket change from you,

    • Actually, cell phones can be locked down to only call/text parents and family members, parent pre-approved friends, and emergency numbers if need be. Plus, they can be used to locate your kid with GPS. And your carrier (AT&T for instance) can also supply you with an archive of the texts it sent and received. They don't need to have games on them or anything else on them. As a parent, you're the one in control, you just need to do your research.

      And if coordinating pickups ever becomes an issue, giving yo

    • I think the local school board should be allowed to ban smart phone use while on school grounds, and whoever has the authority could ban them in.. say courtrooms.

      Of course the State should stay out of it.

      However these people that say smartphones "obviously" dont have a negative effect on children havent been paying attention to college campuses. Something fucked up a bunch of kids, and if its not the smartphones then ... what?
  • https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2017_2018_initiative_29_initial_fiscal_impact_statement.pdf [colorado.gov]

    A smartphone, which the measure distinguishes from a cellular phone, means a mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a personal computer

    That would encompass even the dumbest phone from 10 years ago.

  • Dunno about a law.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:16AM (#54645519) Journal
    ..but I think smartphones aren't all that great anyway. When some people get so wrapped up in whatever they're looking at on their smartphone that they literally bump into you walking down the street (or into a stationary object, or walk out into traffic, etc), then you have to wonder if they're being misused. Then there's the complete lack of security; any given smartphone, regardless of manufacturer, could be infected with malware, and the owner of the phone might never know about it, even if they never went to any risky URLs, never opened a suspicious email, and never clicked a dubious link. Then there's the fact that your smartphone might have malware baked right into the firmware from the factory. Meanwhile you're paying a premium every month just to have it connected to your wireless companys' network. Think about it: we live in a world where there are people right now who'd rather text each other than talk, even if they're in the same room. Does that seem right? It's easy for someone to say "well, it's a communication tool, I use it to stay in touch with people, and I can research things on the internet, and I can pull up a map to find where I need to go", but when people have their eyes glued to it practically every waking moment? Despite being told not to people are using their smartphones in theatres, and despite hefty fines and risk of being killed in an accident, people are constantly screwing around with their phones while they're driving. Doesn't it really sound like this 'useful' communications tool is being heavily abused to the point where it's more of a nuisance than it is a tool? Let's not even get started on the stories about people who have had thousands (and TENS of thousands) of dollars charged to them because their kids bought things in games or online on their phones..

    I don't have a smartphone. I can't justify the expense of the hardware or the monthly connectivity cost, and I especially can't justify carrying around something so incapable of being secured properly against intrusion and against malware infection. Nor do I care to carry around an electronic leash that allows anyone with access to know precisely where I am and perhaps even listen in on what I'm doing or turn on the camera and see what I'm doing. The so-called 'benefits' of the connectivity and processing capabilities are just not anywhere near sufficient to mitigate all the expense and all the problems and deficiencies associated with it. Now we find that perhaps the technology itself, because of how it's misused, overused, and abused, is potentially destructive to kids. Really makes me wonder what it is we've allowed to be done to us.
    • So because you don't enjoy it, there must be something sinful about it?
    • by duke_cheetah2003 ( 862933 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:40AM (#54645715) Homepage

      I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Smartphones are fantastic devices, a nearly full featured PC in your pocket? You gotta be insane so say these things are not one of man's greatest inventions.

      Where we do agree is the use of them. If you have look at your cell phone every 5 minutes, there's a problem. It's not really the technology, it's the user. Supply this same person any addictive substance that's illegal, and I'm pretty sure you're going to have a drug addict in very little time.

      Me personally, I find my pocket computer makes my life a lot easier. It can amuse me while I'm on the shitter. It's absolutely invaluable when travelling. The maps, GPS and route planning alone make it wonderful. And if you break down, well, you can call for help. I really could go on and on about how nifty these devices are, just as you've gone on and on about how they're used inappropriately and irresponsibly. Like many of our other great inventions, it is both good and evil simultaneously, depending on the human using it.

      • Guns don't kill people, people kill people

        That's essentially the point you're making, and make no mistake about it: I actually agree with you. The technology itself is not 'evil' or even 'bad' or 'wrong', but I do feel it's being misused and abused by too many people, and corporations are leveraging the technology in ways that is encouraging people to abuse the technology; smartphones are being an enabler of too many people's bad habits and tendencies. That's where the problem is, and just like the texting-while-driving problem, it seems that nothi

    • If you're willing to do the research, you can lock down a cell phone for your kid.

      If you're worried about privacy, you can put your phone in a Faraday envelope. And no, it doesn't need to have its data-enabled. It's just nice to have a cell phone in a case of emergency (even just a dumb flip phone), or in case you're meeting someone and that person is not there or late.

    • They are a pick pockets wet dream
  • I'm not aware how anesthesiology is related to smartphones and/or children. This sounds more like he's failed as a parent, or that his kids are turning out indoorsy (just like he did, being a doctor and all).

    Anyway, he seems to be at a certain age where he's willing to get his knickers in a twist like he had menopause, which is weird for a guy.

  • by TheOuterLinux ( 4778741 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:25AM (#54645545)
    I guess 13 year olds magically have money and cars now to go to the store and buy smart phones. Oh wait, they don't. If you can't tell them no, then you tell them hell no. You're not their friend, you're their parent. Now regarding the burner phone slipping into a Bill idea mentioned, that's an actual possibility when retailers have to ask who you're buying the phone for. They make you show a drivers license for phones that have no contracts like Straighttalk, and that eliminates the point of the phone for some people. Your name is now associated with the device. Though, this may encourage more "dumb" phones in the market which will ironically be a much better burner phone.
    • And it would give bums a new source of income, buying phones for kids.

      Creating jobs for homeless and unemployables, that's so American, it makes me smile.

    • I guess 13 year olds magically have money and cars now to go to the store and buy smart phones.

      You can get a smartphone from K-Mart for forty bucks or less. Kids can come up with forty bucks in a variety of ways, several of which you won't like.

  • Parents want to keep an eye on their kids. That used to be easy. Now, though? The kids interactions are largely digital, staying shut up in their room or curled up on the couch with a phone. They could be studying hard, taking advantage of that little device that gives them access to the sum of all human knowledge. Or they could be arguing with people. Or wasting their time collecting meme images about cats. Or looking at porn - because, sorry parents, but sexual curiosity is not a switch that flips upon th

  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:48AM (#54645611) Homepage Journal
    IIRC they beefed up the requirements for a constitutional amendment last year, and I'd be surprised if that gets enough signatures to get on the ballot, much less get approved by the voters. This sort of busybody legislation traditionally doesn't go anywhere and this story wouldn't be news until it at least ends up on the ballot, except that it's clickbaity enough to get a lot of clicks.
  • Are under 13 yo's going out and signing phone contracts?
  • Ever heard of a certain app called Pokemon Go?
    • Oh yes. It causes young smartphone-zombies to appear at seemingly random locations in small groups. While these kids are technically located "outside", these digital lemmings do not in any way interact with the real world.
  • by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @05:58AM (#54646033)

    "They go from being outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy, to reclusive. They want to spend all their time in their room. They lose interest in outside activities."

    Sure they haven't just discovered porn?

  • 'Those darned teenagers! Spending hour after hour on the phone!

    • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @08:04AM (#54646411)

      'Those darned teenagers! Spending hour after hour on the phone!

      What happens to human interaction when a virtual conversation with a bot is determined to be better than any real one?

      What happens to companionship and procreation when machines and virtual realities can pleasure us better than a human alternative, and without the risk of dying prematurely from a world running rampant with STDs?

      What happens to human employment and education when automation and AI become good enough to destroy it?

      What happens to critical thinking and educating humans when the concept of employment and monetary reward is no longer viable?

      As you dismiss these concepts, are you certain this technology is still "waaaay far away", or merely a couple of decades? 20 years ago you were still using a modem to dial

      up to the internet. Compare that to what you can do today, from a wireless smartphone.

      The next iterations of "advancement" are quite a bit different, and is not something we are readily prepared for, so perhaps you can stop clutching your pearls now. Ancient analogies likely won't apply.

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @07:37AM (#54646285)

    "humans change when they get a cellphone. "They go from being outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy, to reclusive. They want to spend all their time in their room. They lose interest in outside activities."

    Not sure why in the hell we're being rather ignorant as to the real impact of these devices, as the adult is reduced to emulating ancient cavemen, communicating with emojis scribbled on a (digital) wall in a society that champions reclusive Netflix binge sessions.

    And to clarify, kids are interested in a world; it just happens to be a digital one. They become social media addicts striving to be the greatest narcissist in the universe, broadcasting their every move to the entire planet. "Outside activities" are not what is rewarded in this world anymore. How many friends, clicks, and likes you can amass every day is what is rewarded. Parents, if you're wondering where they got this from or how to curb it, remember that kids learn from their environment.

  • by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @08:51AM (#54646609)

    When will people stop trying to pass laws to force their beliefs into others and stop trying to rely on the government to spread some sort of religious (based on belief) message?

    I mean, really, how people can be this stupid? As far as I know, being a "board certified anesthesiologist" does not qualify you to pass laws based on whatever crap you believe without any proof. And even if he had any proof, trying to pass a law would not be the way to go - this is the competence of regulatory bodies. The fact that he's not going through proper procedures already shows how biased the whole thing is.

    This is no different than the crap about violent games, TV, rock music, or that damn subversive literature that is destroying our kids.
    And in the end, it's just a fucking waste of time. Like any retailer would ever submit a report that automagically forces them to pay a $500 fine. Most kids will get their parents' old smartphones and tablets anyways, and if any parent wanted to buy a smartphone or tablet for their kids they'd just purchase one for themselves and then hand it over. Fucking waste of time and energy. This is literally the will someone please think of the children crap.

  • by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @08:53AM (#54646625)

    Here's hoping this takes the same path as light drinking before driving. Now it's the childred; soon it'll be the adults too. Anyone else here spend an hour every day just waiting for people to finish their sentences across a pause to look at a smartphone for no good reason?

    • Here's hoping this takes the same path as light drinking before driving. Now it's the childred; soon it'll be the adults too. Anyone else here spend an hour every day just waiting for people to finish their sentences across a pause to look at a smartphone for no good reason?

      As long as the cellphone exists, I'll own one. And use it.

      However, with that said, if I could "uninvent" any technology on the planet it would be the cell phone. No reason being the only person on the planet not using one, but it sure as hell has had more negative impacts on society than positive ones.

      I think for an individual, owning a smart phone is a good beneficial thing. For society, everyone owning smart phones is a bad thing.

      Be it texting and driving, you can't have a gathering of people without e

Digital circuits are made from analog parts. -- Don Vonada

Working...