Should kids have smartphones?

[Dildo Argentino]

No, but they also don't need to be easier targets for the pedophiles that trawl the internet.  Giving a kid a smartphone does that, among other issues.  I'm not talking about your 17 and 18 year olds, certainly whn a kid gets to an age where they are driving and getting a job, I think there is certainly merit.  But your younger teens and tweens, it seems a little sketchy to me.  Get them just a plain ole cellphone without access to the net so they can still make a call in emergencies, but they don't, IMO, need smartphones.

I think, if told about people with nefarious purposes and the sorts of tactics they employ, 12-year-olds of reasonable intelligence are quite capable of looking out for themselves. And I think "trawling" is a ridiculously strong expression in this context: more like angling, maybe. In my 20-odd years on the internets (and I did hunt far and wide for the weirdness), I've come across maybe 2 sociopaths and half a dozen maybes. Read less sensational media shit, maybe.

As for your opinion, viz. "they don't need smartphones", the thing is, they beg to differ. And when I deny my fellows (let alone my own kids) something they expressly wish for when it is actually within my power to let them have that thing, I sure as hell like to have a good, solid reason. I mean better than OH NOES BECAUSE PAEDOS! Preferably something I actually have a fair chance of explaining to them. Because I don't want my kids to come to think of me as a mean old fuck.

[AFK]

Well, another reason, is that it is another form of recreational screen time.  It's the same reason my daughter doesn't, and won't, have a TV in her room.  Developmentally speaking, it is best for kids to limit their recreational screen time to two hours or less per day.  Kids aren't super good at managing that on their own. 

[Lord Cataplanga]

Preferably something I actually have a fair chance of explaining to them. Because I don't want my kids to come to think of me as a mean old fuck.

The problem with that sort of thing is that there may be a perfectly good justificat¡on for not giving them what they want, but the reason may not be pleasant to explain, or have it explained to you.

For example, a real reason not to give them smartphones is that they are too much fun. That will move their inner hedonic threshold to a point where they find the usual bullshit kids have to do (endless arithmetic problems, boring reading of terrible books) are now intolerable.

But you can't tell them that. We can't even tell ourselves that, sometimes, which is why this argument is often expressed in a more nuanced, positive-sounding way. For example, by romanticizing boredom.

An apprpiate quote by George Orwell, who complained that political speech was too patronizing (get it? because patrionizing comes from the latin pater, which means father, lol).

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.

[AFK]

Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.

The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.

A computer with internet access in the home is a lot easier for parents to monitor than a smartphone which can be used anywhere, anytime. 

[Lord Cataplanga]

Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.

The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.

A computer with internet access in the home is a lot easier for parents to monitor than a smartphone which can be used anywhere, anytime. 

If you are into that sort of thing, I'm sure there must be some way for your children's phones to "report home" with some sort of spyware parental supervision app.

I think the other issue you mentioned (time management) to be a valid concernm though. Is there an app for that?
Seriously, I could use one for myself. Maybe something that won't let me refresh news sites more than once an hour.

[Demolition Squid]

To a certain point, maybe. Parental restrictions are actually pretty good these days, which I'm pretty sure was expressed earlier in the thread, and if your kid is tech savvy enough to get around them, that's a whole different set of issues.

I further doubt many parents are capable of completely monitoring the internet usage of their children. Giving your children the skills to navigate the dangers themselves - which is what Holist is saying above - is far more useful. The internet is currently ubiquitous. Sooner or later, your kid IS going to run into nasty and negative elements of it. Preparing them to deal with that is tough, but when you're talking young teen, almost certainly necessary.

Kind of reminds me of this:

[AFK]

Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.

The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.

A computer with internet access in the home is a lot easier for parents to monitor than a smartphone which can be used anywhere, anytime. 

If you are into that sort of thing, I'm sure there must be some way for your children's phones to "report home" with some sort of spyware parental supervision app.

I think the other issue you mentioned (time management) to be a valid concernm though. Is there an app for that?
Seriously, I could use one for myself. Maybe something that won't let me refresh news sites more than once an hour.

Maybe, I'd rather they just don't have the phone in the first place.  When they get to be driving and working, and "need" a phone, then I would definitely have some mechanism for monitoring how they are using it. 

[Demolition Squid]

... When your kid is old enough to drive you'll still be monitoring exactly where they are and what they are doing?

Jesus christ. 

[AFK]

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm

[Demolition Squid]

Note how none of those pieces of advice include 'place a GPS monitoring device on your child's person'.

My parents always knew where I was. They sometimes called me up on my phone to check (which, in typical adolescent style, I found irritating). They never felt the need to bug me. I'd have freaked out if they did.

[AFK]

Who said anything about bugging them?

[Demolition Squid]

Crossed wires. When the 'report home' function was mentioned, I thought you were saying you'd be using one of the pieces of software which enables a parent to listen in on kid's phone calls and monitor their location. I can see an argument for that with very young kids, but by the time they're 16... yeah, no.

If that's not what you meant, sorry.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

The only good argument against is that smartphones are fkn expensive.

[AFK]

LC mentioned a "report home" function, not me.


But I would monitor their usage of the smartphone, especially if I am paying for it.

[Dildo Argentino]

Combined with the decreasing number of parents that know how to say NO this leads to a generation that is incapable of tolerating frustration. You think the number of man-children around is bad now? hah! just you wait!

Actually, and it's a big actually, I think the problem cuts both ways.

In the 1st world, vanishingly small is the number parents who mostly (discounting occasional mistakes) say no to their children at the appropriate times, in the appropriate manner. This rather rare "best practice" has the following distinguishing characteristics:

1. The parent finds themselves in a position of having to say no on surprisingly infrequent occasions.

2. On most of those occasions, it is appropriate to provide an explanation of the 'no'. Sometimes the explanation is self-evident and doesn't need to be repeated. On even rarer occasions, it is not appropriate to provide an explanation. But in the case of kids trust in our judgement, wear resulting from overuse is quite severe.

3. The 'no' is practically always accepted without much hassle, except for a brief period around the age of three, which is best handled with humour.

On the other hand, a large percentage of parents say 'no' to their kids to often, and for no good reason. This, unsurprisingly, leads to protracted conflict and often ends in trench warfare. This is termed the "generation gap", although it is mostly just bad parenting.

And, especially among those who are so stressed to keep body and soul together that they have little time for their kids (but also quite frequently among those who could do better, which is by far more sinful, although it is usually just passing on the abuse they got when they were kids), a large number of parents never say no to their kids, which is deeply destructive.