Smartphone Ban for Children Under the Age of 16

Health
, ,
1

Proposal for Banning Smartphones for Children Under 16

Introduction:
In an increasingly digital world, the prevalence of smartphones among children has raised significant concerns regarding their impact on mental health, education, bullying, and exposure to inappropriate content. This proposal advocates for a ban on smartphone ownership for individuals under the age of 16, alongside measures to enforce this ban.

Mental Health Effects:
Research indicates a strong correlation between smartphone use and mental health issues among adolescents. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that increased screen time is associated with higher rates of depression and anxiety in young people (Twenge & Campbell, 2018). The constant exposure to social media can lead to feelings of inadequacy and isolation, exacerbating these mental health challenges.

Impact on Education:
Smartphones are often a distraction in educational settings, detracting from students’ focus and engagement. A study from the University of California, Los Angeles, revealed that students who did not use phones in class performed significantly better on tests than their peers who did (Lepp et al., 2015). By limiting smartphone access, we can foster a more conducive learning environment, allowing children to thrive academically.

Bullying Concerns:
Smartphones have also transformed the landscape of bullying, making it easier for negative behaviors to escalate beyond the schoolyard. Cyberbullying, facilitated by social media and messaging apps, affects a significant number of young people. According to a study by the Cyberbullying Research Center, approximately 36% of students have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetime (Hinduja & Patchin, 2020). This form of bullying can have devastating effects on mental health, leading to increased anxiety, depression, and in severe cases, self-harm or suicidal thoughts.

Exposure to Pornography:
The availability of smartphones significantly increases the risk of children encountering pornography. According to a report by the UK Children’s Commissioner, nearly one in three children have been exposed to explicit content online by the age of 12 (Children’s Commissioner, 2019). This exposure can lead to distorted views of relationships and sexuality, impacting their development and understanding of healthy interactions.

Proposed Measures:

  1. Restriction on Purchases: Smartphone carriers should require a valid driver’s license or government-issued ID for the purchase of smartphones. This policy would help ensure that only individuals over the age of 16 can acquire these devices.

  2. Consequences for Parents: Parents who purchase smartphones for their children under 16 should face a reasonable fine of $500 for each offense. This penalty serves as a deterrent and emphasizes the serious nature of this issue, encouraging parents to seek alternative devices that are more age-appropriate.

Conclusion:
Banning smartphones for children under 16 is a necessary step to protect their mental health, enhance educational outcomes, reduce exposure to inappropriate content, and combat bullying. By implementing strict purchasing regulations and holding parents accountable, we can create a safer and healthier environment for our children to grow and develop.

References:

  • Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). “The Age of Anxiety: Birth Cohort, Gender, and Anxiety in a National Sample of Adolescents.” JAMA Psychiatry.
  • Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2015). “The Relationship Between Cell Phone Use and Academic Performance.” Computers in Human Behavior.
  • Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2020). “Cyberbullying Research Center: Cyberbullying.” Cyberbullying Research Center.
  • Children’s Commissioner. (2019). “Growing Up Digital: A Report on Children’s Online Experiences.”
1 Like
2

Banning things shouldn’t be the government’s job. If we ask Trump to ban things we don’t like, that will set a precedent for the government to do that in the future, possibly taking away resources we would like to choose.

The government’s role should be to inform and incentivize. We the people should have the FREEDOM to make informed decisions.

(As a parent, it will be my job to protect my kids from the harmful effects of the internet. But I don’t want the government to get confused and think that it’s their job.)

3

While the intensions of this proposal seem noble, It’s not a practical solution.
it’s in the nature of the device.
Instead of treating phones like firearms, or cars, we should have informed discussions and education on proper phone an internet usage.
Making an age proposal connected with a technology, sets a bad precedence.

Also, I was assigned to read “generation me” by Twenge, in community college, and with all do respect, she really doesn’t understand millennials and younger, though she has positioned herself as some kind of expert.

Instead of regulating the sale of the device, a better proposal is to regulate the development of technology, by asking tech companies to take more responsibility.

This proposal by itself will put the responsibility back onto the people while we should be putting the responsibilities on companies.

Let me give you an example.
I worked for Gilead Sciences a while a go, we all had to go through training to understand the industry. We learned about the levels of approvals and clinical trials, etc, etc. If any adverse effects are detected in any phase, careful consideration and scrutiny is implemented. And maybe it doesn’t get approved, and it doesn’t hit the market.

Technologies should go through similar trials, which we are trying to do, with self driving nd what not.
I come from the video games space, and a well known publisher/ developer(which will remain un named) would go and tell us the players that a project failed because of something we did wrong. Because we the community didn’t fulfill their expectations.

Just imagine Gilead working that way? Geaze?

At the end, technology is a tool, and how we use that tool is up to us, not some kind of government parent, unless you want to live in China.