Does anybody but me remember when schools banned walkmen? What about portable CD players? Gameboy?
Except none of these things were feeding Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan garbage straight into their highly impressionable skulls.
I, for one, support the banning of phones in schools. The social media addiction has been shown to cause depression, particularly in girls, and the brainwashing is ever more apparent.
If anything, this policy fails by not going far enough. I question whether kids should have access to social media at all before a certain age.
Rush Limbaugh was broadcast on the free radio, you could listen to it on $1 worth of junk parts if you knew what you were doing. The ease of access is not what made republican bigotry accessible or popular.
Sure, but we’re talking about a way different scale. “If you knew what you were doing” being a key word here.
It’s never been easier to come across this garbage when youtube/Instagram/Tiktok comes installed on most phones by default. What’s worse, there have never been so many grifters spewing the same shit.
Back in the day, you might have been able to call Limbaugh an isolated instance of a clear grifter getting paid to spread lies.
Nowadays, the Tate clones are so ubiquitous that it’s hard to point out the flaws in thinking because so many people seem to believe in them. But its just the algorithm feeding you more of the same, over and over.
It was almost the entirety of AM radio for the past 40 years. Sports and this right-wing trash. On in the background at every work place, hardware store, and cafe until Muzac took over. Had that ranting asshole and his friends pumping into our ears wanting it or not. Many areas of the country had only that and Country Music for hours in any direction.
When I said “if you knew what you were doing” I meant you can build an AM receiver out of literal trash with a middle school understanding of electrics but no one bothered because you had one built in to every car, every tape player, boom box, alarm clock, and anything else with a speaker. You had a radio in every room of the house and 2 in the garage even if you never turned it on. There’s no way to believe that phones have less cultural push than AM radio had pre-1990.
There’s no way to believe that phones have less cultural push than AM radio had pre-1990.
I mean, you can believe whatever you want, but the answer is yes there is.
You should watch the series Adolescence, btw. It deals with this exact topic. Its 4 episodes long and it shows how social media and constant connection and more importantly INTERACTION with everyone, has an effect that is fundamentally different from passively listening to AM radio.
And that is the fault of the parents who chose to hand phones to these kids. It is not the fault of the school, nor is it something the school should have to do anything about. (Edit for clarification: what I meant by “so anything about it” was schools aren’t responsible for teaching good and responsible phone use and self control, nor is it their job to step in when the parent is doing their job with teaching these skills).
I’ll also point out the argument that there was a push back then for outlawing video games and violent music because of its effect on young children and regardless of the validity of the danger to kids, it’s still the fault of parents who were allowing their children to listen to that music or play those games. Schools already likely have policies about cell phones, or at the very least policies about confiscating distractions.
You seem to have taken this as not support for banning phones in schools rather than what it really is. A criticism of this method for the deficiencies that it creates without solving the problem or even (more than likely) changing anything about the protocols already in place for handling distractions in schools except potentially creating a worse situation for the administration who have to now be responsible for these items en masse because students and parents are going to ignore this until it hurts them personally.
It also doesn’t teach students anything at all about moderation or the dangers of the internet, nor does it teach them anything about this tech which they will end up having to use as adults. And if you have seen adults with this tech you know it’s not just a danger to kids.
And that is the fault of the parents who chose to hand phones to these kids. It is not the fault of the school, nor is it something the school should have to do anything about
Okay so, because some parents are bad and fail at educating their kids properly, society shouldn’t take a role in correcting that behaviour and instead should just let kids be damaged for life, did I understand you correctly?
I don’t know where you’re from (although I can guess), but here in Europe, and this is an article about France, we recognise the state has a role to fulfill in society, we all pay taxes and expect them to be used for the benefit of all. I don’t see any problems with schools being the enforcers of government legislation in this instance.
Also, everything else you wrote… I mean, it is obvious that your school system is very different from what I’m familiar with. Because yes, it IS the school’s responsibility to make sure that rules are applied properly in their premises, the money/resources necessary to do so are a secondary thought. This shouldn’t be something that needs to be explained, but well, here we are.
So, what (in France I know!) are you getting for said taxes that you were not getting before?
Because that’s exactly what I’m getting at. It is the schools responsibility to enforce the rules. The point is, it’s not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time), it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren’t ringing such distracting material to school. And this means there are already likely protocols in place for distracting material. So what are you getting out of this ban?
it’s not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time),
But it is, actually. Lol. It’s always been. I’ve had my phone taken in class a few times, and it was always returned at the end. It’s really not a big deal.
I don’t know what you mean by “Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech”. Its up to the teachers to keep it for the duration of the classes, and to return them at the end. They don’t need a safe to keep them in. It really isn’t that big a deal.
it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren’t ringing such distracting material to school.
It should be, but again, they aren’t. Which is why the schools must intervene. And it’s not really something they want to do, it is something they have to do, by government mandate.
So when one of these phones start a fire because it’s been improperly kept and the battery has a thermal runaway event?
If the phone is always returned then literally the law does nothing. The phone is being given back to the student? That’s a failure in the implementation of protocol or policy. You can’t use that to claim my argument is invalid because it literally does not make sense in this context.
You still haven’t answered what you are getting at here. These rules have to be enforced either way, so I don’t know why you think complaining your way out of it should even be a factor. It isn’t. Schools need to deal with it, simple as.
Or are you just saying “well, I don’t see how this can be enforced so they might as well not do anything!”?
This is wasteful. It is short sighted. It does not fix or mitigate the problem and makes the problem worse for a lot of reasons that I can detail if you would like (but I doubt that will matter to you at all because you seem to be misunderstanding everything I’ve said).
This can be enforced. It will be detrimental to the school system as a whole. It is not a fix for any of the problems detailed. It doesn’t change anything as far as I can tell and literally nobody has been able to come up with anything to validate what it would change, how it would change it for the better, or why the current rule structure and protocols in schools would benefit from it in any way.
So I’m saying it’s shortsighted and either needs to be reworked, or criminalizing parents allowing their children to bring such materials into schools should be implemented instead.
They trialed 180 schools, forcing the student to hand over or otherwise stow these devices in a place they couldn’t access for the duration of the school day. And they have “evidence” that it helps with the “child well-being, and focus”.
So now they are making it mandatory for all schools? How? What protocols are they putting in place? I’m really curious. The article says nothing. It’s basically a really poorly worded press release.
Are the schools providing a place to house these devices? That would be a liability.
Are the schools banning the devices in the premises? If so, what are they doing with the ones that are going to be confiscated?
Is this law going to hold the parents accountable in any meaningful way (besides the potential inconvenience of having to pick up the phone at the school in person)? If so, that would be the only potentially beneficial part of a law like this.
What does the school do with such contraband? Can they turn it over to an authority like the police? This could also potentially be a beneficial part of making such policy into law. Depends entirely on how it’s implemented.
Why do people always assume criticism is " we should just do nothing? " What is wrong with looking at something and seeing that it might be flawed and speaking up?
What are you even talking about at this point? The article is very clear.
There was a trial where schools were asked to get students to leave their phones in their lockers or in a pouch. The results were positive, so now they are expanding it nationwide. I don’t know what is complicated about this.
Is it gonna be flawless? No, and there probably is room for improvements. But it isn’t wasteful or short-sighted as you claim.
You’d do well to know that most schools in France are public and equipped with lockers, so this isn’t that big of an added expense. Sure, it could be bothersome if teachers have to tell students to leave their phones on their lockers, I guess. But that’s about it. Worst case it will be as it was back in my days, where the teacher kept the phones of the rogue students on his table until the end of classes.
They’ll probably never gonna get everyone. But if they can get even 60% of students to leave their phones in their lockers all day, that’s already a net positive for very little added costs, most of which won’t be monetary unless it’s a school with particularly degraded lockers that must be replaced.
I don’t find it necessary to answer the rest of the rambling. Contraband? Criminalising parents? Lol. Kids lie to their parents all the time, they buy phones behind their backs. Holding parents criminally accountable would be insane.
What’s your point? Are you banning the entire Internet?
All this stuff is still accessible once the bell rings and before they get to school, just like it was when I was a kid. Kids were still going on YouTube/MySpace/ Facebook and more to share things. This argument doesn’t make sense.
You’re attributing the issue of algorithms to the medium itself.
Facebook and YouTube weren’t as good at recommending things back then. It’s not the internet as a whole that’s the problem, it’s what social media has become. Addiction skinner boxes. It’s not ok for kids to grow up using that.
Except none of these things were feeding Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan garbage straight into their highly impressionable skulls.
I, for one, support the banning of phones in schools. The social media addiction has been shown to cause depression, particularly in girls, and the brainwashing is ever more apparent.
If anything, this policy fails by not going far enough. I question whether kids should have access to social media at all before a certain age.
Rush Limbaugh was broadcast on the free radio, you could listen to it on $1 worth of junk parts if you knew what you were doing. The ease of access is not what made republican bigotry accessible or popular.
Sure, but we’re talking about a way different scale. “If you knew what you were doing” being a key word here.
It’s never been easier to come across this garbage when youtube/Instagram/Tiktok comes installed on most phones by default. What’s worse, there have never been so many grifters spewing the same shit.
Back in the day, you might have been able to call Limbaugh an isolated instance of a clear grifter getting paid to spread lies.
Nowadays, the Tate clones are so ubiquitous that it’s hard to point out the flaws in thinking because so many people seem to believe in them. But its just the algorithm feeding you more of the same, over and over.
It was almost the entirety of AM radio for the past 40 years. Sports and this right-wing trash. On in the background at every work place, hardware store, and cafe until Muzac took over. Had that ranting asshole and his friends pumping into our ears wanting it or not. Many areas of the country had only that and Country Music for hours in any direction.
When I said “if you knew what you were doing” I meant you can build an AM receiver out of literal trash with a middle school understanding of electrics but no one bothered because you had one built in to every car, every tape player, boom box, alarm clock, and anything else with a speaker. You had a radio in every room of the house and 2 in the garage even if you never turned it on. There’s no way to believe that phones have less cultural push than AM radio had pre-1990.
I mean, you can believe whatever you want, but the answer is yes there is.
You should watch the series Adolescence, btw. It deals with this exact topic. Its 4 episodes long and it shows how social media and constant connection and more importantly INTERACTION with everyone, has an effect that is fundamentally different from passively listening to AM radio.
Sorry, didn’t pay my Netflix cultural tax this year. Maybe I’ll sail the sees for it.
I highly encourage you to. 🏴☠️
And that is the fault of the parents who chose to hand phones to these kids. It is not the fault of the school, nor is it something the school should have to do anything about. (Edit for clarification: what I meant by “so anything about it” was schools aren’t responsible for teaching good and responsible phone use and self control, nor is it their job to step in when the parent is doing their job with teaching these skills).
I’ll also point out the argument that there was a push back then for outlawing video games and violent music because of its effect on young children and regardless of the validity of the danger to kids, it’s still the fault of parents who were allowing their children to listen to that music or play those games. Schools already likely have policies about cell phones, or at the very least policies about confiscating distractions.
You seem to have taken this as not support for banning phones in schools rather than what it really is. A criticism of this method for the deficiencies that it creates without solving the problem or even (more than likely) changing anything about the protocols already in place for handling distractions in schools except potentially creating a worse situation for the administration who have to now be responsible for these items en masse because students and parents are going to ignore this until it hurts them personally.
It also doesn’t teach students anything at all about moderation or the dangers of the internet, nor does it teach them anything about this tech which they will end up having to use as adults. And if you have seen adults with this tech you know it’s not just a danger to kids.
Okay so, because some parents are bad and fail at educating their kids properly, society shouldn’t take a role in correcting that behaviour and instead should just let kids be damaged for life, did I understand you correctly?
I don’t know where you’re from (although I can guess), but here in Europe, and this is an article about France, we recognise the state has a role to fulfill in society, we all pay taxes and expect them to be used for the benefit of all. I don’t see any problems with schools being the enforcers of government legislation in this instance.
Also, everything else you wrote… I mean, it is obvious that your school system is very different from what I’m familiar with. Because yes, it IS the school’s responsibility to make sure that rules are applied properly in their premises, the money/resources necessary to do so are a secondary thought. This shouldn’t be something that needs to be explained, but well, here we are.
So, what (in France I know!) are you getting for said taxes that you were not getting before?
Because that’s exactly what I’m getting at. It is the schools responsibility to enforce the rules. The point is, it’s not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time), it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren’t ringing such distracting material to school. And this means there are already likely protocols in place for distracting material. So what are you getting out of this ban?
But it is, actually. Lol. It’s always been. I’ve had my phone taken in class a few times, and it was always returned at the end. It’s really not a big deal.
I don’t know what you mean by “Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech”. Its up to the teachers to keep it for the duration of the classes, and to return them at the end. They don’t need a safe to keep them in. It really isn’t that big a deal.
It should be, but again, they aren’t. Which is why the schools must intervene. And it’s not really something they want to do, it is something they have to do, by government mandate.
So when one of these phones start a fire because it’s been improperly kept and the battery has a thermal runaway event?
If the phone is always returned then literally the law does nothing. The phone is being given back to the student? That’s a failure in the implementation of protocol or policy. You can’t use that to claim my argument is invalid because it literally does not make sense in this context.
You still haven’t answered what you are getting at here. These rules have to be enforced either way, so I don’t know why you think complaining your way out of it should even be a factor. It isn’t. Schools need to deal with it, simple as.
Or are you just saying “well, I don’t see how this can be enforced so they might as well not do anything!”?
This is wasteful. It is short sighted. It does not fix or mitigate the problem and makes the problem worse for a lot of reasons that I can detail if you would like (but I doubt that will matter to you at all because you seem to be misunderstanding everything I’ve said).
This can be enforced. It will be detrimental to the school system as a whole. It is not a fix for any of the problems detailed. It doesn’t change anything as far as I can tell and literally nobody has been able to come up with anything to validate what it would change, how it would change it for the better, or why the current rule structure and protocols in schools would benefit from it in any way.
So I’m saying it’s shortsighted and either needs to be reworked, or criminalizing parents allowing their children to bring such materials into schools should be implemented instead.
They trialed 180 schools, forcing the student to hand over or otherwise stow these devices in a place they couldn’t access for the duration of the school day. And they have “evidence” that it helps with the “child well-being, and focus”.
So now they are making it mandatory for all schools? How? What protocols are they putting in place? I’m really curious. The article says nothing. It’s basically a really poorly worded press release.
Are the schools providing a place to house these devices? That would be a liability.
Are the schools banning the devices in the premises? If so, what are they doing with the ones that are going to be confiscated?
Is this law going to hold the parents accountable in any meaningful way (besides the potential inconvenience of having to pick up the phone at the school in person)? If so, that would be the only potentially beneficial part of a law like this.
What does the school do with such contraband? Can they turn it over to an authority like the police? This could also potentially be a beneficial part of making such policy into law. Depends entirely on how it’s implemented.
Why do people always assume criticism is " we should just do nothing? " What is wrong with looking at something and seeing that it might be flawed and speaking up?
What are you even talking about at this point? The article is very clear.
There was a trial where schools were asked to get students to leave their phones in their lockers or in a pouch. The results were positive, so now they are expanding it nationwide. I don’t know what is complicated about this.
Is it gonna be flawless? No, and there probably is room for improvements. But it isn’t wasteful or short-sighted as you claim.
You’d do well to know that most schools in France are public and equipped with lockers, so this isn’t that big of an added expense. Sure, it could be bothersome if teachers have to tell students to leave their phones on their lockers, I guess. But that’s about it. Worst case it will be as it was back in my days, where the teacher kept the phones of the rogue students on his table until the end of classes.
They’ll probably never gonna get everyone. But if they can get even 60% of students to leave their phones in their lockers all day, that’s already a net positive for very little added costs, most of which won’t be monetary unless it’s a school with particularly degraded lockers that must be replaced.
I don’t find it necessary to answer the rest of the rambling. Contraband? Criminalising parents? Lol. Kids lie to their parents all the time, they buy phones behind their backs. Holding parents criminally accountable would be insane.
What’s your point? Are you banning the entire Internet?
All this stuff is still accessible once the bell rings and before they get to school, just like it was when I was a kid. Kids were still going on YouTube/MySpace/ Facebook and more to share things. This argument doesn’t make sense.
You’re attributing the issue of algorithms to the medium itself.
Facebook and YouTube weren’t as good at recommending things back then. It’s not the internet as a whole that’s the problem, it’s what social media has become. Addiction skinner boxes. It’s not ok for kids to grow up using that.