Smartphone ban for under 14`s ?

[stevec67]

. But I believe media reporting strategies and public perception of crime levels are linked, despite the truth of the matter.

Absolutely, and there is a lot that isn't talked about because it's not in the public interest. Every week there are drug related shootings in all the big cities cross the UK, when did you last hear of one? You didn't. This is because it's (awful police term) a "scum on scum" killing and nobody not concerned with the trade of illegal drugs needs to know. The police don't much care because one dead drug dealer is one fewer piece of sh*t to arrest. If they allowed the press to report them all there would be a public outcry at the levels of violence. So they don't. It's only when it spills over into the wider population, such as in the awful case of the murder of Olivia Korbel-Pratt, the little girl in Liverpool, not so long ago, by a gunman who was trying to murder another drug dealer and couldn't shoot straight.
So yes, there is "management" of the public perception. I suspect that the current fear of crime directed against children is driven by media attention, largely because gruesome stories sell papers (or these days clicks) and it's probably in the public interest to have children at home wrapped in cotton wool. I know, from the stories I hear, that the "scum on scum" killings are suppressed.

 

[narabdela]

But I believe media reporting strategies and public perception of crime levels are linked, despite the truth of the matter.

Indeed. Since when did the truth matter?

 

[awkwardbydesign]

My 82yr old parents, who spend hours each day locked into the mainstream TV news streams, unsurprisingly decided the world had become much more dangerous a place to live compared to when they were younger. Being a believer that modern day media bigs up danger as it increases their revenue I decided to go after some facts.

I have hitch-hiked since I ran away from home aged about ten, the most recent time a couple of years ago, aged 73. It's very rare to see anyone doing it, and only older drivers seem to pick up hitch-hikers. Why? Almost everyone I have spoken to seems to think they are all axe murderers, which is something the media has loved to suggest. And in this case it is the younger drivers who seem to believe it. It is not just older people who become frightened, there seems to be a generation (or two) now of the very timid.

 

[Jamie]

As the joke goes...

Picked up a hitchhiker, seemed like a nice guy. He joked and asked me if I might be worried that he might be a serial killer? I told him I wasn't worried in the least, the odds of two serial killers in the same car would be exceedingly rare.

 

[RJohan]

I have hitch-hiked since I ran away from home aged about ten, the most recent time a couple of years ago, aged 73. It's very rare to see anyone doing it, and only older drivers seem to pick up hitch-hikers. Why? Almost everyone I have spoken to seems to think they are all axe murderers, which is something the media has loved to suggest. And in this case it is the younger drivers who seem to believe it. It is not just older people who become frightened, there seems to be a generation (or two) now of the very timid.

How far did you come?

It was ages ago I saw any hitch-hikers, it was common in the good old days.

 

[awkwardbydesign]

How far did you come?

It was ages ago I saw any hitch-hikers, it was common in the good old days.

Letchworth to London, about 30 miles. My parents didn't have phone, or a car, so I suppose the police returned me. The furthest I ever hitch-hiked was England to the south of Spain.

 

[gez]

Apart from the issue of online bullying, which is almost exclusively conducted by children on children. I do believe their is a reasonable argument to having children having their own internet that adults and adult content don't exist on. It's not totally unfeasible to have childrens SIMs segregated at point of access and thus only have access to an isolated child safe internet. Obviously all adult SIMs would be unable to access this internet*.

Such a segregation would also remove much of the argument against against having an open and liberal internet for adults. As a large part of the argument that governments have against such is that it puts children in harms way, or at least means children have the potential to access content that is harmful to them.

Obviously, we would have to accept that at point of sale of a SIM a legal adult would be required to provide ID for their child as well as their own. Not that in fact that is any different from today in the UK, it's already supposed to be a requirement of purchasing a SIM that you provide some form of personal information. So that any illegal activity on that SIM can be pinned on an individual. Obviously, illegal content (however that's defined by individual states) would still be policed etc.

*The technology of network segregation and access control has been available for a long time now.

 

[gez]

It‘s not the smartphones that are the problem, it’s the apps upon them. Tiktok, FB, Snapchat, their sole purpose is to get a child’s attention and hold it, so advertisers can get their ads in front of them.

Then there’s the apparent lack of restriction on what’s allowed through. they leave it to us (parents) to restrict what’s restricted and what isn’t. Those that aren’t tech savvy have problems with restricting the crap that gets through. Yes there are iPhone limits, but I have bought something called a Firewalla, which sits on my network and I can restrict what goes to each device on the network, I can restrict individual websites, as well as ports, at all times, or at specific times. So that is helpful.

Too much screen time for any of my children always results in either anger or a depressive, exhaustive state. So it has to be governed.

They (schools) don’t want to ban smartphones, they want to ban their use in the time they’ve been allocated to educate our young people. I totally agree with that. Anyone here tried homeschooling whilst at home during Covid with either a TV on in the background, or an iPad playing?? It’s impossible, their distraction is guaranteed.

whilst writing this, I have two kids in another room, one playing on a PS5, one building a castle on Roblox. when I’ve finished this post it’s my job to go and get them off their screens and outside instead… They would if left alone, pick up a screen rather than a ball and go outside and play, yes sadly that’s true, I think most would… The timing on the software is so well executed and timed to retain their attention that billions gets spent on development a year, and they are building a database of u10’s behaviour, from the time they pick up a device and demand a login.

if I could totally ban screentime on apps and social networking in my house, I would (and Firewalla has allowed me to do this). I think that a few generations of kids will be harmed incredibly by these devices. I was invited to the funeral of a 12 year old this week, … suicide. How ****ed up is that.

Check out OpenDNS. It's not perfect but it can help. That said, it might be a bit tricky to implement on a smartphone, but not too hard on a laptop or other window device (I'm sure it can be done on Mac's/Linux/Android etc, I just don't know how personally).

Home Internet Security | OpenDNS

OpenDNS is the easiest way to make your Internet safer, faster and more reliable. Protect your family across all devices on your home network.

www.opendns.com

 

[gintonic]

Apart from the issue of online bullying, which is almost exclusively conducted by children on children.

no it isn't almost exclusively children on children.

 

[gez]

Are kids any more unsafe than they were before the advent of cellphones?

Absolutely yes! At least that's what I believe.

I was bullied at school. The bullying extended as far as the local underground station but ultimately no further. So once I got home I knew I was both pychologically and physically safe. That's just not true for kids today. They may be physically safe once at home, but the psychological bullying continues online or via messaging. If anything psychological bulling is far worse than physical bullying (certainly for children).

 

[gintonic]

Absolutely yes! At least that's what I believe.

I was bullied at school. The bullying extended as far as the local underground station but ultimately no further. So once I got home I knew I was both pychologically and physically safe. That's just not true for kids today. They may be physically safe once at home, but the psychological bullying continues online or via messaging. If anything psychological bulling is far worse than physical bullying (certainly for children).

I was bullied at school, at the train station, on the bus and ultimately outside my home

 

[hifinutt]

i guess this is one of the problems of poor content on the internet seen by young people on phones

Dr Kate Howells, an associate specialist in sexual health, believes more people think strangulation is expected, with "a lot" of young women telling her it had happened to them.

She believes instant access to porn for anyone with a phone is a key factor for it.

"People are watching it from a very young age and, for a lot of young people, it is their first sexual experience and therefore they’re almost looking to porn to learn about sex and what to do to be good at sex.

"If young people are seeing that kind of messaging from pornography rather than loving or caring, respectful messages then they'll think that's what they need to do - whether they feel comfortable with it or not."

Boys ask how to choke girls during sex, says teacher

Dr Tamasine Preece says boys have asked her if "a soft squeeze on the neck is OK".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[tuga]

I got an email today from my youngest's state secondary:

 

[Cav]

If ever enacted - it won't - unenforceable. What would they do anyway, read books, online - oh... go to a Library, yeah right.