- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Take away kids ability to communicate with family and law enforcement when they get shot up.
Genius idea.
The article covers that, simple devices that don’t have Internet are allowed.
No internet? That animal is long extinct
What phone doesn’t have internet anymore?
Edit: Wait, I get it. So now kids have their at home phone AND their parents also pay for their “you’re at school so this is how you get us your last words in the event of a shooting” phone.
Again, genius.
Parents needing to pay MORE money they don’t have and kids have ANOTHER reminder of how their job is basically to obey AND very possibly be killed while obeying.
So much better of a solution instead of MOTHER FUCKING GUN CONTROL.
deleted by creator
Almost all of those have Internet. And they’re generally expensive and/or only available cartier locked.
Took the words out of my mouth.
Buying a kid a smartphone for normal life AND a dumbphone for school sounds expensive. A lot of kids in America can’t even afford lunch, how are they supposed to own two phones??
Besides they might want to run for president one day
I hate school shootings as much as you, but I don’t think cell phones do much help once the shooter is in the building.
Edit: Uvalde would be a good example where the shooter was identified and authorities were called while the shooter was still outside the building.
If you wanna get all brutal and how it is in America about it, I am thinking more about giving the kids a chance to say good bye than actually getting help.
We have established that noone who could actually do something about it cares about all of the kids getting murdered in America schools.
Edit: And remember. While Uvalde cops sat outside and wet their pampers, a mother overpowered them to get children evacuated. A mother who was… notified by their child with a cell phone… and later faced criminal charges for it.
I understand and empathize with the point you are trying to make. School shootings are the worst possible tragedies.
That said, I still do not think we should shape school cell phone policies around the off chance of a school shooting (please do not chastise my use of ‘off chance’. The fact that it happens at all is too much, but I think the chance that it happens to any one school is still pretty low).
removed by mod
Thanks for a thoughtful conversation. Have a good day.
removed by mod
You are treating me as though I don’t care about the victims of school shootings at all and I don’t appreciate that. You couldn’t have a decent conversation with me without putting your own words in my mouth and then blowing up at me for saying them. As I try to exit the conversation you feel the need to cut me down again.
So, have a good day.
Maybe you should learn how to hold a normal discussion without attacking the other party. Cursing and telling the other party to fuck off just because they disagree with you will not convinced anyone of anything and will only make you look bad. It’s not like the person you’re responding to is advocating for school shootings or anything else immoral.
Thanks friend.
Eyo! Report this shit next time! Rule 3, dude/person was a douchebag.
Hmm good point. Let’s ban guns and then ban cellphones from schools
I don’t think guns and phones in school are even the same conversation to be honest. I think that’s my trouble with the other commenter’s approach to the conversation.
Gotcha it is once again not time to talk about gun control.
We should go back to talking about Tik Tok. The real threat to children.
That’s not what I’m trying to say. The article is about cell phone policy in schools. The discussion got into gun control because Melkath feels like cell phones should be universally allowed in schools because kids should be able to call their parents during school shootings.
I’m eager to talk about gun control. I’m also eager to talk about cell phones in school.
I fail to see how gun violence in schools is at all related to cell phone policies in school. The attempt to link them together, as if cell phones must exist in schools because we can’t deal with gun violence, is laughable.
Edit: also I never mentioned TikTok.
Don’t worry as Uvdale proved it isn’t like anyone is going to save them
Dumb ass American politicians don’t know how to govern beyond “ban or blow up something we don’t like”.
Tik Tok, abortion, delta 8
Yeah pretty much.
What do you suggest as an alternative?
I don’t know, maybe good parenting?
You could have just admitted that you have no alternative. It’s okay to do that.
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“I have seen these addictive algorithms pull in young people, literally capture them and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity,” she said.
The smartphone-ban bill will follow two others Hochul is pushing that outline measures to safeguard children’s privacy online and limit their access to certain features of social networks.
In New York, the bills have faced pushback from big tech, trade groups and other companies, which collectively spent more than $800,000 between October and March lobbying against one or both of them, according to public disclosure records.
This differs from other state-level bills across the country, which place some reliance on self-policing by tech companies to decide which features could be harmful by completing assessments of whether products are “reasonably likely” to be accessed by children.
“Meta itself admits its own parental controls aren’t widely used – they’re often confusing and frequently fail to work as intended,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a policy advocacy organization.
The major social media firms have faced increasing scrutiny over harms against children, including sextortion scams, grooming by predators and worsening mental health.
The original article contains 922 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Makes sense. They’re distracting. Not sure why they were allowed in the first place.
Hey at least us parents could take comfort in that if there is a school shooting we might get a voicemail of our children’s last words
A bit dark!
So are school shootings
Lmao, Jesus
We did this a while ago in the Netherlands and so far the research results on the effects look promising.
Yes even the kids’ reactions generally seemed positive, some mentioned there were more conversations and joking going on in between classes, and cyber bullying was less prevalent (although ‘old school’ bullying seemed to make a comeback somewhat)
Kids need to be able to leave their last words when a school shooter comes. If the government is going to ban phones they should at least allow old school audio recorders. While we are at it might be a good policy to require school IDs to be in shoes at all times so children dead bodies can be identified faster.
They could also just take a regular cellphone.
As far as I can see, this is banning smartphones, not cellphones. Can still do calls and text.
What kid these days has a dumb phone? This effectively bans phones and put the burden of corralling student attention in the hands of the parents.
Parents aren’t about to go out replacing their kids phones with dumb phones. Kids aren’t about to stop carrying their phones (I would tell my kids to keep it on them regardless of what the school says)
This is just a thin excuse for boards to put the blame on teachers and parents for the districts poor performance when really what we need is a lower teacher to student ratio, higher wage for teachers, and schools that are properly funded so these kids can be engaged with instead of policed.
corralling student attention in the hands of the parents
What does this mean?
Also, I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying ; the people in control of schools across the U.S. should be ashamed of themselves. However it is the responsibility of the parents to not just shove their kids in front of a screen because they’re too busy for them.
Teachers have it hard enough as it is, I have nothing to say on that front. I would never have the patience to go through what teachers go through, period.
My wife is a teacher in Finland and two cousins are teachers in USA.
Smartphones don’t help with education either. Two things can be true. I’m not even sure what you mean by “corralling student attention in the hands of the parents”.
That said, I was sarcastically replying to the comment above me which sarcastically suggested old school tape recorders.
It would be nice if we could all be afforded the opportunity to record our last words before we die, but that’s not exactly how it works. On 9/11/01, we did not have technological wonders in our pockets for those poor people to use to record their last moments. So what would you have argued for then? What is it that makes you think kids these days are so special that they somehow deserve to be afforded something more?
There is countless senseless death all around us every day. You need to accept that.
Don’t force phones into schools because you can’t accept the grim world in which we live. Hate me all you want for it, but your argument is thin.
I think I actually agree with this. I’m libertarian and generally believe fewer restrictions are better, but schools should be able to restrict what kids have available to them during class. Kids should be able to bring them to school, but they should be put away while class is in session.
If parents disagree with that policy, they can enroll their kids somewhere else. But schools should absolutely have authority over what’s allowed on school property.
These seem all over the place - or maybe it is just this article that is not explaining it well?
For starters, “smartphones” aren’t the only SIM-carrying devices that can access the internet and install apps - dumbphones can do the former and tablets can do both, which you wouldn’t even be able to visibly see someone using, if it is in their bag and they use something like a watch interface to it. Laptops too…
The Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (Safe) for Kids act addresses algorithmic feeds. It would require social media platforms to provide minors with a default chronological feed composed of accounts they have chosen to follow rather than algorithmically suggested ones.
Ngl, that sounds awesome - and not even just for kids! But immediately after that the article continues:
The bill would also mandate that parents have more wide-reaching controls like the ability to block access to night-time notifications.
Isn’t this already built-in to various OS’s, so why put the onus onto the app itself?
Electronic devices like calculators have been a staple inside schools for half a century at least, and poor people who cannot afford one of every type of device will generally opt for one device that can install many different types of apps - so to now ban these apps, b/c they might be used in a certain particular manner… while simultaneously NOT stopping school shootings, it blows my mind.
“Political theater” is the phrase that comes to mind. Another phrase is “No child left behind”, given how the parents seem to be against these policies, but the State has deemed that it knows better™.
Then again, perhaps it has a real purpose in mind after all, as a law designed to extract money out of big tech companies as fees pile up?
Only question I have is is there exceptions? I know a few kids with some medical conditions like diabetes that have monitors that synch to their phone to control medication or send alerts… Wonder how they are going to address those situations. Otherwise, I could see the benefits on a smart phone ban during school hours. I just wonder how they are going to administer that.
Schools with good administrations will make accommodations for kids that need it. Schools with bad administrations won’t until somebody sues.
I disagree. I think it should be up to the individual schools or students to make the rules, not a statewide bill
While on the one hand I can agree there’s a place and time to be present and participate appropriately, on the other hand it’s so goddamned tiring to see politics that in situations of nuance zoom in on ‘control them’ as a thing everyone can rally to as if the solution of phone control was really going to be simple and accomplish its objectives.
I mean, criminalizing drugs seemed on its face to be a simple-enough thing to do, and a good idea- who could object to that, right? Who favors addiction, right? What could go wrong? Fundamentally, the ask for enough power to ban anything isn’t a trivial ask, and it shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.
But even if you decriminalized drugs (good!) you could still ban drugs in schools (also good!). Schools should be allowed to ban smartphones, which is what this bill would do.
“I have seen these addictive algorithms pull in young people, literally capture them and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity,” she said.
literally capture them? you should be literally ejected from office.
Spend 5 minutes on any HS campus during passing period and you’ll see that it’s correct to say capture.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally
literally
(degree, figuratively, proscribed, contranym) Used non-literally as an intensifier for figurative statements: virtually, so to speak (often considered incorrect; see usage notes)
Synonym: virtually
He was so surprised, he literally jumped twenty feet in the air.
I agree that it’s a goddamn obnoxious use of the word that is a recipe for ambiguity, but I think that the battle over this has been lost.
I blame Paris Hilton.
Good. Kids don’t need cell phones, and they really are a huge distraction.
Kids don’t need cell phone
It looks like the ban isn’t on all cell phones. Dumb phones are permitted; it’s phones capable of Internet use:
Hochul said she would launch the bill later this year and take it up in New York’s next legislative session, which begins in January 2025. If passed, schoolchildren will be allowed to carry simple phones that cannot access the internet but do have the capability to send texts, which has been a sticking point for parents. She did not offer specifics on enforcing the prohibition.
Do kids need them? I mean, they obviously don’t need them. I didn’t have a cell phone when I was in school.
And they certainly can be a distraction.
But…the flip side of that is that they can also be a pretty important tool.
I use my smartphone as a reference, to reach Wikipedia, etymonline, various dictionaries, to get translations.
I use it as a tool. I have maxima on it, an open-source computer algebra system; think Mathematica. It’s a lot more useful than something like a TI calculator. I think I touched my graphing calculator about once after school. I have a unit converter on it. I have a weather program on it. I take notes, can search through them. Those are tools that I have with me all the time in life. If kids can’t have a smartphone at school – which is a mandatory part of a lot of the youth and teenage parts of their lives – that’s stripping them of access to a lot of important stuff.
At one point, I worked at a research lab that didn’t permit devices with cameras inside, a much lesser restriction. It was a pain in the butt, and that was a long time ago, before devices were as prevalent and important as they are today. I wouldn’t wish that on kids.
Part of functioning in the modern world is living in a world that has devices like smartphones. If a student literally cannot function in the presence of a smartphone, that seems like a much larger problem to me than anything else; employers are not going to cut them off from phones. I don’t think that this solution is a reasonable approach to “student is being distracted”. Like, part of socializing people for being able to function in society has gotta be to get them in a situation where they can function later in life, and if anyone should do that, it’s the school.
That’s a good take but I gotta say- kids are kids. They WILL slack off, they will goof off, they will use the phones for other things. This isn’t a critique- it’s what kids do.
If they need tools then a couple ipads or similar can be used. I don’t find the argument “they need to exist with smartphones in society” convincing for school. At work you know you’ll be fired if you’re caught using your phone too much, etc. and slacking off. Kids aren’t under the same pressure as that and quite frankly I wouldn’t expect them to act with that level of maturity as even some adults don’t and they’re older and should be wiser.
As for the problem of just existing with them? I feel like that is yet another thing that school won’t solve. That is up to their parents, etc. Good habits start at home. Expecting schools to solve all problems (especially ones so entrenched like socioeconomic conditions, poverty, etc.) is half of why we’re here in the first place. But guess what? If the kid is given a tablet or allowed to use a cell phone at the table and basically whenever/wherever they want, do you think their behavior will be different in school? Do you think it’s up to the school to be forcing this? That is yet another ridiculous burden I think we’d put on teachers and staff.
Moreover, don’t you think we should be conditioning these kids that it’s ok to exist without a phone?
These kids won’t be worse off without phones. Like you said- the rest of us did just fine without them. Let them have a calculator and computers in computer class and call it a day.
They don’t allow phones in actual prisons so why should schools be any different? \s
Foucault salivating involuntarily at this comment
