If your goal is for your kids to not have access to smartphone apps, dangers and distractions, I fear it'll fail spectacularly.
If your goal is to build self reliance and problem solving skills, you may succeed in unintended ways.
I was born in 1979. I touched my first computer probably at age 6. I programmed in GWbasic when I was 10 or so, started turbo Pascal and oracle db lessons when I was 11. War started when I was 12, my dad got wounded when walking to work, and I was basically a fully fledged prepubescent adult partially responsible for family survival. And I am not special. (This is lateral to the meticulous way I built a flame thrower at 12 as well:)
Point is, 12 and 13 year olds are smart and resourceful and have a lot of time and motivation to outwit you. We somehow forget our 12 year old selves when we become adults. I reread enders game when I need to remind myself (my initial reaction to the book was "what a horribly unrealistic way to portray kids, they think like adults", followed by the realization I did think like that as a kid! We just start telling ourselves weird tales of superiority as we get old).
You are not repeat not going to successfully keep your kids from this stuff until they're 14. My 12 year old niece who is like the most innocent person I know taught me more about dark Web than I knew. You don't raise your child in isolation. They'll learn from you but also hundred other kids. You can hope to be involved and maybe, maybe guide. I fear that by not giving them access yourself in a guided fashion, all you'll be doing is ensuring they have it in unguided fashion.
(Fwiw I have a 2 and 4 year old and struggle with exact same questions coming up)
> My 12 year old niece who is like the most innocent person I know taught me more about dark Web than I knew.
That is hilarious.
I agree with you. I feel about as clever now as I was at 13. Might have been even more so then, just with more facts and experience to make up for it now.
My dad (an IT guy) tried but couldn't keep me from accessing the internet while he was at work. I spent entire summers indoors. Which was terrible for my social life, but I was a damn good video gamer and eventually video game hacker. He had to disconnect and take the modem with him, which he did for two weeks once as punishment for viewing porn. So I called up my friend and went to play video games in his basement. It was a lot of fun actually. I learned about the value of socialization and we're still best friends to this day.
As someone who didn't have a phone until 12 or 13, please do, BUT make sure you do it right. I use my phone for maybe 5 minutes a day excluding essential stuff, have 0 social media, and have no interest in increasing either number.
If you just hold it over their head, they'll go find some other kid whose parents' entire parenting philosophy is "give iPad". You should make sure to explain to them why you're restricting the tech (and be open if you think the kids are mature enough to understand). "You could download bad things that spy on you or get exposed to bad content - it even happens to a lot of adults" is a much better explanation than "ooo spooky bad stuff on internet".
My final suggestion, and what I wish my parents had done, is allowed me to use the internet freely, with supervision (and an adblocker). Instead of letting them go on YouTube or Reddit to watch random streamers, let (and encourage) them to try learning Spanish, Python, electronic music, whatever. It would have been extremely fun for me as a kid to learn about "advanced" stuff like coding actual websites or messing with the terminal instead of playing with the sanitized block-code websites. They'll also pick up useful skills in the process, and be entertained in a productive way. Much better than restricting or allowing everything imo.
Also, the fact that you're considering this makes you a better parent than half the population nowadays. Keep your kids from consuming garbage and they will thank you later!
It isn’t even so much spying/bad content that I’d be worried about but much more that addictive nature of online communication.
Many adults struggle with it and kids in particular should first learn how to communicate with people in real life and pay attention to school before they can escape to the online realm.
School can be boring and a smartphone is just a too welcome distraction.
Yeah, you can argue with advanced learning stuff, and in few cases it would work. But good luck competing with Tiktok, FB ecosystem & other social and attention parasites that probably half of the class will be already addicted to. You are competing with products designed and continuously adapted with massive help of professional psychologists to be as damaging as possible.
I don't think there is 1 rule that would be simply the best solution for every single kid out there. Understand your kids, how they approach learning, stimuli, how they react, how much patience they have (and encourage the good bits obviously). And adapt approach correspondingly, continuously.
But yeah giving small kids phones is a recipe for disaster, even static glowing screen is often more interesting to them than colorful books. Also, lead by example, kids want to mimmick their parents for quite long (usually puberty is stopping this). Same situation here btw (kids, 2 and 3 years old) and we talk about it a lot. We see around us some failures of unrestricted access to computers and phones, but without time machine its hard to say how things would be different without them
I have had coworkers who wanted to stick with a dumb phone. It sounds great to give junior a dumb phone until they're "old enough", but not much communication happens via sms. It's all done in other apps.
Your kids will be excluded from a lot of conversations and events. They will feel ostricized socially and will inevitably be frustrated at you because of it.
Having no phone versus a dumb phone would make the resentment worse. No idea what the best answer is beyond all of society collectively realizing it's a bad idea to give smartphones to young kids.
Having been a teenager once myself, I can attest that there's nothing in this world that'd more successfully ostricize a kid socially, than grouping them with other isolated kids.
I think it depends how big the group is. If the group is 3 or 4 kids, then yes, that will be a problem. If the group is larger where they can choose who their friends are and not be constantly surrounded by others with phones, then it might work.
Honestly that’s not something I had really ever thought about, how smartphones are mandatory for children in 2023. I got my first phone in 2014 when I was in 8th grade, a used iPhone 4S without a data plan, and because maybe about 50-75% of kids had a phone or smartphone of some sort and the school had WiFi I don’t ever remember it being necessary for anything, although teachers did say “you can look X up on your phone” a few times and I know some of the girls in my classes used Instagram (although I didn’t start using it until a few years later). I think having a smartphone as a teenager started to become more mandatory around 2016-17, by which point I got a new iPhone 6 with a data plan.
I'm a couple years older than you, and got my first smartphone as a junior in 2009. The school had wifi, but students weren't allowed on it. The phone was handy for looking up things, but I was certainly in the minority with a smartphone. In that era, it didn't really make a big difference socially. Group texts were the main mode of communication.
A family member dated a school resource officer for a few years, and it was really jarring to hear stories about stuff he had to deal with from high school students which weren't big issues 5 years prior. Tons of cyber bullying, revenge porn, fake calculator apps that were fronts for encrypted storage, students with multiple phones, etc.
Phones were also way less powerful back then. By the time I went to college, companies were making apps multiple times bigger than at the beginning (like 1-5 MB commonly going to 20-50 MB). I could only have ~5 big apps on my phone before I was out of memory, and the phone died for good on the 2 hour drive to college.
Frustration and resentment against his parents is part of being a teenager and a learning process. Trying to save them from that is both naive and impossible.
> Your kids will be excluded from a lot of conversations and events.
Raising your children is the most important thing anybody does in their life. It's not something you do alone, but there is a hierarchy on who should have the most say in raising your children. The hierarchy is something like this:
1. The parents
2. Close family
3. Other parents in the community (if you have such community)
4. Close friends of the parents
5. Tutors, coaches and teachers
6. Responsible and respected adults in the community
7. Any adult
8. Any teenager
9. Criminal gangs
10. Television and Hollywood
11. Silicon Valley companies
12. Government workers
Now, if a child gets excluded from not having a smart phone, it seems that everybody above number 11 are somewhat or blatantly neglecting their duties. Get together with other parents and start taking control back from number 11 in raising your children.
Where does the child fall on this hierarchy... do they get any input in what technology they derive value/enjoyment from, or is that entirely dictated by adults in their community who grew up 20+ years ago?
I think my point is pretty clear: you listed a whole hierarchy of people who you think should have control over your child's behavior (with you at position #1), and haven't given any answer for where you think a child's own decision-making should fit in
Did you miss my original question?
> Do they get any input in what technology they derive value/enjoyment from, or is that entirely dictated by adults in their community who grew up 20+ years ago?
Instead of focusing on your own point, look at the answer I gave you. You seem to make up an image in your mind that I'm disregarding the child's own personality, when I haven't even touched on that aspect. Fight a real battle instead of an imaginary battle.
You literally didn't give me one, what on earth are you talking about.
> You seem to make up an image in your mind that I'm disregarding the child's own personality
I don't know where you're getting that I've 'made an image up in my mind'.... I asked you a question about how you weighted your child's input / freedom when it comes to technology, and you've done nothing but deflect lmao. I'm not "fighting a battle"... I asked a straightforward question that has still received no answer.
I can't tell if I'm talking to a human or a chatbot at this point.
It's completely feasible. I've been told by a lot of younger people that their parents gave them a "practice phone" (iPod Touch was a popular choice) as a kid, and if they took care of it and hadn't done anything with it they shouldn't have by certain age, they were allowed a smartphone.
I'm not sure what the modern equivalent is, and there are certainly plenty of other ways to gauge responsibility and honesty, but there are phones that can't be used for much except calling and texting specific people.
In general, if someone is old enough to seek something out, banning them from it isn't going to work, anyway. I don't support the iPad/YouTube model of parenting, but I also don't think kids who grow up with things are as/more susceptible to them because of when they were introduced.
It's like prohibition, the forbidden fruit. Denial will only increase the want. It's better to teach moderation early than it is to try to curb the want for 7+ years.
My kid has had an iPad from age 1 or so, with kiosk mode enabled and a baby game that made funny noises when they slapped the screen.
They got a phone at age 7, just before starting first grade. No Youtube, no TikTok and screen time enforced per category and per program. The only one I "cheated" the age with was WhatsApp, because it's the default communication tool over here.
It's about 5 years later and I've still managed to keep them off Youtube by giving more screen time in Netflix/Disney+/our PBS equivalent etc, where the content is actually produced and not some youtube elsagate horror show or a screaming influencer hawking off whatever a sponsor is telling them to sell this week.
At this point asking for screen time with good grounds is a habit for the kid: "Homework is done and I read The Trials of Morrigan Crow for 30 minutes, can I get screen time?" It's also used mostly for background noise, iPad is on a stand somewhere with a random show running and they're drawing or doing some crafts while it's playing.
The rule we follow is that every 15 minute slot spent reading (comics or books) is given out double as screen time.
That really doesn't sound healthy. Babies need real interaction, they don't need to slap a screen and make funny noises. Screens are flat, they have no texture.
Sadly, babies which are underexposed to stimuli often display developmental delays compared to peers.
You're commenting as if the iPad was the only source of stimulation and the poor baby lived in a white cube of flat nothingness with nothing but a locked down tablet for company :D
I don't want to be that guy but this sounds horrible. You shouldn't treat reading as a chore or as something you have to do in order to watch TV. I think it's better if you let them watch TV for 1-2 hours per day and that's it. Let them read if they want to, don't force them like that.
Of course if you have a kid that enjoys reading, go ahead and let them read for 12 hours a day. That's what I did.
But if the options are no reading and 15-30 minutes of reading every day, I'll pick the latter even if I need a screen time shaped carrot to achieve it.
Just being able to read a full book without having a subway surfers video bouncing next to it is a superpower for under 15 year olds today.
Mostly no. As said by others, now instead of being on a device that you can track, their usage will be on friends devices that you cannot. When every other child has a cellphone that's the way it works.
I cannot overstate how difficult it is to do this solo. Being the only person in a friend group who does not have a phone results in pretty severe ostracization, especially for preteens and teens who do not yet have a strong sense of self. It means being left out of conversations, invitations, discussions, jokes, parties, homework questions, etc.
Having said that, you are early enough that you still have time to convince the other parents in their grade cohort to take a pledge like "Wait Until 8th" https://www.waituntil8th.org/ (In the US, 8th grade is 13-14 years old.) This provides a kind of "herd immunity" as long as you get enough families on board.
And if your school does not already have them in place you can advocate for anti-cell-phone policies which minimize classroom time as a potential vector.
Be forewarned that you may not be successful unless you are also willing to cut social ties with families who cave in and give their kids phones before then.
Depends on location and peer group. They can find themselves pushed out and away because they have "no voice" to speak with others in their desired spaces.
I've seen it done. Granted it was in Croatia but he's a very calm and healthy 14 year old who plays D&D and would rather hang out with his gang of friends than come with his parents to family gatherings.
Croatia might be a factor only because prevalence of smartphone use among teenagers there might be lower. Just guessing.
The social pressure starts around 9 and just gets worse. I just don't care if "everybody else has one". But to the kids its really important to "fit in". Up to you to teach them that keeping up with the Jones' kids isn't necessary. I feel it has been good for my kids to not have phones until teens when they might legitimately need one. Once my we got a phone for my daughter it came with a dose of lecturing about data collection and the permanence of posting anything online.
It isn't just pressure to fit in, it will mark them as different and may lead to ostracism or being targeted for bullying. In the past this was rare and kids were more understanding of friends who didn't have access but it seems to be getting worse each year.
I was ok with my kids not having phone until they get to secondary school but divorced and their mother decided they would be pariah if my eldest daughter didn't have one at 11.
She is not yet addicted though because appart from instant messaging she doesn't have access to social media apps and I limit strongly the amount of hours of use and outside of her small quota the phone cannot stay in her room. So she is still using it to discuss with friends asynchronously.
It is realistic, but you have your work cut out for you, and you need to understand you can't fully ban them.
My son is 11, and finally got a phone, but with a talk and text plan, no data. He can take it to school but only if he thinks he is going to go to a friend's house after, so he can ask us/tell us what he is up to.
We fully understand he can just walk to the community centre to get WiFi, and recenlty told me how to access the School Board's WiFi LOL. In fact, he worked the AV club there managing all their gear for the school play. We fully understood he has the "knack" and we can't stop him, so we helped him, and by doing so, it built trust, and we explained why bringing the phone in the class is a distraction. It's not that the phone is bad, it just takes away from learning.
I have saying at home. When we eat, we eat. That means we do that one task, and nothing else. So in the class, when you learn, you learn.
They have their scheduled video time, weekends are 1hr morning, 30min afternoon, and 1 hour evening. If we take trips or go with friends, the time is gone. There is no "banking" your time.
The other interesting thing, and this was confirmed by my friend who is a high school teacher, is that Parents were the ones calling their kids the most during classes! Of course, there will be a boyfriend here and there, but overall, it's Grandma calling, or mom/dad.
Back on topic...we use an iPhone, because we can control which apps he can install, and it notifies us to approve/deny. This helps a lot. Also, Discord is a nightmare. Luckily, his account is installed on all of our phones, so we can see the chats, and some chats were REALLY bad. So we had a talk about them, and he even sided with us! SHOCKING!! I guess what I have to say is, if you are there with them in this journey, you are more likely to be able to guide them along, and be sure not to make a big deal if something bad happens, like a chat where someone posts inappropriate pictures, e.g. Porn, etc, and just direct them to the correct path.
Btw, my 11 year old can change my car tires and use all my power tools. He really has the knack. So that's why we knew banning wouldn't work. My younger son hasn't shown the same maturity, and generally follows along the rules that his big brother follows. So the effort you put in one kid, could be reused after. Although I don't think we will get our youngest a phone as early as our oldest, as he is happier playing active sports. He tends to be grumpy and doesn't handle losing at games, and doesn't know how to fix a controller that stops works. So his view of technology is not the same as our other son. So be aware that every kid is different in skill and cognitive abilities.
Some month ago they removed the Speed Up option when watching YT on TV.
This basically costs me hours of my life as I normally watch videos on 1.5 speed...
It seems to reappear and disappear and seems dependent on devices: the Onn Google tv stick seems to have had it disabled permanently but on the Chromecast with Google tv it still works fine. I also watch at 1.5 and would stop watching if I could no longer do that.
Google Sheets is not a table, which is what the discussion is about.
Edit: It also is not exactly the poster child of good UX and accessibility (or even performance, for that matter), so I'm not sure it's the best example.
I've never asked it yet, but I've been thinking along these lines, and for the last one I think a good construction is "Do you work with anybody who was hired under a different title than they have now?"
> In the first version of the software, there were 70 full copies of 4 different OpenSSL versions, ranging from 0.9.8 to 1.0.2k (including one from a vendor SDK) with partial copies of 14 versions, ranging from 0.9.7d to 1.0.2k, those partial copies numbering 304. Fragments of 10 versions, ranging from 0.9.6 to 1.0.2k, were also found across the codebase, with these normally being small sets of files that had been copied to import some particular functionality.
Is this realistic? Any experiences?