It's so insane that they let things go this far. It could have been immediately obvious to those involved that cell phones in class would have immensely negative effects. I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"??
I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.
I feel like we have had a long history of overreacting to new things. "D&D is the devil", "Rock music is evil", etc. But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful. But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back.
I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and facebook ever could.
> But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back.
This can't be it. I was in high school when smartphones were coming out and there was zero tolerance for them or any other electronic devices (dumbphones, ipods, palm pilots, etc) in the classroom.
I don't know when or why it happened but allowing smartphones in school was a conscious choice and a policy change.
Upper-middle class parents addicted to constant communication with their children started complaining about their kid's not being allowed to carry their phones, nearly at the level of implying it was a human rights violation. They combined this with worries about school shootings (that cellphones haven't ever helped with to my knowledge, unless having live recordings of children being murdered is help.)
After they got it, it was instantly allowed everywhere. It was another result of the "activism" of the same suburban let me speak to your manager class that has been ruining everything for the past 20 years.
edit: A lot of parents are constantly texting back and forth with their kids all day. It's basically their social media, especially if they don't have any friends, and I bet in plenty of cases a huge burden to the children.
Schools are not employers that can implement take it or leave it policies. You need coordination and agreement between school leadership, district leadership, staff, and most critically parents to put your foot down on anything while also working to ensure basic safety and decent academic outcomes.
Now that the ills of social media and screen time are mainstream knowledge, it’s easier to make a common sense argument without much pushback.
I started teaching in the 90s, and left classroom teaching in 2019. This is how I saw it play out in every school I was aware of.
People think "just ban phones". But there are so many factors at play, it has to be a coordinated effort across an entire school. And everyone has to play along. Any policy is only as good as its enforcement, and enforcement is hard.
Pretty simple really, we're basically all [1] addicted to smartphones, so we basically all [1] advocated for this. After all, to admit it was a problem for our kids, we'd have to also admit it could be a problem for ourselves.
Even I find myself holding onto my phone during most of the day when not on my computer, I don't even know why. It's an incredibly addictive piece of technology.
[1] - to a first order of approximation, yes I know you're the exception
What's missing from the initial comparison is the fact that smartphones opened up all sorts of conveniences, which is partly what makes them so addictive. Rock music, D&D, etc, these other things that were crusaded against offered no convenience for all, so a conservative mind saw no value in it and attacked it as something that warps or rots young brains. Smartphones obviously do that and worse, but because they offer all sorts of helpful tools in our daily lives, we let it slide.
When I was in high school in the 90's, the famed Texas Instruments calculators were often banned in some maths classes because, as was said at the time, we were "not going to be walking around with a computer in our pockets all the time," so we needed to learn to do the work. By the time my younger brother passed through the same classes, they were required to have a graphing calculator because it actually helped kids complete the work. And play Dope Wars.
While we do tend to overreact to new tech, ways of thinking, games, music, etc, there's something inherently oily and snakelike about a thing that brings convenience to our lives the way smartphones or cell phones did. They slip in, comfortably at times, settling into our habits and routines while simultaneously altering them. We end up manipulated by it and before we know it, we can't set it down. In the case of smartphones, our data became the commodity, a mere decade or two after we were worried about tracking devices in cars or phone lines being tapped. But the smartphones kept delivering on their promises, which kept us hooked.
As someone who recovering from alcoholism, I struggle to call our love of smartphones an addiction, but if it helps people be aware of the dangers, by all means, use the term. To me, the problem of smartphones is manipulation at the deepest cognitive levels. We started offloading some thinking to them and who could blame us? We had the store of human knowledge in our pockets! We could play a game instead of sitting idle on the train, gamble with online casinos to try and win some extra cash that week, keep up with the Joneses on Facebook or get into a heated debate on Twitter during our lunch break, check banking, stocks and eBay sales, etc. We no longer had to carry a separate device to photograph or record the moment. The list goes on and on. But in the end, it altered our behavior just enough that we allow ourselves to be controlled by it, monitored by it, and bought and sold by it.
My school even had a gazebo on the school yard so smokers didn't have to stand in the rain. They literally spent money to accommodate smokers.
Of course by the time I was there smoking on school grounds was prohibited, so smokers had to go just beyond the gate. Which students were not allowed to, but few teachers were willing to enforce that
In the classroom not, but during my youth in Germany, the smokers had their own smoker's corner with an ashtray until smoking age was raised from 16 to 18 and the smokers had to go out of the schoolyard (i.e. they had to walk 5 meters more, lol).
Parents are insane and demand access to their kids at all times.
My son goes to a private school, and I was on the board of trustees when we basically did the same thing the NYS requires three years ago. The drama and insanity was beyond anything I expected. One parent left me a three minute voicemail excoriating me as being no better than a school shooter - in the event of an emergency her son would die alone, because of me. (I introduced the motion and was called out in the minutes)
It’s great that the state passed a pretty sane law on the matter. Crazy people already think the governor is <insert terrible thing>, and the school boards can just nod, point to Albany and get on with their business.
There is leeway as well, our school (and some others that I know of), allow 7th graders and up to email parents via GMail. So little Tommy can keep folks in the loop about scheduling changes or whatever.
Hey, we must have been in high school at the same time. I saw the same thing going through my final years. But when I went back to visit the school a few years after I left... Things were very different.
I'd say there was definitely a grace period (roughly iPhone -> iPhone 4 maybe?) where device addiction wasn't yet normalised, and the real world hadn't ceded control yet. Not sure what happened at the school level after that, but somewhere along the way phones (devices as they were called then) everywhere all the time became very normal.
They were. I was there in edu conferences, training sessions and other events years ago and could observe all this massive FUD which appeared – "smartphones are the future", "all communication will be in social media in the future", "books will not matter", "privacy will not matter", "if we ban smartphones, we will handicap our children" etc. People didn't know better and there was genuine fear in education. Or actually, it's still very much there.
This is a huge factor, and heavily influenced by the purveyors of the technologies involved. A factor I hadn't realized that is implicated in this transition is the shift from the Teacher-led classroom to the device-led classroom. The teacher is no longer seen as the expert, the interpreter, the model figure of the subject when the laptop or tablet is the delivery tool. Students learn that the teacher is a facilitator, likely not up to date on the latest changes to the app interface, and not an authority on the subject.
Device-delivery instead of teacher-delivery puts the student first, even when the student knows nothing, and has zero impulse control.
So instead of modelling a productive and enriching data accessing environment, we're actually just tearing down the walls of the school and asking teachers to babysit the mayhem.
Well, in the era of school shootings, some parents argued that a phone could be a literal lifeline to their kids and a way to say their last goodbyes if the worst happened. It doesn’t really stand up when you compare the likelihoods of a school shooting (rare) to phone-induced educational and social regressions (almost certain). But it was an evocative argument and it worked to a large degree.
The pandemic induced the major change. Schools were forced to put everything online, and so screens became the default learning environment. What's the difference between them being on a laptop/chromebook/tablet and a phone? Not really that much. Plus parents allowed their kids get phones at a younger age to keep track of them. Now we are trying to claw it back, but the big problem is that the parents are the ones preventing it. They need to be constantly attached to their kids. Our son is 16 and while he loves screens, he also is enjoying kids spending less time on them at school so he can chat with people more.
If you haven't been to a school recently where >99% of kids all direct >99% percent of their attention during breaks I can see where you are coming from. But I was at a highschool with a lax phone policy (allowed in breaks etc), and I was amazed and appalled. A no-phones policy is really important to me, because there seems to be no middle ground possible.
> But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful.
Next let's ban kids from social media.
Or better yet, let's tax social media as a negative externality. Anything with an algorithmic feed, engagement algorithm, commenting/voting/banning, all hooked up to advertising needs to pay to fix the harm it's causing.
They're about as bad as nicotine and lung cancer. They've taken people hostage and turned society against itself.
> I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and facebook ever could.
Chatbots aren't smart and AR glasses are dorky. They're going to remain niche for quite some time.
iPhone immediately caught on like wild fire. You can tell those other two don't have the same spark. I'm not saying there won't be users, but it's a much smaller population.
> Chatbots [are] going to remain niche for quite some time.
> iPhone immediately caught on like wild fire.
> I'm not saying there won't be users, but it's a much smaller population.
The facts say you're wrong about this.
The adoption rate for the iPhone was slow. There were only 1.4 million iPhones sold in its first year,[1] whereas there were 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users in its first year.[2]
ChatGPT is not niche, and is not a 'much smaller population'. Right now it has 800 million weekly active users. That's how many iPhones were active in 2017. Are we to say that iPhones were a niche in 2017? It's how many smartphones in general were active at the start of 2012. Are we to say that smartphones were a niche in 2012?
> The adoption rate for the iPhone was slow. There were only 1.4 million iPhones sold in its first year,[1] whereas there were 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users in its first year.[2]
The ChatGPT number includes people who paid no money. iPhone adoption was incredibly fast for a paid product
It's my fault for lumping tools like ChatGPT into the bin of "chatbots" that people - mostly kids - are sexting and forming intimate relationships with. In my mind, the latter are "chat" apps.
ChatGPT and Claude have incredible utility, whereas Character.ai-type chatbots are much less certain. I can't fathom trying to spend more than a few minutes talking to them since they have so many shortcomings.
I don't consider ChatGPT a chatbot because my inquiries tend to match my usage of Google Search. It's a search tool.
> It’s telling that none of the tech CEOs allow their children to use their wares.
This is way too general a claim to be plausibly true, or verifiable even if somehow it was true. There's a lot of tech CEOs, running companies doing lots of different things in the world of computer technology, with lots of different family situations. They do not all have the same philosophy of how to raise their children, that they have publicly and truthfully talked about. Even if you're just talking about, say, Mark Zuckerberg specifically, who I know has mentioned some things publicly about his approach to raising his relatively-young kids, I don't think he claims that he blanket-disallows his kids from using every Meta product. And if he did, why would he say that publicly? Or maybe he did do that at one point when his kids were younger but then they complained a lot about this parental restriction and eventually he relented without happening to inform the world on a podcast that he's now making a slightly different decision in his private life.
I also don't think that any parent's decision about what kinds of computer technology use to allow or forbid for their children should be primarily based on what tech CEOs do with their own kids (and of course, really, what they heard tech CEOs somewhere without actually being able to verify this unless they happen to be close personal friends of a tech CEO).
I'm interested to see where this goes. I don't like how it's likely reducing privacy the internet. But social media is obviously a threat so serious that it might be worth the costs.
I've also been thinking that perhaps social media platforms should start displaying some kind of indicator when a poster is from out of your country. So when foreign troll farms start political posting you can see more clearly they aren't legitimate. I suspect that social media is largely to blame for the insane politics of the world right now.
They didn't have to implement it in a way where everyone has to upload their ID - there are other ways they could have done it. But Australia seems to love being a total surveillance state.
"and most people I know have barely engaged with it beyond a few queries once or twice to try it."
Have you recently spoken with the younger generation still in school?
I doubt you find many there who just "have barely engaged with it". It is just too useful for all the generic school stuff, homework, assignments, etc.
Agree. The conversation behind "adoption" was totally different as well. I was a young Army private when the first iPhone was announced. Before that I remember the iPod touch and other MP3 players beingthe rage in the gym and what not. I distinctly remember in the gym we were talking about the iPhone, my friend had an iPod touch and we took turns holding it up to our faces like a phone, and sort of saying "weird, but yeah, this would work".
Point being, when smart phones came out it there was anticipation of what it might be, sort of like a game console. ChatGPT et al was sort of sudden, and the use case is pretty one dimensional, and for average people, less exciting. It is basically a work-slop emitter, and _most people I know_ seem to agree with that.
Why do we say it was rapid? When I grew up, cellphones (then mostly Nokia-shaped and the cool ones were flip phones) were always banned in school. If they weren't banned recently, then that was a reversal of a previously existing norm.
A big difference with your examples is that basically every adult was already using a smartphone. So adults don't just jump to conclusions that it's evil. It's more like... "Smartphones are useful"
I think it won't automatically settle in a good state. We need to actively work towards it. Phones obviously have many useful and beneficial functions, photography, phone calls, etc. It's the engagement hacking from social media primarily which has broken society.
Sports gambling is astoundingly popular for teen boys. Already the prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading was getting to be too trendy for teenagers, and this shit just supercharges it.
> prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading
Calling day trading “zero sum” seems like a huge stretch. To get the sum to be zero you need to include everyone involved in the market: institutional investors, hedge funds, etc. Somewhere between 87 and 95 percent of day traders lose money.
There's so many of these absurd "investing" trends where financially illiterate people are getting tricked in to buying in to schemes where the only way to win is to be one of the insiders. Or more recently, the Counter Strike skin "investing" where a single change from a company can wipe out all of your investment.
Had you bought actual regulated shares you could sue the company for deliberately crashing the value. But since video game skins are not a real investment. You have no protections at all.
Isn't that actually illegal in most jurisdictions? But the betting companies seem to have effectively bribed legislatures in the past couple of decades.
I think both yours and the GP's points can be simply explained as: it's obvious in hindsight, but not in foresight.
Quite frankly, we (in a collective, general sense) suck at predicting the future. Half will think A, half will think B, and the half that ends up being correct by chance will think they are actually smart rather than lucky.
give me a break. you don't need data to know that a child lacks the self control to not look at their phone when they need to be doing anything else. smartphones are almost 20 years old. There are adults going to university and into the workforce that grew up without knowing a world without smartphones.
Here's a couple of arguments I had to deal with whilst expressing my support for electronics ban at schools including a blanket social media ban:
1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best."
2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn."
3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes."
All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.
> I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?
Indeed you don't; let me help you out then:
Arguments must be made in good faith; and when you hear anyone saying anything I mentioned above it is immediately obvious that they are not arguing in good faith.
If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed.
If anyone considers the above arguments valid and worthy of discussion, they need to exempt themselves from this discourse.
Those statements as described earlier were made in bad faith:
> 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best."
A public school intervenes between the parent and their children to tell the student what is good work and what is not. Parents do not always know best. (Yes, there are policies which let the parent appeal, but the parent does not have final authority.)
Child protective services can take children away from parents who are egregiously poor parents.
I don't see this as a good faith argument.
> 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn."
If we believe in educating citizens then we set rules to help educate citizens. There is a long history of prohibiting certain electronics at school. At https://archive.org/details/makingvaluejudgm0000elde/page/38... we can read that over 50 years ago some schools prohibited transistor radios.
If the claim is in good faith then it's also saying that laws and rules forbidding smoking in school must be repealed. I certainly want to keep them in place, so I don't see this as a good faith argument.
> 3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes."
Which is an argument that if the child wants to play video games all day and is getting Ds or worse in every class, than teachers should like the child continue to make that mistakes. I don't see this as a good faith argument.
Do you really think that people can't come up with such arguments on their own? People aren't very unique, lots of people independently come up with very similar stupid arguments.
You should have to deal with these arguments, as should anyone else who is in a similar position to you advocating for an institution to ban something for other people.
I will not say that some kind of electronic use ban at schools is necessarily bad, but someone proposing such a ban should absolutely have answers at hand to these reasonable counter-arguments.
Forbidding things doesn't work. Not for kids and not for adults. Hence speakeasys and the end of prohibition, or the war on drugs (which was won by drugs).
In pretty much all countries that instituted heavy restrictions on smoking, e.g. banning smoking from restaurants, you can see an accelerated drop in number of smokers the years after that ban regardless of changes in education. This is particularly easy to verify because it has been done in many countries but all at fairly different points in time. Some did it decades ago, some have done it recently, there are still countries where it's allowed.
Forbidding things works very well most of the time. There are exceptions, but as a rule, it works.
Would a parent be allowed to send their kid in with a pack of smokes, and expect their kid can smoke them inside the school?
No?
Because it effects others and brings down the overall ability for the learning environment to succeed. Same deal with phones. If it makes the environment toxic to success, there should probably be some prohibition within those grounds. This isn't banning phones across the board, or banning them for kids. It's banning them within a location, like how firearms are banned inside courthouses.
Forbidding things works. People drank less during prohibition, and they do less drugs than they would were they legalized. Hence there is no serious proposal to legalize most hard drugs
Eh, nuance: forbidding things entirely, which people want to do, and don't really harm others, doesn't work.
Having separate spaces works a lot better. Which is why we have alcohol venue licensing. Forbidding kids from phones entirely, at the same time as adults are on them constantly, isn't going to work. But having a phone-free space like a smoke-free space is more viable.
> I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.
I was trying to relate, and thinking until around 7th grade school lunch was a pretty awful lonely experience. But then remembered 2nd/3rd year of middle school finding the other outcast that somehow came together as our own little group of enterprising odd-balls.
We would buy large packs of gum (we sold for $.10-$.25 a piece), champion-caliber pencils (we tested a bunch playing a lot of pencil-break[0], sold for $.50-$1+), ping-pong balls/paddles (we had raggedy ping-pong tables near the food-court for before/after school and lunch that the cool kids didn't use so eventually other kids would rent/trade-for balls/paddles from us once we started playing) etc.
I think the biggest thing we did was start and run table/paper-football[1] games/tournaments; sometimes offering our perfectly-folded-winning paper-footballs or champion-level pencils or packs of gum, to make it exciting.
First we used the table we sat at for lunch, then noticing how shunned the un-cool ping-pong tables were, we turned them into paper-football fields (the green colour and white border lines made it that much more awesome as a paper-football field). We started playing before/after school and during lunch. We started doing ping-pong games too in one of the 3 time slots -- I think before school but maybe lunch I forget. But, I mean, this was Texas -- football is football -- we started drawing crowds and people were mixing outside their cliques wanting to get in on playing games (note: these were latchkey kid days in the south, the main groups looked like something out of prison movies; but we were a mixed sort of popular-group rejects, male & female)
Anyway, I would have to agree it was an important time for the foundation of my basic social skill set (never thought of it that way before). As much as I value that time and experience -- to be fair -- these kids are figuring it out in a different way for the world they live in. I've chalked up my dislike of watching my siblings kids being perfectly content to not get up from the couch/phone for hours at a time, as me being old.
This looks a lot like my childhood. I would guess most of us were popular-group rejects, latch key kids. Pencil fighting, paper football, exploring nearby creeks, (poorly) playing guitar for one another, gossiping in each other's basements, etc. Great times!
> I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"??
Look, I think that phones and computers don't belong in classrooms, but instead of assuming that the world has gone that mad, you should probably assume that whomever wrote those words has a tenuous relationship with honesty.
A lot of teachers (particularly, but not exclusively, younger teachers) are uncomfortable being strict with students, and especially teenagers. The local High Schools recently banned having phones during class (each room had a pigeon-hole style place for each student to put their phone), but enforcement is poor.
At least some of this is poor support for teacher's enforcement by the administration (I have been told that teachers are not allowed to kick students out of class for having their phones).
How in the world would you keep AI out of schools?
Ok, turn off the internet. And ban the cell phones.
I suppose a district could block the known AI providers, so kids could only use AI at home. I’m very skeptical this would eliminate the negatives.
On the contrary, every administrator I know of is gung-ho about the coming improvements in education driven by AI. (There certainly are SOME, but it comes with minuses.)
This 1000%. When my wife was a teacher she would often comment on what a huge distraction chromebooks and tablets were. Most of the things being learned through high school do not require a computer and do not benefit from them. Added to that, having kids spend 40 hours a week away from screens is a huge bonus.
The actual levers of control available to those in charge in schools are limited, in the end.
The rules that exist are routinely broken and can only be enforced selectively. Many of the rules are unpolicable frankly and are only kept to or only marginally broken as a matter of social norms, and understanding so there is not total choas. An equilbrium is found.
With phones there's such social pressure to allow their use, including from forces external to the school, that there was never possibly a hope of the equilibrium immediately settling at phones being banned.
It was always going to creep to the current status quo. Again this would have been true even if a rule were ostensibly set.
Society is learning, slowly, that this isn't ideal, and the pendulum seems to be swinging back. It may settle at phones being completely banned in schools, but in practice this will also obviously be moderately chipped away at all the time in various surprising and unsurprising ways. Especially as the hardware itself evolves.
> With phones there's such social pressure to allow their use, including from forces external to the school, that there was never possibly a hope of the equilibrium immediately settling at phones being banned.
Phones, and electronic devices in general, were always banned. What changed was schools started allowing them.
I was in high school right when some kids first started getting (dumb) cell phones. MP3 players were still new, CD players were not uncommon, and ALL of them were banned from being outside of your locker or backpack. If a teacher saw one, it was gone until the end of the day. Period.
Teachers didn't need to bear the brunt of angry parents, it wasn't their call to make. That belonged to the school administrator, who merely needed to say "tough shit". Somehow, the adult children still won anyway.
They had to know. My middle schooling coincided during wave of beepers (early 90s) and then high school was mobile phones (late 90s) then college in early 2000s (iPods but not iPhones). During all that time, devices were practically unacceptable at school. It was a zero tolerance, teacher would confiscate your device, your parent would have to come to school to get it back. It likely was accompanied by some detention or more punitive measure. College was a more adult approach to same, professor would yell or just tell you to leave the class if your device came out and you appeared distracted at all. If it rang, and everyone was distracted, they’d often be livid.
Then, it seems only a couple years after my schooling was complete, smart phones came out and they just let them exist, everywhere. It has never made sense to me how that shift happened so suddenly but best theories I’ve heard are 1) parents insisting kids be reachable and 2) educators just gave up the fight against it.
But yeah, it’s sad to me to think a whole generation had lost core social experience and socialization of such a pivotal age in life. When I hear stats about how kids/teens don’t; drive, party, date, sex, etc yet are lonely, anxious, depressed, etc I’m always like “no shit”
> I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school
What a lot of people learn from lunch rooms is not a happy social lesson. It’s who is allowed to sit where, and who is outcast from a table. It’s the shit teenagers lower on the social hierarchy have to take daily from teenagers who are higher, even if they are allowed to sit at the same table. High school is widely remembered as a brutal rite of passage, and lunch rooms are as much a part of that as any other space. If everyone was so absorbed in their phones, that may have been a benefit for social harmony and escaping real-life bullying and shaming.
The bullying is still there, it's just moved online. If anything it's easier for the perpetrators, because they can hide behind anonymity, or create humiliating deepfakes - and so on.
The problem isn't phones, it's the addictivisation of social media and gaming. Being able to stay in touch with friends and family is potentially a good thing.
But it's currently implemented as a hook for psychological and chemical addiction, so that user attention can be sold to advertisers.
That is a problem, and I think we're starting to see a movement which will eventually end with these platforms being banned, or strictly regulated at the very least.
It's basically casino psychology applied to all social interactions. That is clearly not a good or healthy thing.
What seems likely is addiction mechanisms and social media will end up banned for kids. Loot boxes and daily login rewards banned from games, etc. Proof of age will be required for social media.
Learning where you fit in the social hierarchy and attempting to navigate that hierarchy is more important than anything you’ll learn in math class. Even if it is embarrassing. It’s not like you graduate high school and then the bullies go away.
That's quite a claim. I'm not sure I buy it. We never had all this lunchroom social drama growing up, and my old mates and I seem to be doing just fine.
Maybe you feel that navigating social hierarchy is more important than anything in math is because that's the kind of culture you happened to grow up in, not because it's truly more important?
The exception being work, where a lot of people seem like they never left high school. Everywhere I've worked had the social totem pole, the cliques, the politics, the in-crowd and out-crowds. One place I worked was almost exactly like the movie Mean Girls. Lots of people just don't grow out of it.
Bullying in school absolutely has consequences, and they're mostly going to be much farther-reaching than those suffered as an adult - getting messed up psychologically is more impactful as a kid, not to mention any physical toll it takes, or the impact of it on one's education.
Oh fair enough. My apologies Mr Worf. I don't fully agree - plenty of shitty behavior gets ignored (or even encouraged) even in a workplace - but there's definitely some truth here.
I always hear this from Americans. My experience in Canada is that the bullying and shaming was limited to junior high (grade 7-9 in my province). Maybe my high school was just too large for any of that nonsense? Or maybe the culture is different - I couldn't have told you who was on the football team, and there was no prom.
All my friends were nerds, but at the same time I didn't feel like there was some brutal social order hanging over me like I did in jr high.
I think age cohortand school makes a difference. Personally I had a perfectly fine time in highschool, most people just got along. Same problems as other posters though, it's just anecdote, and a heavily biased sampling (pretty decent chunk of CS people with poor social skills)
PE class being the other one where bullies thrive, and prey on the sensitive, intelligent, thoughtful kids. The coaches look the other way because they want the "win".
Both of these are different failure modes of adults to parent and/or mentor children. Just because A and B are both bad does not mean C is not a potentially better place to be. Just because lazy teachers and staffers tell kids "you have to learn to fight your own battles" does not make social media A-OK.
The social lessons people learn from their high school experience vary wildly. I have read many accounts of people who had bad experiences like this when they were in high school, and also many accounts of people who didn't have experiences like this. When I think about how the people I know have described their high school experiences, I can also think of a wide range of things. It's certainly not what my high school social experience was like - there were things I disliked about it, but mostly related to highly-idiosyncratic details of my personality. Describing it as a brutal rite of passage with some kind of global social hierarchy involving who got to sit at which lunch table rings very false to me.
Heh, we were at a family reunion with my grandparents in-laws talking about school. The topic of bullies was brought up and grandma said "Oh there were no problems with bullies" and I replied "thats because you were the bully.
Grandpa laughed heartily, as I may have hit a bullseye
Asociality is not the same thing as social harmony. It's not better for children if their shithead peers are replaced with smartphones.
The unfortunate truth is that cliquey behavior and bullying are some of things that children have to be exposed to - you won't come out of school as a fully-capable human being unless you've spent the last several years being exposed to a ton of different adult emotions.
That high school is necessarily a place of cliquey behavior and bullying, and that kids may even benefit from it, is not a universal thing. In some countries, viewers of imported American TV shows are baffled by that depiction of high school, because in their high schools there aren’t such hard knocks.
I agree with you, American schools seem particularly bad at breeding these sorts of unhealthy dynamics, and we shouldn't accept it as normal. But even in a better environment, unstructured social interaction with peers still seems like a useful part of growing up/socialization and shouldn't be replaced with kids sucked into their phones.
I've had plenty of friends I've only known through the internet and a chat room. It's not the same as being in-person - I don't see a way to reliably turn out healthy adults unless kids talk to each other.
The point you're making is important and I can already see how many, once years out of school, are able to re-frame their memories into something that bullying wasn't so bad and it's actually a social good, etc. It's as if the return-to-office-policies bringing back bullying/sexual harrassement to one's work environment would be hailed as a chance to improve one's social skills. Ridiculous.
I do think though that it's worth discerning here: We don't need to accept a world in which we have to decide between apathetic children stuck to tiny screens and daily traumas. Both things are evil, and in both cases it's a testament to lack of care our education systems have for us/children.
It's fear mongering bullshit. "WHAT UF THERE EMERGENCY". Every room has a phone and a teacher with a phone. Absolute bullshit post Columbine 9/11 fear based nonsense.
90's high schooler here. Oh yeah, those basic social skills at lunchrooms at school.
Sitting in noisy lunchroom isn't fun if you have autism. Walkman/disc man was my fav (you know, that thing I used while on the bus, so no I didn't talk much there to others either). Too bad we didn't have noise-cancelling headset back then. Back to lunchroom. Went for a drink while leaving your school bag? Your scientific calculator got reset by one of the bullies. Good luck getting it ready again for math/physics/chemistry/biology class test. But I usually just lunched elsewhere anyway, since I wasn't allowed in the cool kids group, and I ended up finding solace in that. So where did I end up? In the multimedia library! 20 or so PCs which you could use for, eh... 'homework.' At one point I found out you could just edit your student number in HTML, so once I figured the student number of a bully I signed him up to study in one the silence rooms for a week. When he found out I did that, he did the same to me, but -unlike him- I was cool with that. As for that library: other, more smarter kids than me, went to sit separate to study during break. And during lunch break there were people bored, shooting with elastics, yelling, running, bullying. Book reading at school? Didn't happen much during lunch breaks. Some studying, sure. That it was so awesome before the smartphone time, is a nostalgia myth.
FTA:
> The faculty donated board games to help ease kids into the phone-free era. Student volunteers oversaw a table stacked with games: checkers, chess, Yahtzee, Scrabble, Clue, Life and Trivial Pursuit. For many of the kids, it was their first time playing the games, and they said they were enjoying it.
Oh, yeah. I played MtG back in those days but was called a 'nerd' for that, and surprisingly nobody in my class (gymnasium; highest education level on high school) would also play it. At times, I kind of enjoyed something like Black Lady and Rikken, but Poker just bored me, and I didn't like the play for money (it was officially forbidden, but you know how that goes).
> Ko said other analog activities have also made a comeback, including cards, hangman, tic-tac-toe and Polaroid cameras. “There are just a lot of memories that we make throughout high school that we want to capture,” she said. “I actually have a lot of Polaroids on my wall.”
Funny how there's still a need to make photo's. That is one thing I hate about smartphones. That excessive need to photograph everything these days.
Now, about the subject. I don't think it has to be 'all' or 'nothing'. It wasn't 'nothing' back in the days (as I already wrote above, we just consolidated a lot of devices), it wasn't perfect back in the days either.
Senior Raya Osagie, 16, said she has to “think more in class” because she used to Google answers or use artificial intelligence. “Now when we get computers, I actually have to [do] deep research instead of going straight to AI,” she said.
This kind of blew my mind a bit, as I had always imagined AI being used to do homework, hadn't occurred to me it could be used during a class as well.
That just sounds like lazy teacher discipline in class. Decades ago we couldn't even use calculators on some tests, but now (or up until recently) they could practically have a computer in their hands all class?
Allowing kids to have their phones in class, even if they weren't allowed to use them, was setting teachers up for failure. It's easy to call them lazy, but if you've ever tried to police the phone use of a bunch of screen-addicted adolescents you would understand. The calculator comparison is not a good one.
I encourage you to seek first-hand accounts of what teaching in a contemporary public school classroom is like. Teacher discipline can account for so much.
I commented on this elsewhere, but at least one local school recently simultaneously did the following:
1. Required teachers to have kids turn-in their phones for the duration of each class period
2. Banned teachers from kicking kids out of the class who did not turn in their phones.
Teachers don't enforce the rules here because they don't believe the administration will have their back if they try. They can assign detention for students not listening, but many students don't show up for detention, and meanwhile that student still has the phone.
Teachers are widely hated by the "stupid" class, which is most people. The students are set up for failure by their parents before they even enter the classroom. This has been going on for 50+ years.
When I was in university, I had a math teacher that brought extra chalk to class everyday because if he saw you on your phone, he'd snap a piece off and throw it at you pretty damn hard. Maybe that wouldn't exactly work in a high school but damn if Dr Murphy didn't have me paying attention in that class.
That being called "literal violence" is one thing, but now a teacher telling a student "you should be ashamed with yourself" is also called "literal violence."
What's also funny about that quote is that by "deep research" she's likely referring to googling the answer or using Wikipedia. Remember when Wikipedia was loathed by high school teachers?
The insistence of people, in every era, on staying in a previous technology tier instead of reforming society and culture around the present ubiquitous technology, doesn't really make sense.
Thanks for clarifying. But to be serious, I think it's the drive for culture in action. I think culture comes from people glancing at each other and doing what they do, reacting how they do. I think it can be healthy actually.
Surely reading comprehension is still required for, well, reading AI-generated text. Perhaps it's not their intention but I read an implication that using humans to source facts is outdated, which is... well, I'll just assume that I'm misunderstanding their perspective.
Hopefully society continues to develop healthy norms with regard to this sort of technology. Collectively it's taken us a while, but I think people generally are starting to get the picture. Smartphones are bad in a wide variety of ways, but even when people miss some of the nuance I think we can make progress regarding the minimization of their usage.
Here in MA there is a 'bell to bell' phone ban bill in the works. I'm very happy we're letting kids be kids again. There is no need for a phone during the school day.
And just to show how (US) universal this idea is becoming, a Texas law banning cellphones went into effect at the start of the school year.
This happened at the same time a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms would have went into effect but was temporarily blocked while it works it's way through the courts [0]
I praise you for not defaulting to US-defaultism, which is quite common on HN, but this really seems to be universal. There are also regulations like this in Scandinavia, France, Germany is talking about it.
California just got strict about this, too. I have found a dramatic increase in the amount of interpersonal talking that's happening in school as a result, which is great!
Australia banned phones in schools 1-2 years ago and it's been widely recognised as a huge success. I think banning social media like facebook/tiktok/etc for kids would be a huge benefit as well. Leaving just IM/group chats for kids to directly talk to each other without scrolling a feed of ragebait and ai slop.
I'm expecting a kiddo this winter and my use of devices+my likely future kid's relationship with tech has really been on my mind. The fact that people are thinking through this and actually working on it puts me slightly more at ease.
You probably won't have much to worry about until you have to decide whether screen time for your kid (at age 3-4) is a reasonable trade-off for you and your partner to have peaceful time to yourselves. Then it'll rear it's head again, after lulling you into complacency, when the kid is middle school age and all their friends have smartphones. Then you have to decide whether the convenience factor (for you) of your kid having a device is worth the trade-off of... them having a device.
Fwiw, my older two are 14 & 16 and we still use device control software on their phones and laptops. The younger of the two complains a bit periodically but the older one just accepts that it's the way it is and gets on with his life [most of the time].
I personally advise you not to let your young kid get into e-gaming. Things like Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft are gateways to increased device usage, and the benefits are (again, imho) not remotely worth it nor irreplaceable by much healthier alternatives.
Fun tidbit: my 8yo has a Kindle Fire and we've let her have Netflix & Disney+ installed on it. She also uses the Kindle & Libby apps to read voraciously, and Khan Academy for math. When she watches streaming media, though, she frequently watches it on mute with subtitles. That shocked me to see, and I asked her about it. She's 100% cool with that and appreciate the "privacy" of being able to watch things without other people meddling in her business. Shrug.
Banning a 16 year old from minecraft is so far beyond reasonable imo. I'd agree with not giving young kids ipads and walking away. But what sounds like a blanket ban on gaming is absurd.
Parents have always wanted time for themselves. There are Americans alive today who will tell you that they used to play outside from dusk to dawn and only saw their parents at dinner.
Serious question (I don't have kids of my own): before smartphones and tablets and the ubiquity of laptops and computers, what did parents do to get some peaceful time to themselves?
It's hard to believe that parents were only able to achieve this during the past 15-20 years.
(When I was a kid in the 80s and 90s, I spent plenty of time outdoors with my friends in the neighborhood, and also inside, in front of my Nintendo, either with friends or without. Not sure how much peace my parents got, but I assume it was non-zero.)
What era are you talking about? Later than the 90s had computers and game consoles. Before that it was going outside and digging holes, throwing stones.
Same thing they do now: Get a nanny, ask the grandparents, playdates, ... Putting kids in front of a device is lazy, and unfortunately, most of us are lazy.
> When she watches streaming media, though, she frequently watches it on mute with subtitles. That shocked me to see, and I asked her about it. She's 100% cool with that and appreciate the "privacy" of being able to watch things without other people meddling in her business. Shrug.
I do this myself from time to time (and I do it more often if I didn't have bluetooth earbuds), that seems like a perfectly sensible thing to be concerned about.
Yeah, being restricted by laws passed by random adults about what things you can and cannot do during school hours - such as being at school itself - is certainly characteristic of being a kid.
I don't think it's actually possible for a parent and community to safely and sanely raise a human child without some amount of coercion the kid doesn't want in the moment, so I don't advocate for this. Still, it is important to acknowledge that being coerced by people more powerful than you who think they know better than you do about what is good for you is unpleasant in and of itself, and society should try to minimize doing this to children to the extent possible.
Inane appeals to tradition are boring as fuck and completely useless. We should continue to circumcise infant males because we did it for decades (centuries?) and got by just fine! This says nothing about whether kids having access to cellphones is worthwhile and everything about how garbage your argument against them is.
People "roll coal" it because it is kinda amusing to do it, and it is a middle finger towards people they perceive to be preachy.
I accidentally "rolled coal" in my 90s Landrover because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill. It was amusing in the way of "oh shit! I kinda just blew a load of black smoke in the driver face behind me".
Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.
The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .
Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing. Some examples from state laws listed at that same Wikipedia page: "knowing release of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions", "with the intent", "may not knowingly or intentionally cause", "intentionally release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions"
Your reply is exactly the preachy response that causes people to be defiant and resentful.
> Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.
Blowing a bit of soot up in the air isn't in itself cruel. It is just a bit naughty. Now doing it in someone's face like I've seen in videos deliberately is not very nice and can be dangerous. I think it should go without saying that I don't condone anti-social and dangerous behaviour.
> The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .
Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy? BTW, I am a cyclist that spent 3 months out of work because of a hit and run accident that left me with a permanent weakness in my right shoulder as a result. The reason I don't spend a lot of time with other cyclists, is because everything started to become a political issue against drivers, a lot of my fellow cyclists are preachy. I heard people saying that owning a pet was akin to slavery and other such nonsense. As someone that enjoys both driving and cycling, it left a bad taste in my mouth.
BTW, In the story he caused a collision while rolling coal. The issue was dangerous driving. Not blowing some soot up into the air itself.
> Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing.
In my case it was, it was because I was stuck in the wrong gear. My vehicle is currently in a garage being repaired for that very issue now (clutch is worn). It was funny in the sense of "OMG that is embarassing".
Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?
> Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy?
People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.
> In my case it was
Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.
> Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?
What are you on about? I prefaced my post quite clearly. This is nonsense.
> People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.
Because there is a perception that cyclists are like this. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If a group of people don't police the most extreme members you are defined by those members.
BTW mountain bikers/bmx don't generally have the same poor perception IME as many other cyclists because generally the attitude is generally different.
> Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.
Other than it not being deliberate it was "rolling coal". To get the black soot you need to just have poor combustion of a diesel.
This was what was happening because I had to push the throttle to the limit so the engine didn't stall. For all intents and purposes it is exactly the same thing as there was incomplete combustion of diesel and therefore lots of black smoke coming from my exhaust.
> I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular."
I agree. However if the most vocal members of the group come off preachy, self entitled etc. at best people are going to be ambivalent towards you and at worst straight off hostile.
> Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the emotional snowflake.
It is often pot and kettle. I am not in the US and don't care about stupid culture war bs. I see both as equally ridiculous.
> No. Rolling coal requires injecting vastly more fuel and making the mixture far richer than even the worst possible factory tune.
This is exactly what happened. Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly.
So all intents and purposes the effect was the same. That is why the vehicle is in the garage. I don't like having a vehicle that isn't running properly.
Earlier you wrote it was "because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill".
Now it's "Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly."
Here's NJ's law:
> No person shall retrofit any diesel-powered vehicle with any device, smoke stack (i.e., hood stack or bed stack), or other equipment which enhances the vehicle's capacity to emit soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions, or shall purposely release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions into the air and onto roadways and other vehicles while operating the vehicle, colloquially referred to as "coal rolling."
Did you purposely release significant quantities of soot? According to your own words, that was not your intent.
Therefore under NJ law you were not rolling coal, even though the visible effect is the same. The law is based on your intent and purpose.
Yes, In some people minds that is the case. Do you think that is a big own on me? I agree, those guys shouldn't be doing that because they look like idiots.
However at the same time I understand the attitude. The fact that I understand an attitude doesn't mean I condone it.
Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If motorists don't police the most extreme members then motorists are defined by those members.
You don't condone it but you think calling it nasty behavior is preachy. Sounds like you are so afraid of being vocal and preachy that the most you can do is say “tisk, tisk” - hardly effective policing.
The only offering that possibly might have been compelling enough to charge for was Messenger if it existed in a vacuum, but there were already numerous services offering much the same for free (e.g. MSN, ICQ, AIM), and when others realized that is what the people actually wanted, many more immediately threw their hat in the ring (e.g. iMessage). There would have been no practical hope of it making it as a paid service.
assuming they were able to acquire customers and dominate the world with that business model, would that have prevented them from doing algorithmic feeds and promoting clickbait and poisoning politics and the rest?
sure, people would have been able to cancel their monthly facebook subscriptions if they didn't like that stuff. but we can effectively do that now just by not using it.
> Just 15 years ago the outlook of social media was much more optimistic.
Those who forget Usenet are doomed to repeat it, I suppose.
> It was all bullshit of course
Or, more likely, what was dreamed of ended up being incorrect. Like we learn every time we try social media, people don't actually want to be social online. That takes work and the vast majority of people don't want to spend their free time doing work. They want to sit back, relax, and be entertained by the professionals.
As before, businesses can only survive if they give others exactly what they want, which doesn't necessarily overlap with what is good for them. A fast food burger isn't good for you, but it is a good business to be in because it is something many people want. Arguably small communities like HN with exceptionally motivated people can make it work to some extent, but that is not something that captures the masses.
It's not coincidence that those who tried to make a go of social media ~15 years ago have all turned into what are little more than TV channels with a small mix of newspaper instead. That is where the want is actually found at the moment. Social media didn't work in the 1980s, the 2010s, and it won't work in the 2080s either. It's is not something that appeals to humans (generally speaking).
Can you provide an example of where facebook tried to do what most people would consider good that also required any >1% kind of sacrifice or risk on their part?
My impression is their moto was win at any cost and ask forgiveness later (not because we mean that either but because it will reduce the legal penalties and make us look like normal humans.) In some ways watching Mark reminds me of the infamous cigarette cartel testifying.
> Can you provide an example of where facebook tried to do what most people would consider good
They gave the social media thing an honest try for a short period of time. And it even came with a lot of fanfare initially as people used it as the "internet's telephone book" to catch up with those they lost touch with.
But once initial pleasantries were exchanged, people soon realized why they lost touch in the first place, and most everyone started to see that continually posting pictures of their cat is a stupid use of time. And so, Facebook and the like recognized that nobody truly wanted social media, gave up on the idea, and quickly pivoted into something else entirely.
Social media is a great idea in some kind of theoretical way — I can see why you bought into the idea — but you can't run a business on great theoretical ideas. You can't even run a distributed public service without profit motive on great theoretical ideas, as demonstrated by Usenet. You have to actually serve what people actually want, which isn't necessarily (perhaps not even often) what is good for them.
> Like we learn every time we try social media, people don't actually want to be social online. That takes work and the vast majority of people don't want to spend their free time doing work. They want to sit back, relax, and be entertained by the professionals.
That's not it at all. Facebook shifted because they wanted you to spend more time on their website and serve you more ads. And once you've seen all your posts from your friends you'd be done and close facebook.
Which is why the posts from the friends are now completely gone, replaced by… stuff.
> Facebook shifted because they wanted you to spend more time on their website and serve you more ads.
Right. A service that isn't used is pointless. Usenet didn't serve ads or even try to make money, but also didn't get used, and was also deemed unworthy of attention. I mean technically it is still running out there in some corner of the internet, but when was the last time you used it? I bet 90% of HN users have never used it even once, and that's a technical crowd who are the most likely to use it. Your school crossing guard will have never heard of it.
> Which is why the posts from the friends are now completely gone
That's not exactly true. There is a secondary newsfeed that is limited to just your friends' posts, under the "Friends" tab. But let's be honest: Nobody (other than a few, let say odd, characters) post anything, so it's always empty. This is no doubt why you claim that it doesn't even exist. You're not wrong in practice, even though it is technically there.
This is the problem with social media. They learned pretty quickly that it doesn't work — the same hard lesson Usenet learned decades prior — which is why they had to pivot away from it. If you don't give people exactly what they want, you're not going to go anywhere. Plain and simple.
This is the same logic that has parents buying games like GTA for their prepubescent children and being dumbfounded that the kids are exposed to violent images.
While we can definitely point the blame at tech companies that manipulate algorithms, engage in dark patterns, etc, it's ultimately up to the consumer to consume judiciously and moderate their own well being. Nobody ever asked Apple or Google to "deliver what's best" for society. What's best for society is a collection of rational, intelligent, and accountable adults.
America has an entire political party who runs a party line that unregulated businesses will naturally do what's "best" because of "free market mumble mumble". They even sometimes outright insist that "best" in that context means "best for humans and society", and that any attempt to constrain that will be Communism and cause all of society to collapse.
>What's best for society is a collection of rational, intelligent, and accountable adults.
That same party insists that you should be able to choose to enroll your child in a school that does nothing but teach weird christian doctrines, and outright lies like "Evolution is controversial" or "Continental drift is not proven" or "The USA is a Christian country". They demonstrably want to be able to direct my tax dollars to these institutions, based on their choice.
Everyone should spend time checking out what the tens of millions of self reported fundamentalist "Christian" americans pay money for. There is an entire alternative media economy and it is horrifying. It exists to reinforce tons of outright false and delusional narratives, like an imagined persecution complex against christians.
If you think those tens of millions of Americans don't have power or sway in this country, they are literally the reason why visa and mastercard keep shutting down porn businesses (the higher fraud claim is just false and probably a lie, ask me how I know!) and the current House majority leader is their guy, as well as Trump's previous VP, as well as maybe technically JD Vance, as well as like Joe Rogan, who insists that AI is the second coming of christ because it doesn't have a mother, just like christ. Not joking, that is a real thing that Joe Rogan has made millions of dollars saying to over 20 million people. Oh, and at least one Supreme Court Justice.
Our business is one of the most straightforward ways to turn a stolen credit card into usable money for a fraudster. I know what our fraud rates are. At no point has any payment processor cared at all about a payment flow with high fraud. At most, they will charge us a tiny bit more money to service those transactions.
Credit Card companies do not care about chargebacks, as long as you don't substantially hurt consumer goodwill. They get their money back from the merchant, and every successful chargeback is a reminder to consumers of how credit cards will protect you. A false chargeback would also be unlikely to harm consumer confidence in that protection, since the consumer knows they weren't defrauded.
We know Ashley Madison had millions of paying subscribers. The idea that porn websites have "Higher fraud rates" entirely comes from the unstated assumption that porn consumers will chargeback their payment, and this claim is not justified. Consumers do not make a habit of making false chargeback claims, it just isn't substantiated in the data. We also have substantial evidence that lots of people want to genuinely pay for porn, and will pay significant amounts.
If 1 out of every 5 people who paid for pornhub tried to do a chargeback, that would not be a payment stream the credit card processor would be bothered by.
Meanwhile, the facts on the ground are that there is a fundamentalist religious organization formerly known as Media Matters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_on_Sexual_Expl... who have been working since at least the Nixon administration to ban things like sex toys from sale, to ban sex education, to stop same sex marriage legalization, to prevent the decriminalization of sex work. They were part of LBJ's commission on obscenity and pornography. They asked Reagan to ban pornography in 1983. They are significantly responsible for the large media blitz in 2020 that demonstrated that pornhub had a genuine problem with things like revenge porn and underage porn that lead to pornhub deleting 90% of their content, which frankly is a good thing, but they are demonstrably and openly not out to help sex workers or keep porn safe, but rather to kill it. Their official stance is that porn is a public health crisis. They were one of the principle supporters behind FOSTA, a bill that most sex workers insisted would make their jobs less safe.
Why is there a popular, trite, completely unsubstantiated narrative that is super popular on places like reddit for how porn companies lost the ability to take payments despite open and direct and admitted actions by an organization that has openly worked for decades to ban porn who helped sue porn companies? Gee, I wonder why.
Meanwhile, two months ago, the stepson of the chairman of that very organization was charged for child porn, so you know, the standard religious right style of "We have to protect the children" while literally abusing children.
Notably, the recent spat with getting some really, uh, """Niche""" adult oriented games off steam was not (at least, publicly, but this is not an accusation) done by them, but an unaffiliated Australian organization that has a better track record of doing what they claim. Steam also is still selling lots of porn games.
> In the cafeteria, Ryan Tripathi, 16, was paging through “Lord of the Flies,” which he said is slow-going. “I'm just not used to reading,” he said. “I’m usually on my phone.”
Lord of the Flies is a short book telling a simple story in which lots of very identifiable stuff actually happens. It’s not exactly Ulysses. Sixteen year olds used to routinely read more complex works of fiction for fun.
I couldn't disagree more. And it was the one thing that surprised me every time we cracked open a new book. "All Quiet on the Western Front" sounded terrible to a 14 year old me, but after starting it, I couldn't put it down. Same with Lord of the Flies. Fahrenheit 451. The Giver. I loved Animal Farm. And the Great Gatsby (though I get people not liking this one). The Outsiders was good. The Old man and the Sea was pretty boring I'll admit. Who thinks To Kill a Mockingbird is boring as shit?
I loved those books when I was younger (still do). They're good stories regardless of age. Lord of the flies is about a bunch of young kids having to play real life survival after a plane crash and devolve into some pretty crazy people during it. How could that be boring?
And Besides a bit of Orson Scott Card and LoTR I didn't get into fantasy until later in life.
I read quite a bit when I was in school, but I honestly don't remember a direct assigned book I actually liked. There were times we got to choose what we were reading for school and in those cases I read some that stuck with me like "1984".
It is interesting to see how rapidly social fabrics deteriorated when smartphones came around. I was in highschool from 2014-2018, and for most of the years, I could remember everyone socializing during lunch, break times, and even in the classroom. Which is odd because we had access to smartphones, airpods, and laptops. Perhaps it was because we spent the majority of our lives without them still? Seems to have gotten a lot worse since then.
That's an interesting data point. I think covid did a lot of damage too. Kids spending formative years stuck in their room texting just didn't get the chance to build basic social skills and habits.
But it's hard to separate out that effect from just earlier and earlier exposure to modern phones. The class of 2018 was ~10 when the iphone 4 came out. And even that wasn't nearly as addicting as modern phones - it was tiny, and didn't have vertical scrolling video (except for Vine, briefly).
Smartphones have been around much longer than before 2014. My takeaway from this is that people just always think it's worse than what they went through.
There is certainly an unhealthy dose of "kids these days" bullshit that inevitably propagates literally every single generation. This is especially disappointing on a forum for "hackers" though. I wouldn't be the person I am today without unrestricted internet access as a teen. My parents wanted me in their ignorant little conservative box not knowing or understanding anything outside of it. Their ignorance exceeded mine, so I was able to circumvent them by the very means many "hacker" news participants would love to see locked down and eliminated. I can't help but think of them as simple and pathetic as my parents were trying to strictly control what I could learn. They are the very definition of an anti-hacker culturally.
No it was Covid. But one party’s dogma was to close schools and force all socialization to be online for almost two years and rather than admit it was wrong and harmful they blame phones instead.
This is really funny for me to read because as a kid we were prohibited from having telecommunications devices while at school entirely. We were also prohibited from speaking during lunchtime. Our lunch was most definitely not loud.
When I was in elementary school one of the teachers would hold a decibel meter and subtract minutes off of recess if we got above a whispered conversation.
In class that is good. However at lunch kids should be talking to other kids. I know many teachers/schools are control freaks and so they would do such things, but it was always evil.
Have you never been to a room full of people/children? If there aren't these 'control freaks' in the room, then it gets louder and louder until to the limit where nobody can understand anything while all are shouting. It's surprisingly fast, about ~2 minutes to the maximum/stable loudness. This 'control freaks' are the requirement to allow children to have a conversation.
Properly treated rooms make a big difference for this. When the walls are painted concrete and the ceilings are unfinished this happens almost immediately; when the walls and ceilings are acoustically treated, it's much better. (Carpet makes it even better, but I would definitely not recommend carpeting a school lunchroom).
If the teacher completely forbids talking, they will just talk right around the corner, or write on paper. They will be just unable to impose it on the children for long.
As a millennial, the concept of public school lunch not being loud is weird to me! I always remember the constant chatter of school lunch. Definitely had my share of hearty shared laughs, and heated conversations during lunchtime.
I graduated in 2011. Smart phones were rare, but dumb phones were quite common.
The lunch room was quite loud. To keep people from being in their own world on their phones too much, my lunch table had a rule that if you laugh out loud at something on your phone, you had to share it with the table. It was quite effective, though somewhat embarrassing from time to time.
In the early 2000s, when everyone had a phone but no smart phones, we had this "thing" at the college bar:
Sitting around the table with some beers and friends, everyone put their phones in the center of the table. First one to touch their phone had to buy the next round of drinks. It was effective. I've tried similar recently, but people are less enthusiastic about the idea.
It makes me so sad that it's possible for technology to steal the need to talk and play, even from our youth. If you have little kids you know how frantically they NEED to yap and play. I hold such horror for anything that would sap such life away.
It varies a lot. My kids will run around and play given the opportunity, but when they arrive home at 6pm from after-school club, completely exhausted, I think it's fair that they get to collapse in front of a screen for a bit.
For my generation (just post-Boomer), it was the TV.
For my parents, it was the radio.
For their parents, reading out loud for everyone to enjoy ("Mr. Dickens has published another episode of The Pickwick Papers!"), or playing instruments.
Problem is for the first month of lessons it is not joy, it is hard frustrating work where you sound bad and know it. Even when you are good lessons often are pushing you to do hard things and so they are not pure joy.
My son has been taking violin for years, is really good, and loves it - but most of his practice time is still really hard pieces that need a lot of practice of the hard parts (stitching between 5th and 2nd position...) and he would prefer to sit down at the piano (he stopped lessons years ago) and play an easy piece.
Practicing is always hard and I struggle to find time or energy to push myself but my goal was to be able to play basic chords and make up silly songs around the campfire so everything else is just a bonus.
Individual screens can be isolating, they can also be somewhat social. I agree, not a complete replacement for other social activities for sure. But, as a kid with internet connected videogames growing up, those internet connected games kept me playing with friends from school and other groups even if we weren't able to physically get together that evening.
Meanwhile, my brother would often go dig in and read a fiction book in isolation. Which is fine and great and all. I'm definitely not taking a dig at reading a book in any way. But, its not like only screens lead to isolation. There's plenty of tasks one can do at home that then become isolating.
For a lot of young people the screen is social - the equivalent of the long after-school phonecalls from the before times. Be it games or just Discord, it's still comms.
The screen is also a continual, addictive flow of short video clips that are largely designed to sell product, stoke FOMO, make people feel inadequate about beauty, etc.
Observe young people using their phones, and you can see the social use is often just occasionally switching from TikTok to a chat app, dashing off a one-line message, and then going right back to TikTok. Big difference from having actual long phone conversations with friends after school.
Most of the social of screens is when you get to a place without them you have something common to talk about. "how about [local sports team]", "what did you think about [whatever happened on latest soap opera]", "lets pretend I'm [some character on cartoon]". It is all shorthand for we have something in common and can skip getting to know each other.
As a society we've proven over and over again that we're unable to solve these problems that require coordination against greed. We've pulled the smartphone out of Pandora's box.
There's a 500B industry selling the phones, 2.5 trillion selling telecom services, trillions more selling social media, and most of the economy involves selling their products over the internet. Those are some HUGE incentives to maintain the status quo, or get people even more addicted yet.
I don't think our society is capable of answering that question and starting a Dune-style "Butlerian Jihad" and destroying all machines-that-think.
I'm guessing that teachers never wanted smartphones in class in the first place and that this was just about pushing back against the helicopter parents.
I'm astounded that this has become a thing. My school had a zero-tolerance "if I see it, I confiscate it" phone policy. And your parent had to come retrieve it.
There are kids who lost their phones because it accidentally fell out of a pocket lol
I'm out of school for 3 years. For most of the time smartphones existed, but were forbidden in class. It were the teachers, who allowed it and even encouraged it to be used in class. When the students are already staring at a screen during class, they continue doing so after. When they do not, they don't (at least initially). In my final years, it was obvious who thought about class and who was completely mind-absent, by looking who looked at an school-supplied iPad. > 90% of these people were just playing games during the whole lesson. This was known by everyone in the classroom and the teachers just ignored them.
The "Safety" excuse is bullshit. What safety problem could exist in a school that a child with a cell phone can solve? Fire? School administrators will call the fire department. Intruder? School administrators will call the police. School shooter? Same. There's nothing that a child with a cell phone will fix.
It probably is bullshit, but everything you've written is a straw man. A phone is useful for the kid on their journey to or from school, which by secondary level I would hope is on their own. Even just, "I'm going to Steve's, I'll be late for dinner".
But it doesn't need to be a smartphone for that, and it doesn't need to be out during school hours.
The impact of phones on teen social life seems to be still controversial in academic circles. I think it would be a lot less controversial if everyone knew the lunchroom had fallen silent because everyone was scrolling, and became loud again when they banned the phones.
Why should articles like these always start with some fictional story like a novel? The actual news is buried somewhere half-way after the throw-away story.
It is following a magazine style. This is partly to elicit an emotional reaction and partly I suspect because the copy writer is bored and wishes they were writing novels instead.
if it's a proper news source they (and every other paper) already reported it who knows how many times. "city is about to ban phones in schools" "city is banning phones in schools" "the phones in schools were banned". everybody who needs to know already knows
This is not intended to be a news piece. It's a story. But whoever is in charge of CMS messed up categories. It should not be labeled news
annoying? if you want Crime and Punishment to be "guy killed a grandma" that's your thing but believe me this style is not annoying to many people aside from vocal minority
Firstly, I love the straw-man. I am fine with length and the more story driven approach if it is warranted. More often than not I do not believe it is warranted.
Secondly, I am allowed (whether you like it or not) to complain about something if I don't like it. I find this style annoying and I often believe it is written in a way to manipulate people, which I have a distaste for.
Thirdly, whether I am in a vocal minority or not doesn't mean that vocal minority is incorrect in its criticism. A lot of sites have adopted this style even more more "news" style articles.
You're allowed to complain of course. Just like people are allowed to write these stories and me and people who upvoted this allowed to do the opposite of complaining. whether you like it or not.
There's nothing wrong in being in minority but I guess because it is on frontpage it says something about preferences of majority.
Why then make it sound like I can't by deliberately misstating my position in a completely ridiculous manner to be as argumentative as possible?
> Just like people are allowed to write these stories and me and people who upvoted this allowed to do the opposite of complaining. whether you like it or not
I never said once they weren't allowed to. I said I found the writing style annoying.
> There's nothing wrong in being in minority but I guess because it is on frontpage it says something about preferences of majority.
It doesn't say anything about the preferences on the majority. A minority of people would have up-voted this as well. Many other people may have found it annoying that said nothing or simply ignored it. You don't know their numbers. So this is speculation.
how did I misstate your position? you say this style is annoying. I say the whole point of this article is style, being an interesting read not just rehashing facts. just like many good books. and I chose a well known book as an example for my point.
there was tons of news rehashing facts of what happened (phones banned yadda yadda), why not just read that instead if you want it
Straw-man and now gas-lighting. Obviously I wouldn't have the same opinion about a classic novel (however flowery prose is a problem in a many novels) as I do about throwaway news "stories" written by a copy writer that wants to make use of their English degree. Pretending someone would (without any evidence to the contrary) is a disingenuous tactic to make people shut-up. I've had this done to me in person.
> there was tons of news rehashing facts of what happened (phones banned yadda yadda), why not just read that instead if you want it
If they hadn't have used the story like prose I may have read the rest of it! That is my and the OP's entire complaint.
> If they hadn't have used the story like prose I may have read the rest of it!
So you didn't read it? How far did you make it? I swear there is an underlined link to another article about the ban somewhere in first paragraph. If you follow that link, there's a handy sidebar appears with details about the ban. Yay technology)
> throwaway news "stories" written by a copy writer that wants to make use of their English degree
Personal attacks on people who can write? let's goo!
Crazy, I went to boarding school 2009-2011 and our dinner hall was always loud with talking and laughter. However sometimes it would slowly get quieter until the room went silent with everyone looking oddly at each other, then a massive wave of laughter would erupt.
Some weird phenomenon.
I also remember downloading Froggy jump on my iPhone and playing it with friends, but you certainly put your phone away more than you do now. You also had it taken off of you if you were on it when you shouldn't have been. If my parents found out they took my phone off of me, they'd probably crack it at me because I wasn't paying attention. I get the feeling many parents might just get angry at the teacher rather than their child.
> Enakshi Barua, 14, said she’s also opposed to the ban, on principle. Barua said. "I feel like the trust isn’t there between the students and teachers."
> staff members are collecting around 30 contraband phones a day
> There’s a strike system with escalating punishments
I’d like to know what happens to cell phone use after school lets out. Are these students more likely to spend the rest of the day online? I could also see it going the other way. And if that’s the case, Cardozo is one of the first cell rehabs for students. Terrific to see!
Anecdotally burner phones are already being discussed and presumably used. They lock up your primary phone, and you sneakily use your burner phone which if confiscated can be used again or easily replaced/abandoned.
It’s fascinating to see a practice that was previously limited to Silicon Valley executives become first a national class signifier and now go mainstream.
We haven’t extensively studied how social media and smartphones affect a kid’s brain. It’s becoming abundantly clear the former is inappropriate for kids and adolescents. It’s emerging that the latter is at least destructive for non-adolescent children.
This does nothing to ban cameras. The fact that a smartphone has a camera doesn't mean cameras are banned. You can still bring a standalone camera to school.
Maybe in a private school, but a public school should be considered public, making it perfectly legal to film in a classroom thanks to the first amendment.
What? Public means publicly funded, not that the students need to live like they are in public on the streets. A school should still be a safe space, how can children be allowed to develop and be educated?
At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.
>At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.
If you live in the United States, the first amendment absolutely allows you to film anyone in public. It's a constitutional right.
This also applies to publicly funded facilities, like courthouses, libraries, post offices, the DMV, and also public schools - any publicly accessible area, in any facility that is publicly funded.
I'm not making this up, it's actually part of the constitution.
> also public schools - any publicly accessible area
A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object? How does this work with the duty of supervision, the duty to provide and the protected status of children as ward to the educators?
A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are all facilities, that are publicly funded, yet you certainly can't walk in and take random photos or do other things.
I expect public schools to be publicly funded, not to be the same as any public space. Maybe that indeed doesn't apply in your country, but that sounds bullocks to me.
>A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object?
These days, generally no, "random dude" cannot just walk into any school as some have the front doors locked during school hours (mostly due to gun violence, not taking photos), but it's not impossible. But "random dude" is not the subject of the article, the subject is student's phones being banned, which does not include cameras specifically being banned, which students could still bring into a school, and it's still perfectly legal to use them. Don't hallucinate something I didn't say to try to make a pointless argument. "Random dude" was not part of this comment thread until you made it up.
>A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are all facilities, that are publicly funded, yet you certainly can't walk in and take random photos or do other things.
You can take photos in the public lobby of all those places, that is accessible to the public, or from outside the facility on public sidewalks or roads, etc. Hospitals over here aren't generally publicly funded, a small number are, but most are for-profit. The US has a lot of problems with healthcare that your country may not have. It's perfectly legal to film military bases from outside the base, anything you can see from a public space is legal to film. It's up to the public entity being filmed to create privacy (walls, etc). Publicly accessible areas are a thing in most public facilities, and restricted areas are a different thing, where filming is not allowed, nor access is given.
1st amendment rights are the same rights that allow security cameras to record people in public, and the public has the right to request police body cam recordings, as well as all camera footage from cameras in public facilities to be requested by the public. If I wanted to, I could get all the security footage from any public facility, just by requesting it. That's why it's also perfectly legal for me to bring my own camera and film inside any publicly accessible area of a public building. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public in the US.
>I expect public schools to be publicly funded, not to be the same as any public space. Maybe that indeed doesn't apply in your country, but that sounds bullocks to me.
Constitutional rights don't stop because someone's feelings might get hurt if their photo is taken, and a made-up policy that some institutions like to post on the front door banning photos doesn't supersede the rights given in the constitution. We can ignore those policies, because they are not more important than constitutional rights.
Most people in the US don't even understand 1st amendment rights, but there are a lot of "1st amendment auditors" that go around testing our rights, filming in publicly accessible areas of all the places you've mentioned, and educating people (including law enforcement) that don't have a clue what the 1st amendment guarantees.
It means your in a large room with a lot of people talking to each other. It's not a fine dining experience where people whisper. It's a social place. The social aspect was taken out of the experience, which is vital to development. The "loud" (meaning, it's not quiet) aspect is not a negative. It's not a "lunch break" for adults to go decompress from the stress at work. If kids want quiet for studying, they can hit their school library, or other places for solitude and tranquility. It's about younger people actually communicating and discussing what is going on in the day, their life, after school, hobbies, interests, relationships, etc.. Imagine going to a playground where there are 100 children. None of them are making a sound. That would be a scary sign. You should hear kids laughing, screaming, crying... experiencing social engagement. People are being isolated from each other because they are becoming "addicted" to screens and short media formats. We are training our brains for instant gratification, but there is no retention or learning going on. Younger people aren't learning how to communicate directly with others. Without these engagements we hobble our development of things like empathy. How to control our emotions with others. It's damaging for all.
That's just an elected student position that usually interfaces with the school leadership about student issues - it isn't the vice principal/principal/superintendent that run the school(s)
I don't think smartphones should be allowed in schools but as someone who was dumbfounded by the lunchtime cacophony of my peers, I wouldn't lead with that as a triumph.
Those of us who hate the noise of boisterous social conversation are the outliers, but it is a sign of their healthy social environment. I personally was always able to find a quiet spot.
My early dinner, empty restaurant habit is the adult persistence of my teenage preferences, and I don't expect my personal tolerance to be their norm.
The problem, when it comes to smartphone bans, isn't the kids, believe it or not.
My experience (consulting with multiple k-12 institutions) is that it's the parents. If the parents can't be in CONSTANT contact with their kids, it's a problem. People are scared of everything all the time. It's not great.
Schools should provide quiet spaces for kids who don't want noise during lunch. The library should always be open during lunch hours. There should always be an outdoor space for those who want it (unless there is lightening - I assuming you know how to dress for any other weather).
Or we can go the opposite way: for kids who want to be loud during lunch there should be a place for them to do that. Wanting to be loud it too common to ignore, and it isn't like perfume/peanuts/... where we have to force a policy for a minority.
AFAIK know phones are banned in all secondary school (and primary school) from the start till the end of the school day. My daughter just started secondary school and one kid was trying to text her mum to add credit to her lunch money account in the first week and got a one hour detention for getting her phone out during school. This was in the canteen, not in a lesson. Bit harsh but seemed to get the message across.
Ironically most homework is done by the kids on their phones so when I tell her to get off her phone she always has the excuse that she's checking/doing her homework, or looking at her timetable online.
[edit] note this is a UK perspective, not sure why this got downvoted
Why is it that Hacker News is overwhelmingly liberal on most issues but when it comes to teenagers/children incredibly authoritarian and big government?
Because many people only support freedoms for themselves, the second someone else wants to do things different than they would they get angry because they don't understand why anyone would think differently than them.
Also they don't ever have to worry about becoming young again so they literally never feel the consequences of their ideals and actions against kids. They feel safe in completely dismissing concerns and actual reality because they are so far removed from it and can cling to whatever imaginary view of the youthful world they made up.
Because, like most of the population in the West, HN readers are not actually liberals but rather centrists, which means they lean roughly equally conservative, liberal and socialist on the political triangle - on average.
Sometimes you have to trade personal liberties (makes liberals sad) and/or privileges (makes conservatives sad) to obtain better societal outcomes, i.e. mandatory vaccination or minimum wage. Those are socialist policies.
And since the major media and thus our shared social space is heavily anti-socialist (qui bono?), everyone is closeted and tries extremely hard to justify socialist policies as liberalism, which is not shunned. Hence people in the US now perceive them as closer or even "allied".
So I have eye witness accounts of this lunchroom saying that's not true. The lunchroom was deafeningly loud before the ban.
This school is also a magnet school with only high-performing kids who did not suffer from distraction problems and who actively made use of phones during class for classwork.
All my teacher friends (before this article) had joyously reported on lunch rooms being loud again (and even fights and lol, sex) happening.... But in a good way. If kids aren't getting into some trouble then they're not interacting and learning about society and human nature enough
I have a kid in a non-magnet HS and one in a magnet HS (in NYC). This article isn't off-the-mark but I would say there will always be variations by school.
A whole lot of people who got to their great tech jobs by commoditizing their screen addictions (I.e a significant amount of this very website) are massively harmed by these policies. I can’t believe that the folks here nearly universally like this.
We should celebrate screen addiction and not fight it.
I learned to use a computer, by doing things that are possible air-gapped. Using a shell, etc. I did not by scrolling through social media, while all my peers treat computers like magic and lack basic knowledge, because they only know how to scroll through apps.
Even today I learn and produce the most when the network is down.
It's so insane that they let things go this far. It could have been immediately obvious to those involved that cell phones in class would have immensely negative effects. I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"??
I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.
I feel like we have had a long history of overreacting to new things. "D&D is the devil", "Rock music is evil", etc. But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful. But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back.
I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and facebook ever could.
> But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back.
This can't be it. I was in high school when smartphones were coming out and there was zero tolerance for them or any other electronic devices (dumbphones, ipods, palm pilots, etc) in the classroom.
I don't know when or why it happened but allowing smartphones in school was a conscious choice and a policy change.
Upper-middle class parents addicted to constant communication with their children started complaining about their kid's not being allowed to carry their phones, nearly at the level of implying it was a human rights violation. They combined this with worries about school shootings (that cellphones haven't ever helped with to my knowledge, unless having live recordings of children being murdered is help.)
After they got it, it was instantly allowed everywhere. It was another result of the "activism" of the same suburban let me speak to your manager class that has been ruining everything for the past 20 years.
edit: A lot of parents are constantly texting back and forth with their kids all day. It's basically their social media, especially if they don't have any friends, and I bet in plenty of cases a huge burden to the children.
This.
Schools are not employers that can implement take it or leave it policies. You need coordination and agreement between school leadership, district leadership, staff, and most critically parents to put your foot down on anything while also working to ensure basic safety and decent academic outcomes.
Now that the ills of social media and screen time are mainstream knowledge, it’s easier to make a common sense argument without much pushback.
I started teaching in the 90s, and left classroom teaching in 2019. This is how I saw it play out in every school I was aware of.
People think "just ban phones". But there are so many factors at play, it has to be a coordinated effort across an entire school. And everyone has to play along. Any policy is only as good as its enforcement, and enforcement is hard.
Ugh this is so tragic but I think correct
Pretty simple really, we're basically all [1] addicted to smartphones, so we basically all [1] advocated for this. After all, to admit it was a problem for our kids, we'd have to also admit it could be a problem for ourselves.
Even I find myself holding onto my phone during most of the day when not on my computer, I don't even know why. It's an incredibly addictive piece of technology.
[1] - to a first order of approximation, yes I know you're the exception
What's missing from the initial comparison is the fact that smartphones opened up all sorts of conveniences, which is partly what makes them so addictive. Rock music, D&D, etc, these other things that were crusaded against offered no convenience for all, so a conservative mind saw no value in it and attacked it as something that warps or rots young brains. Smartphones obviously do that and worse, but because they offer all sorts of helpful tools in our daily lives, we let it slide.
When I was in high school in the 90's, the famed Texas Instruments calculators were often banned in some maths classes because, as was said at the time, we were "not going to be walking around with a computer in our pockets all the time," so we needed to learn to do the work. By the time my younger brother passed through the same classes, they were required to have a graphing calculator because it actually helped kids complete the work. And play Dope Wars.
While we do tend to overreact to new tech, ways of thinking, games, music, etc, there's something inherently oily and snakelike about a thing that brings convenience to our lives the way smartphones or cell phones did. They slip in, comfortably at times, settling into our habits and routines while simultaneously altering them. We end up manipulated by it and before we know it, we can't set it down. In the case of smartphones, our data became the commodity, a mere decade or two after we were worried about tracking devices in cars or phone lines being tapped. But the smartphones kept delivering on their promises, which kept us hooked.
As someone who recovering from alcoholism, I struggle to call our love of smartphones an addiction, but if it helps people be aware of the dangers, by all means, use the term. To me, the problem of smartphones is manipulation at the deepest cognitive levels. We started offloading some thinking to them and who could blame us? We had the store of human knowledge in our pockets! We could play a game instead of sitting idle on the train, gamble with online casinos to try and win some extra cash that week, keep up with the Joneses on Facebook or get into a heated debate on Twitter during our lunch break, check banking, stocks and eBay sales, etc. We no longer had to carry a separate device to photograph or record the moment. The list goes on and on. But in the end, it altered our behavior just enough that we allow ourselves to be controlled by it, monitored by it, and bought and sold by it.
HA I think I still have dope wars on my old college TI-84. Thanks for the blast of nostalgia!
Came to comment “Ours were banned because we wrote scripts to show ‘MEMORY CLEARED’ before exams, and played Pokémon on the motherfucker”.
Yeah I used to finish my job on a computer and go use another computer for fun. The smart phone is just a smaller one of tbose.
Did we ever allow the students to smoke in the classroom?
We allowed it in designated areas outside the classroom between classes…
My school even had a gazebo on the school yard so smokers didn't have to stand in the rain. They literally spent money to accommodate smokers.
Of course by the time I was there smoking on school grounds was prohibited, so smokers had to go just beyond the gate. Which students were not allowed to, but few teachers were willing to enforce that
In the 1970s some "Vocational" High Schools allowed it (if the students were past the legal age).
We allowed teachers to smoke in the classroom, so in some sense..
Teacher gets the lion’s share of the nicotine, kids get all of the rest, essentially.
Raw deal.
In the classroom not, but during my youth in Germany, the smokers had their own smoker's corner with an ashtray until smoking age was raised from 16 to 18 and the smokers had to go out of the schoolyard (i.e. they had to walk 5 meters more, lol).
In the class room? No. But students could smoke during breaks at the schoolyard.
Funny that we as a society were winning for a while until somebody invented vapes.
Parents are insane and demand access to their kids at all times.
My son goes to a private school, and I was on the board of trustees when we basically did the same thing the NYS requires three years ago. The drama and insanity was beyond anything I expected. One parent left me a three minute voicemail excoriating me as being no better than a school shooter - in the event of an emergency her son would die alone, because of me. (I introduced the motion and was called out in the minutes)
It’s great that the state passed a pretty sane law on the matter. Crazy people already think the governor is <insert terrible thing>, and the school boards can just nod, point to Albany and get on with their business.
There is leeway as well, our school (and some others that I know of), allow 7th graders and up to email parents via GMail. So little Tommy can keep folks in the loop about scheduling changes or whatever.
Hey, we must have been in high school at the same time. I saw the same thing going through my final years. But when I went back to visit the school a few years after I left... Things were very different.
I'd say there was definitely a grace period (roughly iPhone -> iPhone 4 maybe?) where device addiction wasn't yet normalised, and the real world hadn't ceded control yet. Not sure what happened at the school level after that, but somewhere along the way phones (devices as they were called then) everywhere all the time became very normal.
Even dumb phones like that Nokia everyone had or the Motorola Razr were banned. You had to have them powered off and in your backpack.
Agreed.
There existed a period of time where handheld communication devices existed and were banned.
Sometime later, someone somewhere made a conscious choice to change policy. It didn’t just happen.
> someone somewhere
Must have been a powerful person.
They were. I was there in edu conferences, training sessions and other events years ago and could observe all this massive FUD which appeared – "smartphones are the future", "all communication will be in social media in the future", "books will not matter", "privacy will not matter", "if we ban smartphones, we will handicap our children" etc. People didn't know better and there was genuine fear in education. Or actually, it's still very much there.
This is a huge factor, and heavily influenced by the purveyors of the technologies involved. A factor I hadn't realized that is implicated in this transition is the shift from the Teacher-led classroom to the device-led classroom. The teacher is no longer seen as the expert, the interpreter, the model figure of the subject when the laptop or tablet is the delivery tool. Students learn that the teacher is a facilitator, likely not up to date on the latest changes to the app interface, and not an authority on the subject.
Device-delivery instead of teacher-delivery puts the student first, even when the student knows nothing, and has zero impulse control.
So instead of modelling a productive and enriching data accessing environment, we're actually just tearing down the walls of the school and asking teachers to babysit the mayhem.
Well, in the era of school shootings, some parents argued that a phone could be a literal lifeline to their kids and a way to say their last goodbyes if the worst happened. It doesn’t really stand up when you compare the likelihoods of a school shooting (rare) to phone-induced educational and social regressions (almost certain). But it was an evocative argument and it worked to a large degree.
The pandemic induced the major change. Schools were forced to put everything online, and so screens became the default learning environment. What's the difference between them being on a laptop/chromebook/tablet and a phone? Not really that much. Plus parents allowed their kids get phones at a younger age to keep track of them. Now we are trying to claw it back, but the big problem is that the parents are the ones preventing it. They need to be constantly attached to their kids. Our son is 16 and while he loves screens, he also is enjoying kids spending less time on them at school so he can chat with people more.
TBH, I think banning smartphones in class is entirely justified and reasonable.
Banning smartphones completely (including during breaks / lunch)? A different matter entirely.
If you haven't been to a school recently where >99% of kids all direct >99% percent of their attention during breaks I can see where you are coming from. But I was at a highschool with a lax phone policy (allowed in breaks etc), and I was amazed and appalled. A no-phones policy is really important to me, because there seems to be no middle ground possible.
> But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful.
Next let's ban kids from social media.
Or better yet, let's tax social media as a negative externality. Anything with an algorithmic feed, engagement algorithm, commenting/voting/banning, all hooked up to advertising needs to pay to fix the harm it's causing.
They're about as bad as nicotine and lung cancer. They've taken people hostage and turned society against itself.
> I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and facebook ever could.
Chatbots aren't smart and AR glasses are dorky. They're going to remain niche for quite some time.
iPhone immediately caught on like wild fire. You can tell those other two don't have the same spark. I'm not saying there won't be users, but it's a much smaller population.
> Chatbots [are] going to remain niche for quite some time.
> iPhone immediately caught on like wild fire.
> I'm not saying there won't be users, but it's a much smaller population.
The facts say you're wrong about this.
The adoption rate for the iPhone was slow. There were only 1.4 million iPhones sold in its first year,[1] whereas there were 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users in its first year.[2]
ChatGPT is not niche, and is not a 'much smaller population'. Right now it has 800 million weekly active users. That's how many iPhones were active in 2017. Are we to say that iPhones were a niche in 2017? It's how many smartphones in general were active at the start of 2012. Are we to say that smartphones were a niche in 2012?
[1] https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/technology--media-a...
[2] https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/
[3] We can go deeper on this data, but these are generally accepted figures, and I have seen no figures that agree with your statements
> The adoption rate for the iPhone was slow. There were only 1.4 million iPhones sold in its first year,[1] whereas there were 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users in its first year.[2]
The ChatGPT number includes people who paid no money. iPhone adoption was incredibly fast for a paid product
It's my fault for lumping tools like ChatGPT into the bin of "chatbots" that people - mostly kids - are sexting and forming intimate relationships with. In my mind, the latter are "chat" apps.
ChatGPT and Claude have incredible utility, whereas Character.ai-type chatbots are much less certain. I can't fathom trying to spend more than a few minutes talking to them since they have so many shortcomings.
I don't consider ChatGPT a chatbot because my inquiries tend to match my usage of Google Search. It's a search tool.
I agree but you have to tone down the rhetoric otherwise you won’t persuade anyone who isn’t already convinced.
It’s telling that none of the tech CEOs allow their children to use their wares.
> It’s telling that none of the tech CEOs allow their children to use their wares.
This is way too general a claim to be plausibly true, or verifiable even if somehow it was true. There's a lot of tech CEOs, running companies doing lots of different things in the world of computer technology, with lots of different family situations. They do not all have the same philosophy of how to raise their children, that they have publicly and truthfully talked about. Even if you're just talking about, say, Mark Zuckerberg specifically, who I know has mentioned some things publicly about his approach to raising his relatively-young kids, I don't think he claims that he blanket-disallows his kids from using every Meta product. And if he did, why would he say that publicly? Or maybe he did do that at one point when his kids were younger but then they complained a lot about this parental restriction and eventually he relented without happening to inform the world on a podcast that he's now making a slightly different decision in his private life.
I also don't think that any parent's decision about what kinds of computer technology use to allow or forbid for their children should be primarily based on what tech CEOs do with their own kids (and of course, really, what they heard tech CEOs somewhere without actually being able to verify this unless they happen to be close personal friends of a tech CEO).
Most tech CEOs I know couldn't care less about their children.
> Next let's ban kids from social media.
We are here in Australia from the 10th December this year.
I'm interested to see where this goes. I don't like how it's likely reducing privacy the internet. But social media is obviously a threat so serious that it might be worth the costs.
I've also been thinking that perhaps social media platforms should start displaying some kind of indicator when a poster is from out of your country. So when foreign troll farms start political posting you can see more clearly they aren't legitimate. I suspect that social media is largely to blame for the insane politics of the world right now.
They didn't have to implement it in a way where everyone has to upload their ID - there are other ways they could have done it. But Australia seems to love being a total surveillance state.
> They didn't have to implement it in a way where everyone has to upload their ID
They didn't and they haven't.
It's more nudge nudge wink wink age restriction theatre than 1984 total surveillance.
The onus is on platforms (Facebook, Youtube, et al) to adhere to the request to restrict minors.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/soci...
https://theconversation.com/details-on-how-australias-social...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-30/teen-social-media-ban...
ChatGPT "caught on fire" faster than iPhones.
It absolutely did not. ChatGPT is free to use and most people I know have barely engaged with it beyond a few queries once or twice to try it.
When the iPhone came out, nearly everyone I knew dumped hundreds of dollars to get one (or a droid) within 2 years.
"and most people I know have barely engaged with it beyond a few queries once or twice to try it."
Have you recently spoken with the younger generation still in school?
I doubt you find many there who just "have barely engaged with it". It is just too useful for all the generic school stuff, homework, assignments, etc.
https://futurism.com/openai-use-cheating-homework
Between your comments, and the report above, I suspect you, and most people you know, aren't students.
Agree. The conversation behind "adoption" was totally different as well. I was a young Army private when the first iPhone was announced. Before that I remember the iPod touch and other MP3 players beingthe rage in the gym and what not. I distinctly remember in the gym we were talking about the iPhone, my friend had an iPod touch and we took turns holding it up to our faces like a phone, and sort of saying "weird, but yeah, this would work".
Point being, when smart phones came out it there was anticipation of what it might be, sort of like a game console. ChatGPT et al was sort of sudden, and the use case is pretty one dimensional, and for average people, less exciting. It is basically a work-slop emitter, and _most people I know_ seem to agree with that.
the ipod touch was released after the iphone fyi
“most people I know” argument always wins :)
most people I know spend $500+/month and use ai 8-10/hrs per day
I assumed the OP meant chat agents like Character.ai, not ChatGPT.
Why do we say it was rapid? When I grew up, cellphones (then mostly Nokia-shaped and the cool ones were flip phones) were always banned in school. If they weren't banned recently, then that was a reversal of a previously existing norm.
A big difference with your examples is that basically every adult was already using a smartphone. So adults don't just jump to conclusions that it's evil. It's more like... "Smartphones are useful"
I remember when I first saw little girls with Blackberries. It was quite strange.
I think it will eventually settle into a net positive - we're just in the Wild West of smartphones still.
I try to use my phone less and less but as someone who loves photography the ability to take a raw photo and edit on my phone is amazing.
I think it won't automatically settle in a good state. We need to actively work towards it. Phones obviously have many useful and beneficial functions, photography, phone calls, etc. It's the engagement hacking from social media primarily which has broken society.
More cynically, I think some people will need to actively work towards it, and then other people will say "see it happened automatically".
Sports gambling is astoundingly popular for teen boys. Already the prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading was getting to be too trendy for teenagers, and this shit just supercharges it.
> prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading
Calling day trading “zero sum” seems like a huge stretch. To get the sum to be zero you need to include everyone involved in the market: institutional investors, hedge funds, etc. Somewhere between 87 and 95 percent of day traders lose money.
There's so many of these absurd "investing" trends where financially illiterate people are getting tricked in to buying in to schemes where the only way to win is to be one of the insiders. Or more recently, the Counter Strike skin "investing" where a single change from a company can wipe out all of your investment.
Had you bought actual regulated shares you could sue the company for deliberately crashing the value. But since video game skins are not a real investment. You have no protections at all.
...What?
You're saying it's not zero sum because to make it zero sum you should include the big profitable corporations that are pumping in money?
True it's not zero sum but that's like saying a casino isn't zero sum because you're playing against the house!
Isn't that actually illegal in most jurisdictions? But the betting companies seem to have effectively bribed legislatures in the past couple of decades.
Yep. But there are workarounds where they call it a sweepstakes, or the kids are just using an account tied to someone else.
It’s legal in 39 states, DC and Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court shot down the federal ban circa 2018.
I think both yours and the GP's points can be simply explained as: it's obvious in hindsight, but not in foresight.
Quite frankly, we (in a collective, general sense) suck at predicting the future. Half will think A, half will think B, and the half that ends up being correct by chance will think they are actually smart rather than lucky.
give me a break. you don't need data to know that a child lacks the self control to not look at their phone when they need to be doing anything else. smartphones are almost 20 years old. There are adults going to university and into the workforce that grew up without knowing a world without smartphones.
I mean, "cigarettes are the devil", especially for teenagers also have stuck.
Here's a couple of arguments I had to deal with whilst expressing my support for electronics ban at schools including a blanket social media ban:
1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best."
2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn."
3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes."
All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.
> All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.
I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?
> I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?
Indeed you don't; let me help you out then:
Arguments must be made in good faith; and when you hear anyone saying anything I mentioned above it is immediately obvious that they are not arguing in good faith.
If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed.
If anyone considers the above arguments valid and worthy of discussion, they need to exempt themselves from this discourse.
You can't just declare any opposition to your point of view as being in bad faith. (which is ironically in bad faith)
> If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed.
I hope you're trolling, because if not...
Those statements as described earlier were made in bad faith:
> 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best."
A public school intervenes between the parent and their children to tell the student what is good work and what is not. Parents do not always know best. (Yes, there are policies which let the parent appeal, but the parent does not have final authority.)
Child protective services can take children away from parents who are egregiously poor parents.
I don't see this as a good faith argument.
> 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn."
If we believe in educating citizens then we set rules to help educate citizens. There is a long history of prohibiting certain electronics at school. At https://archive.org/details/makingvaluejudgm0000elde/page/38... we can read that over 50 years ago some schools prohibited transistor radios.
If the claim is in good faith then it's also saying that laws and rules forbidding smoking in school must be repealed. I certainly want to keep them in place, so I don't see this as a good faith argument.
> 3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes."
Which is an argument that if the child wants to play video games all day and is getting Ds or worse in every class, than teachers should like the child continue to make that mistakes. I don't see this as a good faith argument.
[flagged]
Indeed you don't
It seems that they do indeed see what you’re saying…
[flagged]
Do you really think that people can't come up with such arguments on their own? People aren't very unique, lots of people independently come up with very similar stupid arguments.
There's mass production and consumption of arguments and ideas.
You have to look beneath what people say, and consider what they think. The quoted arguments are quite clearly nonsense and must be rationalisations.
You should have to deal with these arguments, as should anyone else who is in a similar position to you advocating for an institution to ban something for other people.
I will not say that some kind of electronic use ban at schools is necessarily bad, but someone proposing such a ban should absolutely have answers at hand to these reasonable counter-arguments.
Forbidding things doesn't work. Not for kids and not for adults. Hence speakeasys and the end of prohibition, or the war on drugs (which was won by drugs).
Where can I buy some radium water?
An x-ray device to see if the shoes fit correctly?
Leaded paint for my asbestos shingling?
Can I sell my vote for the next presidential election? (It used to be common!)
Hotel owners are forbidden from discriminating based on race. You want to allow it? Even if not perfect, it still works.
As someone without security clearance, I'm forbidden from a lot of places with secret information.
Even if there is still an underground market for elephant ivory in the US, forbidding its trade greatly reduced the demand.
Seems like on average forbidding things has been pretty effective.
In pretty much all countries that instituted heavy restrictions on smoking, e.g. banning smoking from restaurants, you can see an accelerated drop in number of smokers the years after that ban regardless of changes in education. This is particularly easy to verify because it has been done in many countries but all at fairly different points in time. Some did it decades ago, some have done it recently, there are still countries where it's allowed.
Forbidding things works very well most of the time. There are exceptions, but as a rule, it works.
Would a parent be allowed to send their kid in with a pack of smokes, and expect their kid can smoke them inside the school?
No?
Because it effects others and brings down the overall ability for the learning environment to succeed. Same deal with phones. If it makes the environment toxic to success, there should probably be some prohibition within those grounds. This isn't banning phones across the board, or banning them for kids. It's banning them within a location, like how firearms are banned inside courthouses.
Forbidding things works. People drank less during prohibition, and they do less drugs than they would were they legalized. Hence there is no serious proposal to legalize most hard drugs
Eh, nuance: forbidding things entirely, which people want to do, and don't really harm others, doesn't work.
Having separate spaces works a lot better. Which is why we have alcohol venue licensing. Forbidding kids from phones entirely, at the same time as adults are on them constantly, isn't going to work. But having a phone-free space like a smoke-free space is more viable.
> I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.
I was trying to relate, and thinking until around 7th grade school lunch was a pretty awful lonely experience. But then remembered 2nd/3rd year of middle school finding the other outcast that somehow came together as our own little group of enterprising odd-balls.
We would buy large packs of gum (we sold for $.10-$.25 a piece), champion-caliber pencils (we tested a bunch playing a lot of pencil-break[0], sold for $.50-$1+), ping-pong balls/paddles (we had raggedy ping-pong tables near the food-court for before/after school and lunch that the cool kids didn't use so eventually other kids would rent/trade-for balls/paddles from us once we started playing) etc.
I think the biggest thing we did was start and run table/paper-football[1] games/tournaments; sometimes offering our perfectly-folded-winning paper-footballs or champion-level pencils or packs of gum, to make it exciting.
First we used the table we sat at for lunch, then noticing how shunned the un-cool ping-pong tables were, we turned them into paper-football fields (the green colour and white border lines made it that much more awesome as a paper-football field). We started playing before/after school and during lunch. We started doing ping-pong games too in one of the 3 time slots -- I think before school but maybe lunch I forget. But, I mean, this was Texas -- football is football -- we started drawing crowds and people were mixing outside their cliques wanting to get in on playing games (note: these were latchkey kid days in the south, the main groups looked like something out of prison movies; but we were a mixed sort of popular-group rejects, male & female)
Anyway, I would have to agree it was an important time for the foundation of my basic social skill set (never thought of it that way before). As much as I value that time and experience -- to be fair -- these kids are figuring it out in a different way for the world they live in. I've chalked up my dislike of watching my siblings kids being perfectly content to not get up from the couch/phone for hours at a time, as me being old.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_fighting
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_football
This looks a lot like my childhood. I would guess most of us were popular-group rejects, latch key kids. Pencil fighting, paper football, exploring nearby creeks, (poorly) playing guitar for one another, gossiping in each other's basements, etc. Great times!
WHOA! Classroom learning is fundamental. As a public school survivor, I learned more on my own than in any classroom.
> I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"??
Look, I think that phones and computers don't belong in classrooms, but instead of assuming that the world has gone that mad, you should probably assume that whomever wrote those words has a tenuous relationship with honesty.
A lot of teachers (particularly, but not exclusively, younger teachers) are uncomfortable being strict with students, and especially teenagers. The local High Schools recently banned having phones during class (each room had a pigeon-hole style place for each student to put their phone), but enforcement is poor.
At least some of this is poor support for teacher's enforcement by the administration (I have been told that teachers are not allowed to kick students out of class for having their phones).
I wonder how long until they do the same to AI in schools?
How in the world would you keep AI out of schools?
Ok, turn off the internet. And ban the cell phones.
I suppose a district could block the known AI providers, so kids could only use AI at home. I’m very skeptical this would eliminate the negatives.
On the contrary, every administrator I know of is gung-ho about the coming improvements in education driven by AI. (There certainly are SOME, but it comes with minuses.)
most instruction can and should be done without computers. and ban cell phones.
This 1000%. When my wife was a teacher she would often comment on what a huge distraction chromebooks and tablets were. Most of the things being learned through high school do not require a computer and do not benefit from them. Added to that, having kids spend 40 hours a week away from screens is a huge bonus.
Everyone went all in on tech during Covid. NYC schools were one of the slowest to recover and are still dealing with the knock on effects.
I think the operative word here is 'let'.
The actual levers of control available to those in charge in schools are limited, in the end.
The rules that exist are routinely broken and can only be enforced selectively. Many of the rules are unpolicable frankly and are only kept to or only marginally broken as a matter of social norms, and understanding so there is not total choas. An equilbrium is found.
With phones there's such social pressure to allow their use, including from forces external to the school, that there was never possibly a hope of the equilibrium immediately settling at phones being banned.
It was always going to creep to the current status quo. Again this would have been true even if a rule were ostensibly set.
Society is learning, slowly, that this isn't ideal, and the pendulum seems to be swinging back. It may settle at phones being completely banned in schools, but in practice this will also obviously be moderately chipped away at all the time in various surprising and unsurprising ways. Especially as the hardware itself evolves.
> With phones there's such social pressure to allow their use, including from forces external to the school, that there was never possibly a hope of the equilibrium immediately settling at phones being banned.
Phones, and electronic devices in general, were always banned. What changed was schools started allowing them.
I was in high school right when some kids first started getting (dumb) cell phones. MP3 players were still new, CD players were not uncommon, and ALL of them were banned from being outside of your locker or backpack. If a teacher saw one, it was gone until the end of the day. Period.
Teachers didn't need to bear the brunt of angry parents, it wasn't their call to make. That belonged to the school administrator, who merely needed to say "tough shit". Somehow, the adult children still won anyway.
They had to know. My middle schooling coincided during wave of beepers (early 90s) and then high school was mobile phones (late 90s) then college in early 2000s (iPods but not iPhones). During all that time, devices were practically unacceptable at school. It was a zero tolerance, teacher would confiscate your device, your parent would have to come to school to get it back. It likely was accompanied by some detention or more punitive measure. College was a more adult approach to same, professor would yell or just tell you to leave the class if your device came out and you appeared distracted at all. If it rang, and everyone was distracted, they’d often be livid.
Then, it seems only a couple years after my schooling was complete, smart phones came out and they just let them exist, everywhere. It has never made sense to me how that shift happened so suddenly but best theories I’ve heard are 1) parents insisting kids be reachable and 2) educators just gave up the fight against it.
But yeah, it’s sad to me to think a whole generation had lost core social experience and socialization of such a pivotal age in life. When I hear stats about how kids/teens don’t; drive, party, date, sex, etc yet are lonely, anxious, depressed, etc I’m always like “no shit”
> I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school
What a lot of people learn from lunch rooms is not a happy social lesson. It’s who is allowed to sit where, and who is outcast from a table. It’s the shit teenagers lower on the social hierarchy have to take daily from teenagers who are higher, even if they are allowed to sit at the same table. High school is widely remembered as a brutal rite of passage, and lunch rooms are as much a part of that as any other space. If everyone was so absorbed in their phones, that may have been a benefit for social harmony and escaping real-life bullying and shaming.
The bullying is still there, it's just moved online. If anything it's easier for the perpetrators, because they can hide behind anonymity, or create humiliating deepfakes - and so on.
The problem isn't phones, it's the addictivisation of social media and gaming. Being able to stay in touch with friends and family is potentially a good thing.
But it's currently implemented as a hook for psychological and chemical addiction, so that user attention can be sold to advertisers.
That is a problem, and I think we're starting to see a movement which will eventually end with these platforms being banned, or strictly regulated at the very least.
It's basically casino psychology applied to all social interactions. That is clearly not a good or healthy thing.
What seems likely is addiction mechanisms and social media will end up banned for kids. Loot boxes and daily login rewards banned from games, etc. Proof of age will be required for social media.
Learning where you fit in the social hierarchy and attempting to navigate that hierarchy is more important than anything you’ll learn in math class. Even if it is embarrassing. It’s not like you graduate high school and then the bullies go away.
That's quite a claim. I'm not sure I buy it. We never had all this lunchroom social drama growing up, and my old mates and I seem to be doing just fine.
Maybe you feel that navigating social hierarchy is more important than anything in math is because that's the kind of culture you happened to grow up in, not because it's truly more important?
[flagged]
Generally, once you leave high school, you have a lot more choice in when/where you are forced to interact with bullies.
The exception being work, where a lot of people seem like they never left high school. Everywhere I've worked had the social totem pole, the cliques, the politics, the in-crowd and out-crowds. One place I worked was almost exactly like the movie Mean Girls. Lots of people just don't grow out of it.
Worst case you can switch jobs. It's not easy, but it's a lot easier than switching schools.
Also, bullying in school has no consequences, but outside it might have some.
Bullying in school absolutely has consequences, and they're mostly going to be much farther-reaching than those suffered as an adult - getting messed up psychologically is more impactful as a kid, not to mention any physical toll it takes, or the impact of it on one's education.
I think the user means that bullies in school face little consequences, but a bully at work may get called by HR and potentially disciplined.
Oh fair enough. My apologies Mr Worf. I don't fully agree - plenty of shitty behavior gets ignored (or even encouraged) even in a workplace - but there's definitely some truth here.
It's way easier to change workplace than to change school, so I don't think it can get so extreme.
With a workplace if you can gather evidence and document it there's a significant chance of a lawsuit with a payout.
Schools are generally protected against that, and your only hope is to replace the school board, who is commonly bullies themselves.
Yep, so HR people occasionally learn a hard lesson when they don't do their job to cover for their friends.
No consequence for the bully I mean.
I always hear this from Americans. My experience in Canada is that the bullying and shaming was limited to junior high (grade 7-9 in my province). Maybe my high school was just too large for any of that nonsense? Or maybe the culture is different - I couldn't have told you who was on the football team, and there was no prom.
All my friends were nerds, but at the same time I didn't feel like there was some brutal social order hanging over me like I did in jr high.
I think age cohortand school makes a difference. Personally I had a perfectly fine time in highschool, most people just got along. Same problems as other posters though, it's just anecdote, and a heavily biased sampling (pretty decent chunk of CS people with poor social skills)
I had a terrible time in Canadian jr high and great time in American high school. I think it really just depends on the school
PE class being the other one where bullies thrive, and prey on the sensitive, intelligent, thoughtful kids. The coaches look the other way because they want the "win".
>What a lot of people learn from lunch rooms is not a happy social lesson.
valuable lessons don't necessarily overlap with happy.
a kid leaves the gate open until his dog is ran over, it doesn't happen again after that with the new dog.
Both of these are different failure modes of adults to parent and/or mentor children. Just because A and B are both bad does not mean C is not a potentially better place to be. Just because lazy teachers and staffers tell kids "you have to learn to fight your own battles" does not make social media A-OK.
The social lessons people learn from their high school experience vary wildly. I have read many accounts of people who had bad experiences like this when they were in high school, and also many accounts of people who didn't have experiences like this. When I think about how the people I know have described their high school experiences, I can also think of a wide range of things. It's certainly not what my high school social experience was like - there were things I disliked about it, but mostly related to highly-idiosyncratic details of my personality. Describing it as a brutal rite of passage with some kind of global social hierarchy involving who got to sit at which lunch table rings very false to me.
Heh, we were at a family reunion with my grandparents in-laws talking about school. The topic of bullies was brought up and grandma said "Oh there were no problems with bullies" and I replied "thats because you were the bully.
Grandpa laughed heartily, as I may have hit a bullseye
Avoidance: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems
Asociality is not the same thing as social harmony. It's not better for children if their shithead peers are replaced with smartphones.
The unfortunate truth is that cliquey behavior and bullying are some of things that children have to be exposed to - you won't come out of school as a fully-capable human being unless you've spent the last several years being exposed to a ton of different adult emotions.
That high school is necessarily a place of cliquey behavior and bullying, and that kids may even benefit from it, is not a universal thing. In some countries, viewers of imported American TV shows are baffled by that depiction of high school, because in their high schools there aren’t such hard knocks.
I agree with you, American schools seem particularly bad at breeding these sorts of unhealthy dynamics, and we shouldn't accept it as normal. But even in a better environment, unstructured social interaction with peers still seems like a useful part of growing up/socialization and shouldn't be replaced with kids sucked into their phones.
I think USA does everything later than in other countries.
So I think by the time I got to high school we were too mature for the kind of bullying you see in USA films, but that did happen earlier.
It might be better if those shithead peers are replaced with supportive peers who happen to be elsewhere in the world.
I've had plenty of friends I've only known through the internet and a chat room. It's not the same as being in-person - I don't see a way to reliably turn out healthy adults unless kids talk to each other.
The point you're making is important and I can already see how many, once years out of school, are able to re-frame their memories into something that bullying wasn't so bad and it's actually a social good, etc. It's as if the return-to-office-policies bringing back bullying/sexual harrassement to one's work environment would be hailed as a chance to improve one's social skills. Ridiculous.
I do think though that it's worth discerning here: We don't need to accept a world in which we have to decide between apathetic children stuck to tiny screens and daily traumas. Both things are evil, and in both cases it's a testament to lack of care our education systems have for us/children.
I don't think they're reframing. They weren't bullied or were the bullies themselves.
Or there simply weren’t any bullies.
Not everybody’s childhood played out like Lord of the Flies.
It's fear mongering bullshit. "WHAT UF THERE EMERGENCY". Every room has a phone and a teacher with a phone. Absolute bullshit post Columbine 9/11 fear based nonsense.
90's high schooler here. Oh yeah, those basic social skills at lunchrooms at school.
Sitting in noisy lunchroom isn't fun if you have autism. Walkman/disc man was my fav (you know, that thing I used while on the bus, so no I didn't talk much there to others either). Too bad we didn't have noise-cancelling headset back then. Back to lunchroom. Went for a drink while leaving your school bag? Your scientific calculator got reset by one of the bullies. Good luck getting it ready again for math/physics/chemistry/biology class test. But I usually just lunched elsewhere anyway, since I wasn't allowed in the cool kids group, and I ended up finding solace in that. So where did I end up? In the multimedia library! 20 or so PCs which you could use for, eh... 'homework.' At one point I found out you could just edit your student number in HTML, so once I figured the student number of a bully I signed him up to study in one the silence rooms for a week. When he found out I did that, he did the same to me, but -unlike him- I was cool with that. As for that library: other, more smarter kids than me, went to sit separate to study during break. And during lunch break there were people bored, shooting with elastics, yelling, running, bullying. Book reading at school? Didn't happen much during lunch breaks. Some studying, sure. That it was so awesome before the smartphone time, is a nostalgia myth.
FTA:
> The faculty donated board games to help ease kids into the phone-free era. Student volunteers oversaw a table stacked with games: checkers, chess, Yahtzee, Scrabble, Clue, Life and Trivial Pursuit. For many of the kids, it was their first time playing the games, and they said they were enjoying it.
Oh, yeah. I played MtG back in those days but was called a 'nerd' for that, and surprisingly nobody in my class (gymnasium; highest education level on high school) would also play it. At times, I kind of enjoyed something like Black Lady and Rikken, but Poker just bored me, and I didn't like the play for money (it was officially forbidden, but you know how that goes).
> Ko said other analog activities have also made a comeback, including cards, hangman, tic-tac-toe and Polaroid cameras. “There are just a lot of memories that we make throughout high school that we want to capture,” she said. “I actually have a lot of Polaroids on my wall.”
Funny how there's still a need to make photo's. That is one thing I hate about smartphones. That excessive need to photograph everything these days.
Now, about the subject. I don't think it has to be 'all' or 'nothing'. It wasn't 'nothing' back in the days (as I already wrote above, we just consolidated a lot of devices), it wasn't perfect back in the days either.
[dead]
Yes, but were there any academically peer-reviewed studies to prove it with data?
How could they have ever known? /s
That just sounds like lazy teacher discipline in class. Decades ago we couldn't even use calculators on some tests, but now (or up until recently) they could practically have a computer in their hands all class?
Allowing kids to have their phones in class, even if they weren't allowed to use them, was setting teachers up for failure. It's easy to call them lazy, but if you've ever tried to police the phone use of a bunch of screen-addicted adolescents you would understand. The calculator comparison is not a good one.
I encourage you to seek first-hand accounts of what teaching in a contemporary public school classroom is like. Teacher discipline can account for so much.
I commented on this elsewhere, but at least one local school recently simultaneously did the following:
1. Required teachers to have kids turn-in their phones for the duration of each class period
2. Banned teachers from kicking kids out of the class who did not turn in their phones.
Teachers don't enforce the rules here because they don't believe the administration will have their back if they try. They can assign detention for students not listening, but many students don't show up for detention, and meanwhile that student still has the phone.
Teachers are widely hated by the "stupid" class, which is most people. The students are set up for failure by their parents before they even enter the classroom. This has been going on for 50+ years.
When I was in university, I had a math teacher that brought extra chalk to class everyday because if he saw you on your phone, he'd snap a piece off and throw it at you pretty damn hard. Maybe that wouldn't exactly work in a high school but damn if Dr Murphy didn't have me paying attention in that class.
It's "literal violence" now and you'd get sued and lose your job.
That being called "literal violence" is one thing, but now a teacher telling a student "you should be ashamed with yourself" is also called "literal violence."
What's also funny about that quote is that by "deep research" she's likely referring to googling the answer or using Wikipedia. Remember when Wikipedia was loathed by high school teachers?
The insistence of people, in every era, on staying in a previous technology tier instead of reforming society and culture around the present ubiquitous technology, doesn't really make sense.
Are you saying that reading comprehension is an outdated technology?
Look, I had a zoomer colleague of mine ask GPT to solve a moral dilemma in a personality test at work...
It's...rough out there.
As a certified couch psychologist, I'd wager this is also about the influencer culture and reaction videos etc.
People WANT to know how to feel about things, so they watch how other people react to them and form their opinions on that.
In the zoomer colleague case they most likely had a vague opinion, but needed a second opinion from someone (or something) to form their own properly
Which is really sad.
> Which is really sad.
Thanks for clarifying. But to be serious, I think it's the drive for culture in action. I think culture comes from people glancing at each other and doing what they do, reacting how they do. I think it can be healthy actually.
> As a certified couch psychologist
Ah a fellow HN user ♡
I mean, if my goal was getting the correct answer that will satisfy the employer, I'd ask GPT too. The employer might not like my honest answer.
Surely reading comprehension is still required for, well, reading AI-generated text. Perhaps it's not their intention but I read an implication that using humans to source facts is outdated, which is... well, I'll just assume that I'm misunderstanding their perspective.
> Surely reading comprehension is still required for, well, reading AI-generated text.
Found the optimist. (no, it unfortunately not required. Imagine, if you will, the world's worst version of the Telephone game...)
Sure, but the same failure mode exists for readers of human writing.
Hopefully society continues to develop healthy norms with regard to this sort of technology. Collectively it's taken us a while, but I think people generally are starting to get the picture. Smartphones are bad in a wide variety of ways, but even when people miss some of the nuance I think we can make progress regarding the minimization of their usage.
Here in MA there is a 'bell to bell' phone ban bill in the works. I'm very happy we're letting kids be kids again. There is no need for a phone during the school day.
And just to show how (US) universal this idea is becoming, a Texas law banning cellphones went into effect at the start of the school year.
This happened at the same time a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms would have went into effect but was temporarily blocked while it works it's way through the courts [0]
[Texas educators praise new school cellphone ban] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/10/texas-cell-phone-ban...
[0] https://apnews.com/article/ten-commandments-bill-texas-schoo...
> how (US) universal
I praise you for not defaulting to US-defaultism, which is quite common on HN, but this really seems to be universal. There are also regulations like this in Scandinavia, France, Germany is talking about it.
Europe + USA != universal
California just got strict about this, too. I have found a dramatic increase in the amount of interpersonal talking that's happening in school as a result, which is great!
YMMV. Passing a rule and enforcing the rule are not the same.
Australia banned phones in schools 1-2 years ago and it's been widely recognised as a huge success. I think banning social media like facebook/tiktok/etc for kids would be a huge benefit as well. Leaving just IM/group chats for kids to directly talk to each other without scrolling a feed of ragebait and ai slop.
I'm expecting a kiddo this winter and my use of devices+my likely future kid's relationship with tech has really been on my mind. The fact that people are thinking through this and actually working on it puts me slightly more at ease.
You probably won't have much to worry about until you have to decide whether screen time for your kid (at age 3-4) is a reasonable trade-off for you and your partner to have peaceful time to yourselves. Then it'll rear it's head again, after lulling you into complacency, when the kid is middle school age and all their friends have smartphones. Then you have to decide whether the convenience factor (for you) of your kid having a device is worth the trade-off of... them having a device.
Fwiw, my older two are 14 & 16 and we still use device control software on their phones and laptops. The younger of the two complains a bit periodically but the older one just accepts that it's the way it is and gets on with his life [most of the time].
I personally advise you not to let your young kid get into e-gaming. Things like Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft are gateways to increased device usage, and the benefits are (again, imho) not remotely worth it nor irreplaceable by much healthier alternatives.
Fun tidbit: my 8yo has a Kindle Fire and we've let her have Netflix & Disney+ installed on it. She also uses the Kindle & Libby apps to read voraciously, and Khan Academy for math. When she watches streaming media, though, she frequently watches it on mute with subtitles. That shocked me to see, and I asked her about it. She's 100% cool with that and appreciate the "privacy" of being able to watch things without other people meddling in her business. Shrug.
Banning a 16 year old from minecraft is so far beyond reasonable imo. I'd agree with not giving young kids ipads and walking away. But what sounds like a blanket ban on gaming is absurd.
Parents have always wanted time for themselves. There are Americans alive today who will tell you that they used to play outside from dusk to dawn and only saw their parents at dinner.
Serious question (I don't have kids of my own): before smartphones and tablets and the ubiquity of laptops and computers, what did parents do to get some peaceful time to themselves?
It's hard to believe that parents were only able to achieve this during the past 15-20 years.
(When I was a kid in the 80s and 90s, I spent plenty of time outdoors with my friends in the neighborhood, and also inside, in front of my Nintendo, either with friends or without. Not sure how much peace my parents got, but I assume it was non-zero.)
What era are you talking about? Later than the 90s had computers and game consoles. Before that it was going outside and digging holes, throwing stones.
Same thing they do now: Get a nanny, ask the grandparents, playdates, ... Putting kids in front of a device is lazy, and unfortunately, most of us are lazy.
> When she watches streaming media, though, she frequently watches it on mute with subtitles. That shocked me to see, and I asked her about it. She's 100% cool with that and appreciate the "privacy" of being able to watch things without other people meddling in her business. Shrug.
I do this myself from time to time (and I do it more often if I didn't have bluetooth earbuds), that seems like a perfectly sensible thing to be concerned about.
Yeah, being restricted by laws passed by random adults about what things you can and cannot do during school hours - such as being at school itself - is certainly characteristic of being a kid.
I don't think it's actually possible for a parent and community to safely and sanely raise a human child without some amount of coercion the kid doesn't want in the moment, so I don't advocate for this. Still, it is important to acknowledge that being coerced by people more powerful than you who think they know better than you do about what is good for you is unpleasant in and of itself, and society should try to minimize doing this to children to the extent possible.
>> There is no need for a phone during the school day
I see you don't have kids yourself. You need to sync up with them when after-school plans change.
We got by just fine during the school day for decades (centuries?) before smartphones existed, and we can continue to do so without them.
Inane appeals to tradition are boring as fuck and completely useless. We should continue to circumcise infant males because we did it for decades (centuries?) and got by just fine! This says nothing about whether kids having access to cellphones is worthwhile and everything about how garbage your argument against them is.
what's wrong with circumcision?
What's wrong with genital mutilation of children? Really?
Everybody else has a phone so the expectation is that they can do change of plans and you're supposed to know where your kid is.
Sigh. Tell me, is "after-school" during the school day or after? Because I would argue that "after-school" is, you know, after school.
Some people will slap a label like "liberal" on "using my smartphone whenever the hell I want". And then people will think that's how it should be.
An electronic version of coal rolling. "You can't tell me this is unhealthy, and I'm going to prove it!"
People "roll coal" it because it is kinda amusing to do it, and it is a middle finger towards people they perceive to be preachy.
I accidentally "rolled coal" in my 90s Landrover because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill. It was amusing in the way of "oh shit! I kinda just blew a load of black smoke in the driver face behind me".
Obviously, I don't do this deliberately.
Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.
The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .
Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing. Some examples from state laws listed at that same Wikipedia page: "knowing release of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions", "with the intent", "may not knowingly or intentionally cause", "intentionally release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions"
Your reply is exactly the preachy response that causes people to be defiant and resentful.
> Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.
Blowing a bit of soot up in the air isn't in itself cruel. It is just a bit naughty. Now doing it in someone's face like I've seen in videos deliberately is not very nice and can be dangerous. I think it should go without saying that I don't condone anti-social and dangerous behaviour.
> The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .
Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy? BTW, I am a cyclist that spent 3 months out of work because of a hit and run accident that left me with a permanent weakness in my right shoulder as a result. The reason I don't spend a lot of time with other cyclists, is because everything started to become a political issue against drivers, a lot of my fellow cyclists are preachy. I heard people saying that owning a pet was akin to slavery and other such nonsense. As someone that enjoys both driving and cycling, it left a bad taste in my mouth.
BTW, In the story he caused a collision while rolling coal. The issue was dangerous driving. Not blowing some soot up into the air itself.
> Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing.
In my case it was, it was because I was stuck in the wrong gear. My vehicle is currently in a garage being repaired for that very issue now (clutch is worn). It was funny in the sense of "OMG that is embarassing".
Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?
> Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy?
People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.
> In my case it was
Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.
> Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?
What are you on about? I prefaced my post quite clearly. This is nonsense.
> People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.
Because there is a perception that cyclists are like this. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If a group of people don't police the most extreme members you are defined by those members.
BTW mountain bikers/bmx don't generally have the same poor perception IME as many other cyclists because generally the attitude is generally different.
> Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.
Other than it not being deliberate it was "rolling coal". To get the black soot you need to just have poor combustion of a diesel.
This was what was happening because I had to push the throttle to the limit so the engine didn't stall. For all intents and purposes it is exactly the same thing as there was incomplete combustion of diesel and therefore lots of black smoke coming from my exhaust.
> Because there is a perception that cyclists are like this. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter.
I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular."
Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the emotional snowflake.
> Other than it not being deliberate it was "rolling coal". To get the black soot you need to just have poor combustion of a diesel.
No. Rolling coal requires injecting vastly more fuel and making the mixture far richer than even the worst possible factory tune.
> I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular."
I agree. However if the most vocal members of the group come off preachy, self entitled etc. at best people are going to be ambivalent towards you and at worst straight off hostile.
> Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the emotional snowflake.
It is often pot and kettle. I am not in the US and don't care about stupid culture war bs. I see both as equally ridiculous.
> No. Rolling coal requires injecting vastly more fuel and making the mixture far richer than even the worst possible factory tune.
This is exactly what happened. Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly.
So all intents and purposes the effect was the same. That is why the vehicle is in the garage. I don't like having a vehicle that isn't running properly.
Earlier you wrote it was "because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill".
Now it's "Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly."
Here's NJ's law:
> No person shall retrofit any diesel-powered vehicle with any device, smoke stack (i.e., hood stack or bed stack), or other equipment which enhances the vehicle's capacity to emit soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions, or shall purposely release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions into the air and onto roadways and other vehicles while operating the vehicle, colloquially referred to as "coal rolling."
Did you purposely release significant quantities of soot? According to your own words, that was not your intent.
Therefore under NJ law you were not rolling coal, even though the visible effect is the same. The law is based on your intent and purpose.
> you are defined by those members
Hence, all drivers are defined by those who roll coal on cyclists and pedestrians for the lulz. Got it.
Yes, In some people minds that is the case. Do you think that is a big own on me? I agree, those guys shouldn't be doing that because they look like idiots.
However at the same time I understand the attitude. The fact that I understand an attitude doesn't mean I condone it.
Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If motorists don't police the most extreme members then motorists are defined by those members.
You don't condone it but you think calling it nasty behavior is preachy. Sounds like you are so afraid of being vocal and preachy that the most you can do is say “tisk, tisk” - hardly effective policing.
> it is a middle finger towards people they perceive to be preachy
Incredibly childish. "I hate you for saying we should have a cleaner environment, so I will intentionally pollute the environment!"
> I accidentally "rolled coal"
There is no accidentally rolling coal. You just had shitty emissions. Coal rolling is intentional, and requires a special tune at the very least.
Sounds more like "freedom" which New York has taken away with some big government regulations.
/S
Hopefully as a society we can also learn the lesson that tech companies cannot be trusted to deliver what's best for us.
> Hopefully as a society we can also learn the lesson that tech companies cannot be trusted to deliver what's best for us.
If society were ignorant, then it’s forgivable. But society is not ignorant.
We know tech companies deliver things bad for us (lies and manipulation).
And we knowingly choose it, over the good (truth).
Why would anyone expect them to deliver what is best for us when the purpose of a company is to deliver what others want?
Because social media sites like Facebook literally said they're going to make the world better, by connecting more people and empowering more ideas.
It was all bullshit of course, but people did believe it, myself included. Just 15 years ago the outlook of social media was much more optimistic.
They could have gone down the path of being a service with a monthly subscription. Instead of making the customer become the product.
Imagine an alternate universe where, since you were paying them, they kept you safe and secure online, and kept the bad actors away.
The only offering that possibly might have been compelling enough to charge for was Messenger if it existed in a vacuum, but there were already numerous services offering much the same for free (e.g. MSN, ICQ, AIM), and when others realized that is what the people actually wanted, many more immediately threw their hat in the ring (e.g. iMessage). There would have been no practical hope of it making it as a paid service.
assuming they were able to acquire customers and dominate the world with that business model, would that have prevented them from doing algorithmic feeds and promoting clickbait and poisoning politics and the rest?
sure, people would have been able to cancel their monthly facebook subscriptions if they didn't like that stuff. but we can effectively do that now just by not using it.
> Just 15 years ago the outlook of social media was much more optimistic.
Those who forget Usenet are doomed to repeat it, I suppose.
> It was all bullshit of course
Or, more likely, what was dreamed of ended up being incorrect. Like we learn every time we try social media, people don't actually want to be social online. That takes work and the vast majority of people don't want to spend their free time doing work. They want to sit back, relax, and be entertained by the professionals.
As before, businesses can only survive if they give others exactly what they want, which doesn't necessarily overlap with what is good for them. A fast food burger isn't good for you, but it is a good business to be in because it is something many people want. Arguably small communities like HN with exceptionally motivated people can make it work to some extent, but that is not something that captures the masses.
It's not coincidence that those who tried to make a go of social media ~15 years ago have all turned into what are little more than TV channels with a small mix of newspaper instead. That is where the want is actually found at the moment. Social media didn't work in the 1980s, the 2010s, and it won't work in the 2080s either. It's is not something that appeals to humans (generally speaking).
Can you provide an example of where facebook tried to do what most people would consider good that also required any >1% kind of sacrifice or risk on their part? My impression is their moto was win at any cost and ask forgiveness later (not because we mean that either but because it will reduce the legal penalties and make us look like normal humans.) In some ways watching Mark reminds me of the infamous cigarette cartel testifying.
> Can you provide an example of where facebook tried to do what most people would consider good
They gave the social media thing an honest try for a short period of time. And it even came with a lot of fanfare initially as people used it as the "internet's telephone book" to catch up with those they lost touch with.
But once initial pleasantries were exchanged, people soon realized why they lost touch in the first place, and most everyone started to see that continually posting pictures of their cat is a stupid use of time. And so, Facebook and the like recognized that nobody truly wanted social media, gave up on the idea, and quickly pivoted into something else entirely.
Social media is a great idea in some kind of theoretical way — I can see why you bought into the idea — but you can't run a business on great theoretical ideas. You can't even run a distributed public service without profit motive on great theoretical ideas, as demonstrated by Usenet. You have to actually serve what people actually want, which isn't necessarily (perhaps not even often) what is good for them.
> Like we learn every time we try social media, people don't actually want to be social online. That takes work and the vast majority of people don't want to spend their free time doing work. They want to sit back, relax, and be entertained by the professionals.
That's not it at all. Facebook shifted because they wanted you to spend more time on their website and serve you more ads. And once you've seen all your posts from your friends you'd be done and close facebook.
Which is why the posts from the friends are now completely gone, replaced by… stuff.
> Facebook shifted because they wanted you to spend more time on their website and serve you more ads.
Right. A service that isn't used is pointless. Usenet didn't serve ads or even try to make money, but also didn't get used, and was also deemed unworthy of attention. I mean technically it is still running out there in some corner of the internet, but when was the last time you used it? I bet 90% of HN users have never used it even once, and that's a technical crowd who are the most likely to use it. Your school crossing guard will have never heard of it.
> Which is why the posts from the friends are now completely gone
That's not exactly true. There is a secondary newsfeed that is limited to just your friends' posts, under the "Friends" tab. But let's be honest: Nobody (other than a few, let say odd, characters) post anything, so it's always empty. This is no doubt why you claim that it doesn't even exist. You're not wrong in practice, even though it is technically there.
This is the problem with social media. They learned pretty quickly that it doesn't work — the same hard lesson Usenet learned decades prior — which is why they had to pivot away from it. If you don't give people exactly what they want, you're not going to go anywhere. Plain and simple.
So a toilet is only useful if you're 24h a day sitting on it? I'm having trouble understanding you.
One isn't able to do everything, I suppose.
This is the same logic that has parents buying games like GTA for their prepubescent children and being dumbfounded that the kids are exposed to violent images.
While we can definitely point the blame at tech companies that manipulate algorithms, engage in dark patterns, etc, it's ultimately up to the consumer to consume judiciously and moderate their own well being. Nobody ever asked Apple or Google to "deliver what's best" for society. What's best for society is a collection of rational, intelligent, and accountable adults.
America has an entire political party who runs a party line that unregulated businesses will naturally do what's "best" because of "free market mumble mumble". They even sometimes outright insist that "best" in that context means "best for humans and society", and that any attempt to constrain that will be Communism and cause all of society to collapse.
>What's best for society is a collection of rational, intelligent, and accountable adults.
That same party insists that you should be able to choose to enroll your child in a school that does nothing but teach weird christian doctrines, and outright lies like "Evolution is controversial" or "Continental drift is not proven" or "The USA is a Christian country". They demonstrably want to be able to direct my tax dollars to these institutions, based on their choice.
Everyone should spend time checking out what the tens of millions of self reported fundamentalist "Christian" americans pay money for. There is an entire alternative media economy and it is horrifying. It exists to reinforce tons of outright false and delusional narratives, like an imagined persecution complex against christians.
If you think those tens of millions of Americans don't have power or sway in this country, they are literally the reason why visa and mastercard keep shutting down porn businesses (the higher fraud claim is just false and probably a lie, ask me how I know!) and the current House majority leader is their guy, as well as Trump's previous VP, as well as maybe technically JD Vance, as well as like Joe Rogan, who insists that AI is the second coming of christ because it doesn't have a mother, just like christ. Not joking, that is a real thing that Joe Rogan has made millions of dollars saying to over 20 million people. Oh, and at least one Supreme Court Justice.
> the higher fraud claim is just false and probably a lie, ask me how I know!
How do you know? :)
Our business is one of the most straightforward ways to turn a stolen credit card into usable money for a fraudster. I know what our fraud rates are. At no point has any payment processor cared at all about a payment flow with high fraud. At most, they will charge us a tiny bit more money to service those transactions.
Credit Card companies do not care about chargebacks, as long as you don't substantially hurt consumer goodwill. They get their money back from the merchant, and every successful chargeback is a reminder to consumers of how credit cards will protect you. A false chargeback would also be unlikely to harm consumer confidence in that protection, since the consumer knows they weren't defrauded.
We know Ashley Madison had millions of paying subscribers. The idea that porn websites have "Higher fraud rates" entirely comes from the unstated assumption that porn consumers will chargeback their payment, and this claim is not justified. Consumers do not make a habit of making false chargeback claims, it just isn't substantiated in the data. We also have substantial evidence that lots of people want to genuinely pay for porn, and will pay significant amounts.
If 1 out of every 5 people who paid for pornhub tried to do a chargeback, that would not be a payment stream the credit card processor would be bothered by.
Meanwhile, the facts on the ground are that there is a fundamentalist religious organization formerly known as Media Matters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_on_Sexual_Expl... who have been working since at least the Nixon administration to ban things like sex toys from sale, to ban sex education, to stop same sex marriage legalization, to prevent the decriminalization of sex work. They were part of LBJ's commission on obscenity and pornography. They asked Reagan to ban pornography in 1983. They are significantly responsible for the large media blitz in 2020 that demonstrated that pornhub had a genuine problem with things like revenge porn and underage porn that lead to pornhub deleting 90% of their content, which frankly is a good thing, but they are demonstrably and openly not out to help sex workers or keep porn safe, but rather to kill it. Their official stance is that porn is a public health crisis. They were one of the principle supporters behind FOSTA, a bill that most sex workers insisted would make their jobs less safe.
Why is there a popular, trite, completely unsubstantiated narrative that is super popular on places like reddit for how porn companies lost the ability to take payments despite open and direct and admitted actions by an organization that has openly worked for decades to ban porn who helped sue porn companies? Gee, I wonder why.
Meanwhile, two months ago, the stepson of the chairman of that very organization was charged for child porn, so you know, the standard religious right style of "We have to protect the children" while literally abusing children.
Notably, the recent spat with getting some really, uh, """Niche""" adult oriented games off steam was not (at least, publicly, but this is not an accusation) done by them, but an unaffiliated Australian organization that has a better track record of doing what they claim. Steam also is still selling lots of porn games.
> there is a fundamentalist religious organization formerly known as Media Matters
Looking at the wikipedia article you linked to, it doesn't have "Media Matters" mentioned anywhere on the page.
Why do you feel they're the same crowd?
> In the cafeteria, Ryan Tripathi, 16, was paging through “Lord of the Flies,” which he said is slow-going. “I'm just not used to reading,” he said. “I’m usually on my phone.”
Damn, that hits pretty hard.
Understandable, I never finished Lord of the Flies despite not having a smartphone at the time.
Lord of the Flies is a short book telling a simple story in which lots of very identifiable stuff actually happens. It’s not exactly Ulysses. Sixteen year olds used to routinely read more complex works of fiction for fun.
I might have been more interested if there was some complexity.
I think it's a prerequisite for a book to become required reading in schools to be boring as shit first :)
I couldn't disagree more. And it was the one thing that surprised me every time we cracked open a new book. "All Quiet on the Western Front" sounded terrible to a 14 year old me, but after starting it, I couldn't put it down. Same with Lord of the Flies. Fahrenheit 451. The Giver. I loved Animal Farm. And the Great Gatsby (though I get people not liking this one). The Outsiders was good. The Old man and the Sea was pretty boring I'll admit. Who thinks To Kill a Mockingbird is boring as shit?
You liked all of those at 14? We lived completely different youths :)
No lasers or dragons -> I skipped the book at that age.
Today-me would agree with you about all those books, teenage me would not.
I loved those books when I was younger (still do). They're good stories regardless of age. Lord of the flies is about a bunch of young kids having to play real life survival after a plane crash and devolve into some pretty crazy people during it. How could that be boring?
And Besides a bit of Orson Scott Card and LoTR I didn't get into fantasy until later in life.
I read quite a bit when I was in school, but I honestly don't remember a direct assigned book I actually liked. There were times we got to choose what we were reading for school and in those cases I read some that stuck with me like "1984".
I've barely read a book in the last 5 years. I actually don't think I've finished one. I read ALL the time when I was a teenager.
It is interesting to see how rapidly social fabrics deteriorated when smartphones came around. I was in highschool from 2014-2018, and for most of the years, I could remember everyone socializing during lunch, break times, and even in the classroom. Which is odd because we had access to smartphones, airpods, and laptops. Perhaps it was because we spent the majority of our lives without them still? Seems to have gotten a lot worse since then.
That's an interesting data point. I think covid did a lot of damage too. Kids spending formative years stuck in their room texting just didn't get the chance to build basic social skills and habits.
But it's hard to separate out that effect from just earlier and earlier exposure to modern phones. The class of 2018 was ~10 when the iphone 4 came out. And even that wasn't nearly as addicting as modern phones - it was tiny, and didn't have vertical scrolling video (except for Vine, briefly).
It's also difficult to build social skills if your peers around you are stuck looking down at their phones as opposed to looking at those around them.
If you're wanting to meet new people and chat with new people but a large chunk of them are sitting on their phones it makes it more difficult.
pandemic factor is i think critical here
Smartphones have been around much longer than before 2014. My takeaway from this is that people just always think it's worse than what they went through.
There is certainly an unhealthy dose of "kids these days" bullshit that inevitably propagates literally every single generation. This is especially disappointing on a forum for "hackers" though. I wouldn't be the person I am today without unrestricted internet access as a teen. My parents wanted me in their ignorant little conservative box not knowing or understanding anything outside of it. Their ignorance exceeded mine, so I was able to circumvent them by the very means many "hacker" news participants would love to see locked down and eliminated. I can't help but think of them as simple and pathetic as my parents were trying to strictly control what I could learn. They are the very definition of an anti-hacker culturally.
No it was Covid. But one party’s dogma was to close schools and force all socialization to be online for almost two years and rather than admit it was wrong and harmful they blame phones instead.
> In 2020, school systems in the United States began to close down in March because of the spread of COVID-19
I definitely know who was president in March of 2020. Before they lost their election 8 months later.
Somehow it seems a lot of people don't.
It isn’t who was president it is who supported keeping schools closed.
This is really funny for me to read because as a kid we were prohibited from having telecommunications devices while at school entirely. We were also prohibited from speaking during lunchtime. Our lunch was most definitely not loud.
You can always tell a Milford man.
When I was in elementary school one of the teachers would hold a decibel meter and subtract minutes off of recess if we got above a whispered conversation.
In class that is good. However at lunch kids should be talking to other kids. I know many teachers/schools are control freaks and so they would do such things, but it was always evil.
Have you never been to a room full of people/children? If there aren't these 'control freaks' in the room, then it gets louder and louder until to the limit where nobody can understand anything while all are shouting. It's surprisingly fast, about ~2 minutes to the maximum/stable loudness. This 'control freaks' are the requirement to allow children to have a conversation.
Properly treated rooms make a big difference for this. When the walls are painted concrete and the ceilings are unfinished this happens almost immediately; when the walls and ceilings are acoustically treated, it's much better. (Carpet makes it even better, but I would definitely not recommend carpeting a school lunchroom).
And room height! Old buildings had almost double of the room height than new buildings.
in small doses, but I've seen them go overboard to the point where we are better off without.
If the teacher completely forbids talking, they will just talk right around the corner, or write on paper. They will be just unable to impose it on the children for long.
I think my parents went to this school. Did the nuns slap you with rulers?
As a millennial, the concept of public school lunch not being loud is weird to me! I always remember the constant chatter of school lunch. Definitely had my share of hearty shared laughs, and heated conversations during lunchtime.
I graduated in 2011. Smart phones were rare, but dumb phones were quite common.
The lunch room was quite loud. To keep people from being in their own world on their phones too much, my lunch table had a rule that if you laugh out loud at something on your phone, you had to share it with the table. It was quite effective, though somewhat embarrassing from time to time.
In the early 2000s, when everyone had a phone but no smart phones, we had this "thing" at the college bar:
Sitting around the table with some beers and friends, everyone put their phones in the center of the table. First one to touch their phone had to buy the next round of drinks. It was effective. I've tried similar recently, but people are less enthusiastic about the idea.
It makes me so sad that it's possible for technology to steal the need to talk and play, even from our youth. If you have little kids you know how frantically they NEED to yap and play. I hold such horror for anything that would sap such life away.
It varies a lot. My kids will run around and play given the opportunity, but when they arrive home at 6pm from after-school club, completely exhausted, I think it's fair that they get to collapse in front of a screen for a bit.
For my generation (just post-Boomer), it was the TV.
For my parents, it was the radio.
For their parents, reading out loud for everyone to enjoy ("Mr. Dickens has published another episode of The Pickwick Papers!"), or playing instruments.
Yup. I'm Gen X (1972), and I'd read a book, watch TV, or (once we hit the mid-80s) I had a home computer.
I spent much of my free childhood hours from about 1976 to 1988 in front of a computer screen. But I was certainly not in the mainstream.
I don't think the mainstream people end up on HN.
[dead]
Music is medicine. I’ve been taking guitar for a few years now and it’s pure joy.
Problem is for the first month of lessons it is not joy, it is hard frustrating work where you sound bad and know it. Even when you are good lessons often are pushing you to do hard things and so they are not pure joy.
My son has been taking violin for years, is really good, and loves it - but most of his practice time is still really hard pieces that need a lot of practice of the hard parts (stitching between 5th and 2nd position...) and he would prefer to sit down at the piano (he stopped lessons years ago) and play an easy piece.
Practicing is always hard and I struggle to find time or energy to push myself but my goal was to be able to play basic chords and make up silly songs around the campfire so everything else is just a bonus.
These things are not remotely comparable. Smartphones, especially social media double depression and suicide rates among teens.
Even then, individual screens is isolating.
Collapsing in front of the TV with the family was still quality time enjoying something together.
Individual screens let parents get some peace and quiet for a while. As with everything, moderation is the key, not abstention.
Individual screens can be isolating, they can also be somewhat social. I agree, not a complete replacement for other social activities for sure. But, as a kid with internet connected videogames growing up, those internet connected games kept me playing with friends from school and other groups even if we weren't able to physically get together that evening.
Meanwhile, my brother would often go dig in and read a fiction book in isolation. Which is fine and great and all. I'm definitely not taking a dig at reading a book in any way. But, its not like only screens lead to isolation. There's plenty of tasks one can do at home that then become isolating.
For a lot of young people the screen is social - the equivalent of the long after-school phonecalls from the before times. Be it games or just Discord, it's still comms.
The screen is also a continual, addictive flow of short video clips that are largely designed to sell product, stoke FOMO, make people feel inadequate about beauty, etc.
Observe young people using their phones, and you can see the social use is often just occasionally switching from TikTok to a chat app, dashing off a one-line message, and then going right back to TikTok. Big difference from having actual long phone conversations with friends after school.
Most of the social of screens is when you get to a place without them you have something common to talk about. "how about [local sports team]", "what did you think about [whatever happened on latest soap opera]", "lets pretend I'm [some character on cartoon]". It is all shorthand for we have something in common and can skip getting to know each other.
[dead]
The play-based childhood is over; the phone-based childhood is here.
Not universally though, the local skate park and sports fields see plenty of activity.
Just until they are shutdown to put in pickleball for retirees.
> Not universally though, the local skate park and sports fields see plenty of activity.
Sure if “at least one match” means activity.
Back in the day, you couldn’t find parking for several blocks radius around every public sports field.
Thankfully that state is far from evenly-distributed.
It’s here but do we think it’s better? Should it stay?
As a society we do get to answer these questions.
As a society we've proven over and over again that we're unable to solve these problems that require coordination against greed. We've pulled the smartphone out of Pandora's box.
There's a 500B industry selling the phones, 2.5 trillion selling telecom services, trillions more selling social media, and most of the economy involves selling their products over the internet. Those are some HUGE incentives to maintain the status quo, or get people even more addicted yet.
I don't think our society is capable of answering that question and starting a Dune-style "Butlerian Jihad" and destroying all machines-that-think.
No, the issue is that most parents don’t want to do any parenting. There’s a product that makes children shut up, of course it’s selling out.
I'm guessing that teachers never wanted smartphones in class in the first place and that this was just about pushing back against the helicopter parents.
I'm astounded that this has become a thing. My school had a zero-tolerance "if I see it, I confiscate it" phone policy. And your parent had to come retrieve it.
There are kids who lost their phones because it accidentally fell out of a pocket lol
I'm out of school for 3 years. For most of the time smartphones existed, but were forbidden in class. It were the teachers, who allowed it and even encouraged it to be used in class. When the students are already staring at a screen during class, they continue doing so after. When they do not, they don't (at least initially). In my final years, it was obvious who thought about class and who was completely mind-absent, by looking who looked at an school-supplied iPad. > 90% of these people were just playing games during the whole lesson. This was known by everyone in the classroom and the teachers just ignored them.
Kids have phones for "safety" reasons. It's pretty irrational, but hard to push back against without help from on high.
The "Safety" excuse is bullshit. What safety problem could exist in a school that a child with a cell phone can solve? Fire? School administrators will call the fire department. Intruder? School administrators will call the police. School shooter? Same. There's nothing that a child with a cell phone will fix.
It probably is bullshit, but everything you've written is a straw man. A phone is useful for the kid on their journey to or from school, which by secondary level I would hope is on their own. Even just, "I'm going to Steve's, I'll be late for dinner".
But it doesn't need to be a smartphone for that, and it doesn't need to be out during school hours.
Yeah, I think people are downvoting me because they don't realize I meant what you're saying when I called it irrational.
The impact of phones on teen social life seems to be still controversial in academic circles. I think it would be a lot less controversial if everyone knew the lunchroom had fallen silent because everyone was scrolling, and became loud again when they banned the phones.
Why should articles like these always start with some fictional story like a novel? The actual news is buried somewhere half-way after the throw-away story.
It is following a magazine style. This is partly to elicit an emotional reaction and partly I suspect because the copy writer is bored and wishes they were writing novels instead.
if it's a proper news source they (and every other paper) already reported it who knows how many times. "city is about to ban phones in schools" "city is banning phones in schools" "the phones in schools were banned". everybody who needs to know already knows
This is not intended to be a news piece. It's a story. But whoever is in charge of CMS messed up categories. It should not be labeled news
It is an annoying writing style that is done on a lot of sites in both news articles and "stories" as you call them.
annoying? if you want Crime and Punishment to be "guy killed a grandma" that's your thing but believe me this style is not annoying to many people aside from vocal minority
Firstly, I love the straw-man. I am fine with length and the more story driven approach if it is warranted. More often than not I do not believe it is warranted.
Secondly, I am allowed (whether you like it or not) to complain about something if I don't like it. I find this style annoying and I often believe it is written in a way to manipulate people, which I have a distaste for.
Thirdly, whether I am in a vocal minority or not doesn't mean that vocal minority is incorrect in its criticism. A lot of sites have adopted this style even more more "news" style articles.
You're allowed to complain of course. Just like people are allowed to write these stories and me and people who upvoted this allowed to do the opposite of complaining. whether you like it or not.
There's nothing wrong in being in minority but I guess because it is on frontpage it says something about preferences of majority.
> You're allowed to complain of course.
Why then make it sound like I can't by deliberately misstating my position in a completely ridiculous manner to be as argumentative as possible?
> Just like people are allowed to write these stories and me and people who upvoted this allowed to do the opposite of complaining. whether you like it or not
I never said once they weren't allowed to. I said I found the writing style annoying.
> There's nothing wrong in being in minority but I guess because it is on frontpage it says something about preferences of majority.
It doesn't say anything about the preferences on the majority. A minority of people would have up-voted this as well. Many other people may have found it annoying that said nothing or simply ignored it. You don't know their numbers. So this is speculation.
how did I misstate your position? you say this style is annoying. I say the whole point of this article is style, being an interesting read not just rehashing facts. just like many good books. and I chose a well known book as an example for my point.
there was tons of news rehashing facts of what happened (phones banned yadda yadda), why not just read that instead if you want it
> how did I misstate your position?
Straw-man and now gas-lighting. Obviously I wouldn't have the same opinion about a classic novel (however flowery prose is a problem in a many novels) as I do about throwaway news "stories" written by a copy writer that wants to make use of their English degree. Pretending someone would (without any evidence to the contrary) is a disingenuous tactic to make people shut-up. I've had this done to me in person.
> there was tons of news rehashing facts of what happened (phones banned yadda yadda), why not just read that instead if you want it
If they hadn't have used the story like prose I may have read the rest of it! That is my and the OP's entire complaint.
I think we will leave it there.
> Straw-man and now gas-lighting.
Indeed.
> If they hadn't have used the story like prose I may have read the rest of it!
So you didn't read it? How far did you make it? I swear there is an underlined link to another article about the ban somewhere in first paragraph. If you follow that link, there's a handy sidebar appears with details about the ban. Yay technology)
> throwaway news "stories" written by a copy writer that wants to make use of their English degree
Personal attacks on people who can write? let's goo!
Crazy, I went to boarding school 2009-2011 and our dinner hall was always loud with talking and laughter. However sometimes it would slowly get quieter until the room went silent with everyone looking oddly at each other, then a massive wave of laughter would erupt.
Some weird phenomenon.
I also remember downloading Froggy jump on my iPhone and playing it with friends, but you certainly put your phone away more than you do now. You also had it taken off of you if you were on it when you shouldn't have been. If my parents found out they took my phone off of me, they'd probably crack it at me because I wasn't paying attention. I get the feeling many parents might just get angry at the teacher rather than their child.
> Enakshi Barua, 14, said she’s also opposed to the ban, on principle. Barua said. "I feel like the trust isn’t there between the students and teachers." > staff members are collecting around 30 contraband phones a day > There’s a strike system with escalating punishments
Does not sound good.
I’d like to know what happens to cell phone use after school lets out. Are these students more likely to spend the rest of the day online? I could also see it going the other way. And if that’s the case, Cardozo is one of the first cell rehabs for students. Terrific to see!
Anecdotally burner phones are already being discussed and presumably used. They lock up your primary phone, and you sneakily use your burner phone which if confiscated can be used again or easily replaced/abandoned.
Is it just me who finds it annoying that some people like using the pattern "make something <adjective> again"? Like, you don't have any other choice?
It’s fascinating to see a practice that was previously limited to Silicon Valley executives become first a national class signifier and now go mainstream.
We haven’t extensively studied how social media and smartphones affect a kid’s brain. It’s becoming abundantly clear the former is inappropriate for kids and adolescents. It’s emerging that the latter is at least destructive for non-adolescent children.
Smartphones are this century's cigarrettes.
Just get the standardized test scores you need and call it a day. I find this to be very performative from a student perspective.
No more kids cameras in the classroom
This does nothing to ban cameras. The fact that a smartphone has a camera doesn't mean cameras are banned. You can still bring a standalone camera to school.
Which would cause a lot of questions if you pull it out in the classroom.
Maybe in a private school, but a public school should be considered public, making it perfectly legal to film in a classroom thanks to the first amendment.
What? Public means publicly funded, not that the students need to live like they are in public on the streets. A school should still be a safe space, how can children be allowed to develop and be educated?
At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.
>At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.
If you live in the United States, the first amendment absolutely allows you to film anyone in public. It's a constitutional right.
This also applies to publicly funded facilities, like courthouses, libraries, post offices, the DMV, and also public schools - any publicly accessible area, in any facility that is publicly funded.
I'm not making this up, it's actually part of the constitution.
> If you live in the United States
I do not.
> also public schools - any publicly accessible area
A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object? How does this work with the duty of supervision, the duty to provide and the protected status of children as ward to the educators?
A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are all facilities, that are publicly funded, yet you certainly can't walk in and take random photos or do other things.
I expect public schools to be publicly funded, not to be the same as any public space. Maybe that indeed doesn't apply in your country, but that sounds bullocks to me.
>A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object?
These days, generally no, "random dude" cannot just walk into any school as some have the front doors locked during school hours (mostly due to gun violence, not taking photos), but it's not impossible. But "random dude" is not the subject of the article, the subject is student's phones being banned, which does not include cameras specifically being banned, which students could still bring into a school, and it's still perfectly legal to use them. Don't hallucinate something I didn't say to try to make a pointless argument. "Random dude" was not part of this comment thread until you made it up.
>A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are all facilities, that are publicly funded, yet you certainly can't walk in and take random photos or do other things.
You can take photos in the public lobby of all those places, that is accessible to the public, or from outside the facility on public sidewalks or roads, etc. Hospitals over here aren't generally publicly funded, a small number are, but most are for-profit. The US has a lot of problems with healthcare that your country may not have. It's perfectly legal to film military bases from outside the base, anything you can see from a public space is legal to film. It's up to the public entity being filmed to create privacy (walls, etc). Publicly accessible areas are a thing in most public facilities, and restricted areas are a different thing, where filming is not allowed, nor access is given.
1st amendment rights are the same rights that allow security cameras to record people in public, and the public has the right to request police body cam recordings, as well as all camera footage from cameras in public facilities to be requested by the public. If I wanted to, I could get all the security footage from any public facility, just by requesting it. That's why it's also perfectly legal for me to bring my own camera and film inside any publicly accessible area of a public building. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public in the US.
>I expect public schools to be publicly funded, not to be the same as any public space. Maybe that indeed doesn't apply in your country, but that sounds bullocks to me.
Constitutional rights don't stop because someone's feelings might get hurt if their photo is taken, and a made-up policy that some institutions like to post on the front door banning photos doesn't supersede the rights given in the constitution. We can ignore those policies, because they are not more important than constitutional rights.
Most people in the US don't even understand 1st amendment rights, but there are a lot of "1st amendment auditors" that go around testing our rights, filming in publicly accessible areas of all the places you've mentioned, and educating people (including law enforcement) that don't have a clue what the 1st amendment guarantees.
You might find some of these videos kind of wild:
Postal Office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uumedKeDqg0
Military Base: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAN8pft7Fo7
Correctional Facility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIz6-Ikma4
Filming banks through the window from public: https://youtu.be/9KpUnID-OVc?si=P1OWYxqqPhWnMVVO&t=650
FOOD FIGHT!!
I don't see how a loud lunch break is good in any way
It means your in a large room with a lot of people talking to each other. It's not a fine dining experience where people whisper. It's a social place. The social aspect was taken out of the experience, which is vital to development. The "loud" (meaning, it's not quiet) aspect is not a negative. It's not a "lunch break" for adults to go decompress from the stress at work. If kids want quiet for studying, they can hit their school library, or other places for solitude and tranquility. It's about younger people actually communicating and discussing what is going on in the day, their life, after school, hobbies, interests, relationships, etc.. Imagine going to a playground where there are 100 children. None of them are making a sound. That would be a scary sign. You should hear kids laughing, screaming, crying... experiencing social engagement. People are being isolated from each other because they are becoming "addicted" to screens and short media formats. We are training our brains for instant gratification, but there is no retention or learning going on. Younger people aren't learning how to communicate directly with others. Without these engagements we hobble our development of things like empathy. How to control our emotions with others. It's damaging for all.
That's my take.
The school president is 17?
Yes, the president of the student-elected body of mostly-powerless "school government."
The student-elected body is often called the Student Council.
Sometimes each grade level will have a class president.
Varies from school to school for the details.
Can't edit so I'll reply: This is in the United States.
That's just an elected student position that usually interfaces with the school leadership about student issues - it isn't the vice principal/principal/superintendent that run the school(s)
it’s an america thing
Other countries don't have prefects? Wikipedia seems to indicate the phenomenon is worldwide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_president
We wouldn't call such a thing a president, but yes.
I don't think smartphones should be allowed in schools but as someone who was dumbfounded by the lunchtime cacophony of my peers, I wouldn't lead with that as a triumph.
Those of us who hate the noise of boisterous social conversation are the outliers, but it is a sign of their healthy social environment. I personally was always able to find a quiet spot.
My early dinner, empty restaurant habit is the adult persistence of my teenage preferences, and I don't expect my personal tolerance to be their norm.
The problem, when it comes to smartphone bans, isn't the kids, believe it or not.
My experience (consulting with multiple k-12 institutions) is that it's the parents. If the parents can't be in CONSTANT contact with their kids, it's a problem. People are scared of everything all the time. It's not great.
Schools should provide quiet spaces for kids who don't want noise during lunch. The library should always be open during lunch hours. There should always be an outdoor space for those who want it (unless there is lightening - I assuming you know how to dress for any other weather).
Or we can go the opposite way: for kids who want to be loud during lunch there should be a place for them to do that. Wanting to be loud it too common to ignore, and it isn't like perfume/peanuts/... where we have to force a policy for a minority.
Tech will prevail on the long term, even with these misguided bans.
The smartphone OSs hide all that "tech". They are not more educational (by themselves) than interactive advertisement streams.
title should include "school" like in original article:
"NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again"
The ban will be revoked after Meta sues for business damages caused by unlawful government interference with their customer acquisition operations. /s
We need to sue Meta (et al.) for social damage caused by unlawful acquisition of addicts from the public education system. (My personal opinion)
AFAIK know phones are banned in all secondary school (and primary school) from the start till the end of the school day. My daughter just started secondary school and one kid was trying to text her mum to add credit to her lunch money account in the first week and got a one hour detention for getting her phone out during school. This was in the canteen, not in a lesson. Bit harsh but seemed to get the message across.
Ironically most homework is done by the kids on their phones so when I tell her to get off her phone she always has the excuse that she's checking/doing her homework, or looking at her timetable online.
[edit] note this is a UK perspective, not sure why this got downvoted
Why is it that Hacker News is overwhelmingly liberal on most issues but when it comes to teenagers/children incredibly authoritarian and big government?
Because many people only support freedoms for themselves, the second someone else wants to do things different than they would they get angry because they don't understand why anyone would think differently than them.
Also they don't ever have to worry about becoming young again so they literally never feel the consequences of their ideals and actions against kids. They feel safe in completely dismissing concerns and actual reality because they are so far removed from it and can cling to whatever imaginary view of the youthful world they made up.
Because, like most of the population in the West, HN readers are not actually liberals but rather centrists, which means they lean roughly equally conservative, liberal and socialist on the political triangle - on average.
Sometimes you have to trade personal liberties (makes liberals sad) and/or privileges (makes conservatives sad) to obtain better societal outcomes, i.e. mandatory vaccination or minimum wage. Those are socialist policies.
And since the major media and thus our shared social space is heavily anti-socialist (qui bono?), everyone is closeted and tries extremely hard to justify socialist policies as liberalism, which is not shunned. Hence people in the US now perceive them as closer or even "allied".
All of this read and written on a smartphone.
Reversion to the past is not preparation for the future.
So I have eye witness accounts of this lunchroom saying that's not true. The lunchroom was deafeningly loud before the ban.
This school is also a magnet school with only high-performing kids who did not suffer from distraction problems and who actively made use of phones during class for classwork.
All my teacher friends (before this article) had joyously reported on lunch rooms being loud again (and even fights and lol, sex) happening.... But in a good way. If kids aren't getting into some trouble then they're not interacting and learning about society and human nature enough
I have a kid in a non-magnet HS and one in a magnet HS (in NYC). This article isn't off-the-mark but I would say there will always be variations by school.
A whole lot of people who got to their great tech jobs by commoditizing their screen addictions (I.e a significant amount of this very website) are massively harmed by these policies. I can’t believe that the folks here nearly universally like this.
We should celebrate screen addiction and not fight it.
I learned to use a computer, by doing things that are possible air-gapped. Using a shell, etc. I did not by scrolling through social media, while all my peers treat computers like magic and lack basic knowledge, because they only know how to scroll through apps.
Even today I learn and produce the most when the network is down.