8 ms·

I can’t tell you how many professors I’ve had this exact conversation with. It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers

I can’t tell you how many professors I’ve had this exact conversation with. It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t. A good starting point would be fully banning all phones for the entirety of the school day in K-12.

fzeroracer 1y ago
Smartphones are easy to blame, but they aren't the core of the problem. They're not just a thing used in the US, but across the world and we don't see the same problems in say, European school systems. The actual issue is multifaceted: 1) Parents in the US are overworked, underpaid and (increasingly) unable to participate in the lives of their children. It should come as zero surprise then that phones are used as a way to get kids out of their hair. If you don't fix this problem then banning phones entirely won't matter, because parents will yell, scream and quite literally assault your schools for taking away phones from their kids. 2) Our K-12 educational system is broken. Kids are graduating with lower literacy rates than ever. College is functioning less as higher education and more like remedial programs, having to teach basic topics that should've been covered as part of the core curriculum. 3) Teachers are also underpaid, overworked and having to deal with the deficiencies in parenting as well as the advent of AI making cheating significantly easier and harder to detect. These three factors all compound to create a whole generation that we're effectively failing. And given the attacks/teardown of college as an institution, I fear we're going to have our own version of the 'lost generation' until people get angry enough to fix it or our business capabilities collapse.
- doright 1y ago
  Parenting and upbringing could be an important and overlooked reason for this lost generation. I can only speak anecdotally. Way before smartphones were invented, I had enforced limits on computer time to 1-2 hours a day via time tracking software. All this did was breed resentment between me and my parents that led to conflict and punishment. As soon as I got to college I was back to being on my computer all night nearly every day, relieved that I didn't have to put up with them anymore. The technology restriction wasn't the beginning and end of my mentality all through college. The true cause was how I was raised and my relationship with my parents. They were the only real bullies I've ever had. People will always attack apps, algorithms and corporations since they're easy to feel powerless about. But if a developing person is given good enough reason to doomscroll so that they able to forget the pain that was imbued in them from an early age, then 1) the outcome in the article results, 2) a major underlying factor in the analysis of why we're failing young people will be missed, and people will assume it's solely the fault of addictive "algorithms" and capitalism, and 3) it's unlikely that people are going to open up about stressors as personal as childhood trauma (a cause) as opposed to behavioral addictions like doomscrolling (a symptom), so the focus will be on attacking and regulating the symptoms, and this cycle of trauma will only exacerbate and repeat itself. A certain level of trauma can steal decades away from developing persons and set them up for failure, with or without smartphones, and smartphones only make their problems worse. Not to mention, past a certain age people start to blame you for your own failings, even though many of them have roots in actions taken against you that were not your fault, and this only contributes to feelings of misery and hopelessness. Knowing this firsthand, it's no wonder so many people find little else interesting than doomscrolling all day - myself included. You can regulate apps and restrict smartphones, but I have no idea how to fix bad parenting/emotional trauma at scale. What goes on in families is private by its nature, emotional abuse is legitimized if you never lay a hand on the child and some arbitrary standard of defiance is crossed, and intergenerational trauma can have completely arbitrary causes going back decades, which end up transmitted as meaningless stressors to a victim trapped in an endless search of anything at all to hold close to them...
blatantly 1y ago
Hold on. I thought no phones K-12 all day was normal?
lopespm 1y ago
> It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t. Love this phrase. What might happen is that the next generation, upon seeing this opportunity, will do the opposite of their elders and highly value focus, and more readily dismiss quick gains.
gehwartzen 1y ago
It seems some are. My kid is in 4th grade in a city public school (US) and the district just this year banned all phones, tablets, and smart watches during the school day. We’ll see how it goes.
- hx8 1y ago
  Are laptops also banned?
  - gehwartzen 1y ago
    No. Not sure what the expectations are for HS kids who use their laptops for classwork.
nemo44x 1y ago
Tiktoking in the bathroom will be the new smoking in the bathroom.
jaybrendansmith 1y ago
This is the ONE THING I wish I had done with my kids. They are both pretty good but the phones did absolutely nothing good for them.
- rmholt 1y ago
  For what goal? Just for them to get instantly addicted once the ban is lifted? For them to lack any communications with their friends and to be excluded from their social circles discussing the newest tiktoks or whatever? I think you chose well
  - goatlover 1y ago
    Somehow kids were able to make friendships before everyone was online all the time. Perhaps they don't need to be spending time discussing the newest tiktoks. Maybe their friends should be hanging out and doing things.
  - hx8 1y ago
    To the end of reducing exposure during developmental periods, with the aim of having a long term benefit.
    - rmholt 1y ago
      Yeah that's fair. I still don't believe that it's worth it, with the exclusion from their social circle causing a bigger health issue than social media, but I get it.
      - kmoser 1y ago
        First, lack of a phone won't cause them to be completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with. Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing. Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.
artursapek 1y ago
That only works if all their friends follow the same rule at home. Send your kids to a Waldorf school and thank me later.
jay_kyburz 1y ago
ACT Australia did K-10 starting 2024. It's been great! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canberra-public-schools/103194048 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...
- sien 1y ago
  Yeah. I was coming here to state this. It is working. It's surprising that this isn't done everywhere. Note, kids from year 4 (9 years old) in many parts of Australia do have a Chromebook.
rmholt 1y ago
No. It's not the smartphones that are the problem. Smartphones are a wonderful invention, capable of connecting anyone anywhere. It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent" It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors. There, the phone addiction crisis solved.
- ThrowawayR2 1y ago
  No, that doesn't address the incentives that cause all those things: maximizing engagement to maximize ad impressions for money. You have to choke the money supply off at the source or the big corporations will just find other engagement mechanisms to hook users to get at more profits. Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.
- atemerev 1y ago
  Including Hacker News, presumably.
- dartharva 1y ago
  You sound like one of the author's students. Just restricting juvenile phone use to dumb phones is obviously the more feasible solution than banning or manipulating entire platforms.
  - rmholt 1y ago
    I never said ban platforms? TikTok, Facebook could still very well exist and still make more money than any of us ever will. Just without the brain rotting engagement algorithm
    - kmoser 1y ago
      People will still easily find ways to become addicted to content streams, regardless of the algorithm. The algorithms just make it that much worse.
hardwaregeek 1y ago
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it'd be that bad for schools to be almost completely analog. Obviously not for classes like CS, but do math class es or English classes really need computers? The whole "digital learning" push feels like it hasn't resulted in significantly better learning than with a book, pen, and paper.
- beezle 1y ago
  Totally agree. Unless the use of the computer is integral to the material at hand (learning to program, learning to solve problems numerically, modeling) it is superfluous. Tons of dough spent on making it "modern" just for the sake of it.
- VyseofArcadia 1y ago
  It's fiction, but the NEAL Stephenson novel Anathem explored this idea.
- paulcole 1y ago
  > Obviously not for classes like CS Why is this obvious? Unless you’re talking CS = Programming a specific language, I think it’d be better for the K-12 version of CS to be completely analog save for maybe a “lab” for students in later years of high school.
  - hardwaregeek 1y ago
    CS at the lower levels should be programming and playing with computers. What else should it be? Analysis of algorithms? That sounds dreadfully boring for a high schooler
    - tekla 1y ago
      High School CS was programming in Java 25% and 75% algorithms when I went to school.
      - porridgeraisin 1y ago
only-one1701 1y ago
As the parent of a young kid: how do you do this? Does this just mean not giving them a smartphone until they’re teenagers? Not letting them take it to school. My oldest kid isn’t even four yet, but I’m already wondering about how to limit his eventual phone usage and also not make him a social pariah.
- JR1427 1y ago
  Lead by example, and show there is much fun to be had away from phones etc. I make sure that my daughter (6) sees me writing in my notebook, reading, making things etc. More often than not, she then wants to join in. I will hold out giving her a smartphone as long as possible, and up until she has one, I will try and show her all the other fun things.
- mrkpdl 1y ago
  It should be enforced by the schools: put the phones in a tub in home group and hand them back out at the end of the day. If there’s an emergency call the office or the office calls you. Use exercise books for note taking, etc.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  The "social pariah" thing is FUD. It's just people repeating what other people claim to be afraid of, and then becoming afraid of it themselves. Kids can be shitty--if they want to exclude someone or bully them, they're going to do it whether or not the victim has a cell phone. Conversely, if people will only be friends with you if you have a cell phone, then I have some bad news for you: They're probably not genuine friends.
  - Agree2468 1y ago
    You may consider it FUD, but that was 100% my reality. It's not about people only being friends with you because you have a phone, it's about the shared cultural experience that a group of kids have because of some media they have access to via the phone. In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to. I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.
pglevy 1y ago
We did this with our kids, now college freshman and high school junior, and it was absolutely worth it. In middle school we established "screen break" from Friday night to Saturday afternoon. It was challenging at first but they came to love it. We've had many conversations and read many books on those breaks (and still do). Advice to new parents: keep them off screens as long as possible, and then build in and enforce breaks that become a part of your family routine. Chances are they will end up noticeably different from other kids.
jevndev 1y ago
It really feels the same as weed/nicotine/alcohol/sex/other vices. If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit. We need to explain (and frequently reinforce) these negative effects of modern phone use so kids can grow up understanding them. Right now, it seems like a lot of people really only start to understand the impacts of this kind of phone use long after they're addicted. Hopefully informing them before that happens would help. Of course, this kind of thing is easy to do wrong. Programs like D.A.R.E. and THRIVE tried going the way of fear tactics which seems to really not work well. We need to have an open and honest discussion about "yes, this is fun. But it DOES have a bad side" instead. The last sticking point there is that it assumes people will be rational and come to the conclusion of using with moderation. Hopefully people can be rational... Otherwise I think there's no hope for us in solving the brainrot epidemic.
- braincat31415 1y ago
  "We need to explain..." From my own experience and that of fellow parents that I talked to, explanations will be dismissed outright by the all-knowing teenagers, and any attempt to have a rational conversation on the topic will fail. Just like any addict, kids will deny that they are addicted. I had to act once the smartphone addiction reached a disaster level. What worked the best for me was "no you cannot bring your phone to school or use it before the homework is done, that's my decision and I don't have to provide you with any explanation." Did this generate some resentment and a few tantrums? You bet, but I got the result I wanted, peace of mind and homework done on time. I disagree with you.
- BJones12 1y ago
  > If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit. They may be 'forbidden fruit', but does that means that it would lead to more use of them? Do you think people drank more in 2020 or 1920 during prohibition? Do you think people smoked more weed in 2025 or, say, 1985 when it was less legal? Do you think there is more gambling in 2025, or in 1925 when the laws banning it were still fresh? I think you'll reach the conclusion that outright banning does in fact reduce the usage of the vice.
- 1y ago
oceanhaiyang 1y ago
This is a really good take. My mother did this until high school and some of my favorite classes forced this. Lectures were so much more engaging with no computer distracting me.

fzeroracer 1y ago

Smartphones are easy to blame, but they aren't the core of the problem. They're not just a thing used in the US, but across the world and we don't see the same problems in say, European school systems. The actual issue is multifaceted: 1) Parents in the US are overworked, underpaid and (increasingly) unable to participate in the lives of their children. It should come as zero surprise then that phones are used as a way to get kids out of their hair. If you don't fix this problem then banning phones entirely won't matter, because parents will yell, scream and quite literally assault your schools for taking away phones from their kids. 2) Our K-12 educational system is broken. Kids are graduating with lower literacy rates than ever. College is functioning less as higher education and more like remedial programs, having to teach basic topics that should've been covered as part of the core curriculum. 3) Teachers are also underpaid, overworked and having to deal with the deficiencies in parenting as well as the advent of AI making cheating significantly easier and harder to detect. These three factors all compound to create a whole generation that we're effectively failing. And given the attacks/teardown of college as an institution, I fear we're going to have our own version of the 'lost generation' until people get angry enough to fix it or our business capabilities collapse.

doright 1y ago
Parenting and upbringing could be an important and overlooked reason for this lost generation. I can only speak anecdotally. Way before smartphones were invented, I had enforced limits on computer time to 1-2 hours a day via time tracking software. All this did was breed resentment between me and my parents that led to conflict and punishment. As soon as I got to college I was back to being on my computer all night nearly every day, relieved that I didn't have to put up with them anymore. The technology restriction wasn't the beginning and end of my mentality all through college. The true cause was how I was raised and my relationship with my parents. They were the only real bullies I've ever had. People will always attack apps, algorithms and corporations since they're easy to feel powerless about. But if a developing person is given good enough reason to doomscroll so that they able to forget the pain that was imbued in them from an early age, then 1) the outcome in the article results, 2) a major underlying factor in the analysis of why we're failing young people will be missed, and people will assume it's solely the fault of addictive "algorithms" and capitalism, and 3) it's unlikely that people are going to open up about stressors as personal as childhood trauma (a cause) as opposed to behavioral addictions like doomscrolling (a symptom), so the focus will be on attacking and regulating the symptoms, and this cycle of trauma will only exacerbate and repeat itself. A certain level of trauma can steal decades away from developing persons and set them up for failure, with or without smartphones, and smartphones only make their problems worse. Not to mention, past a certain age people start to blame you for your own failings, even though many of them have roots in actions taken against you that were not your fault, and this only contributes to feelings of misery and hopelessness. Knowing this firsthand, it's no wonder so many people find little else interesting than doomscrolling all day - myself included. You can regulate apps and restrict smartphones, but I have no idea how to fix bad parenting/emotional trauma at scale. What goes on in families is private by its nature, emotional abuse is legitimized if you never lay a hand on the child and some arbitrary standard of defiance is crossed, and intergenerational trauma can have completely arbitrary causes going back decades, which end up transmitted as meaningless stressors to a victim trapped in an endless search of anything at all to hold close to them...

blatantly 1y ago

Hold on. I thought no phones K-12 all day was normal?

lopespm 1y ago

> It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t. Love this phrase. What might happen is that the next generation, upon seeing this opportunity, will do the opposite of their elders and highly value focus, and more readily dismiss quick gains.

gehwartzen 1y ago

It seems some are. My kid is in 4th grade in a city public school (US) and the district just this year banned all phones, tablets, and smart watches during the school day. We’ll see how it goes.

hx8 1y ago
Are laptops also banned?
- gehwartzen 1y ago
  No. Not sure what the expectations are for HS kids who use their laptops for classwork.

nemo44x 1y ago

Tiktoking in the bathroom will be the new smoking in the bathroom.

jaybrendansmith 1y ago

This is the ONE THING I wish I had done with my kids. They are both pretty good but the phones did absolutely nothing good for them.

rmholt 1y ago
For what goal? Just for them to get instantly addicted once the ban is lifted? For them to lack any communications with their friends and to be excluded from their social circles discussing the newest tiktoks or whatever? I think you chose well
- goatlover 1y ago
  Somehow kids were able to make friendships before everyone was online all the time. Perhaps they don't need to be spending time discussing the newest tiktoks. Maybe their friends should be hanging out and doing things.
- hx8 1y ago
  To the end of reducing exposure during developmental periods, with the aim of having a long term benefit.
  - rmholt 1y ago
    Yeah that's fair. I still don't believe that it's worth it, with the exclusion from their social circle causing a bigger health issue than social media, but I get it.
    - kmoser 1y ago
      First, lack of a phone won't cause them to be completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with. Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing. Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.

artursapek 1y ago

That only works if all their friends follow the same rule at home. Send your kids to a Waldorf school and thank me later.

jay_kyburz 1y ago

ACT Australia did K-10 starting 2024. It's been great! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canberra-public-schools/103194048 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...

sien 1y ago
Yeah. I was coming here to state this. It is working. It's surprising that this isn't done everywhere. Note, kids from year 4 (9 years old) in many parts of Australia do have a Chromebook.

rmholt 1y ago

No. It's not the smartphones that are the problem. Smartphones are a wonderful invention, capable of connecting anyone anywhere. It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent" It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors. There, the phone addiction crisis solved.

ThrowawayR2 1y ago
No, that doesn't address the incentives that cause all those things: maximizing engagement to maximize ad impressions for money. You have to choke the money supply off at the source or the big corporations will just find other engagement mechanisms to hook users to get at more profits. Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.
atemerev 1y ago
Including Hacker News, presumably.
dartharva 1y ago
You sound like one of the author's students. Just restricting juvenile phone use to dumb phones is obviously the more feasible solution than banning or manipulating entire platforms.
- rmholt 1y ago
  I never said ban platforms? TikTok, Facebook could still very well exist and still make more money than any of us ever will. Just without the brain rotting engagement algorithm
  - kmoser 1y ago
    People will still easily find ways to become addicted to content streams, regardless of the algorithm. The algorithms just make it that much worse.

hardwaregeek 1y ago

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it'd be that bad for schools to be almost completely analog. Obviously not for classes like CS, but do math class es or English classes really need computers? The whole "digital learning" push feels like it hasn't resulted in significantly better learning than with a book, pen, and paper.

beezle 1y ago
Totally agree. Unless the use of the computer is integral to the material at hand (learning to program, learning to solve problems numerically, modeling) it is superfluous. Tons of dough spent on making it "modern" just for the sake of it.
VyseofArcadia 1y ago
It's fiction, but the NEAL Stephenson novel Anathem explored this idea.
paulcole 1y ago
> Obviously not for classes like CS Why is this obvious? Unless you’re talking CS = Programming a specific language, I think it’d be better for the K-12 version of CS to be completely analog save for maybe a “lab” for students in later years of high school.
- hardwaregeek 1y ago
  CS at the lower levels should be programming and playing with computers. What else should it be? Analysis of algorithms? That sounds dreadfully boring for a high schooler
  - tekla 1y ago
    High School CS was programming in Java 25% and 75% algorithms when I went to school.
    - porridgeraisin 1y ago

only-one1701 1y ago

As the parent of a young kid: how do you do this? Does this just mean not giving them a smartphone until they’re teenagers? Not letting them take it to school. My oldest kid isn’t even four yet, but I’m already wondering about how to limit his eventual phone usage and also not make him a social pariah.

JR1427 1y ago
Lead by example, and show there is much fun to be had away from phones etc. I make sure that my daughter (6) sees me writing in my notebook, reading, making things etc. More often than not, she then wants to join in. I will hold out giving her a smartphone as long as possible, and up until she has one, I will try and show her all the other fun things.
mrkpdl 1y ago
It should be enforced by the schools: put the phones in a tub in home group and hand them back out at the end of the day. If there’s an emergency call the office or the office calls you. Use exercise books for note taking, etc.
ryandrake 1y ago
The "social pariah" thing is FUD. It's just people repeating what other people claim to be afraid of, and then becoming afraid of it themselves. Kids can be shitty--if they want to exclude someone or bully them, they're going to do it whether or not the victim has a cell phone. Conversely, if people will only be friends with you if you have a cell phone, then I have some bad news for you: They're probably not genuine friends.
- Agree2468 1y ago
  You may consider it FUD, but that was 100% my reality. It's not about people only being friends with you because you have a phone, it's about the shared cultural experience that a group of kids have because of some media they have access to via the phone. In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to. I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.

pglevy 1y ago

We did this with our kids, now college freshman and high school junior, and it was absolutely worth it. In middle school we established "screen break" from Friday night to Saturday afternoon. It was challenging at first but they came to love it. We've had many conversations and read many books on those breaks (and still do). Advice to new parents: keep them off screens as long as possible, and then build in and enforce breaks that become a part of your family routine. Chances are they will end up noticeably different from other kids.

jevndev 1y ago

It really feels the same as weed/nicotine/alcohol/sex/other vices. If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit. We need to explain (and frequently reinforce) these negative effects of modern phone use so kids can grow up understanding them. Right now, it seems like a lot of people really only start to understand the impacts of this kind of phone use long after they're addicted. Hopefully informing them before that happens would help. Of course, this kind of thing is easy to do wrong. Programs like D.A.R.E. and THRIVE tried going the way of fear tactics which seems to really not work well. We need to have an open and honest discussion about "yes, this is fun. But it DOES have a bad side" instead. The last sticking point there is that it assumes people will be rational and come to the conclusion of using with moderation. Hopefully people can be rational... Otherwise I think there's no hope for us in solving the brainrot epidemic.

braincat31415 1y ago
"We need to explain..." From my own experience and that of fellow parents that I talked to, explanations will be dismissed outright by the all-knowing teenagers, and any attempt to have a rational conversation on the topic will fail. Just like any addict, kids will deny that they are addicted. I had to act once the smartphone addiction reached a disaster level. What worked the best for me was "no you cannot bring your phone to school or use it before the homework is done, that's my decision and I don't have to provide you with any explanation." Did this generate some resentment and a few tantrums? You bet, but I got the result I wanted, peace of mind and homework done on time. I disagree with you.
BJones12 1y ago
> If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit. They may be 'forbidden fruit', but does that means that it would lead to more use of them? Do you think people drank more in 2020 or 1920 during prohibition? Do you think people smoked more weed in 2025 or, say, 1985 when it was less legal? Do you think there is more gambling in 2025, or in 1925 when the laws banning it were still fresh? I think you'll reach the conclusion that outright banning does in fact reduce the usage of the vice.
1y ago

oceanhaiyang 1y ago

This is a really good take. My mother did this until high school and some of my favorite classes forced this. Lectures were so much more engaging with no computer distracting me.