5 ms·

I don’t think “one can get around rules” is a very insightful thing to say, it’s just a truism.

by kelipso 2mo ago

Forgeties79 2mo ago
They’re talking about the relative ineffectiveness of prohibition when it comes to teenagers. Generally speaking, they’re right. And the implication is therefore “don’t just blanket ban your way through screen time restrictions.” It’s a bit more nuanced than “one can get around the rules.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  Yup. I think American culture is broadly too permissive with under-14s and too restrictive with over-14s (but under-21s).
  - mc3301 2mo ago
    I told my elementary-age child that they can have a phone when they are old enough to sneakily buy one without me knowing.
- kelipso 2mo ago
  There are kids under 18 who drink and plenty under 21 who drink. Still a very good idea to ban under 18 drinking, and not a terrible idea to ban under 21 drinking. You can do this for lots of rules and laws. So yeah, they're basically saying "one can get around the rules" and nothing more than that. Therefore, there is no argument here, just a truism.
  - Forgeties79 2mo ago
    >relative ineffectiveness >generally speaking I felt like I couched and prefaced enough that somebody wouldn’t read this and go “this guy thinks you literally can’t ban teens from anything ever,” which is a ridiculous stance that no reasonable person would hold. I’ll be more explicit in the future. Wholesale banning teens from screens is generally highly ineffective, like many but not all things people try to prohibit at that age. It leads to their seeking it elsewhere, perhaps in less safe environments and certainly with less guidance. It also means they won’t communicate about it with their parents, which has a lot of bad secondary effects. Personally, if my kid experiences or witnesses something disturbing (or illegal/potentially dangerous) when they are young, I want to make sure the lines of communication stay open between us so I can help - or at least help them process it - when they need me. TL;DR: banning smartphones when they can easily access them elsewhere is almost certainly going to end in a net negative. I am not saying we can’t ban anything. That is a ridiculous interpretation of my comment. I hope this clears that up for you.
  - Grombobulous 2mo ago
    I wasn’t trying to make an argument, I was trying to offer a story of a personal experience.
bawolff 2mo ago
Just because someone can get around rules doesn't neccesarily mean they will want to.

I don’t think “one can get around rules” is a very insightful thing to say, it’s just a truism.

by kelipso 2mo ago

I don’t think “one can get around rules” is a very insightful thing to say, it’s just a truism.

They’re talking about the relative ineffectiveness of prohibition when it comes to teenagers. Generally speaking, they’re right. And the implication is therefore “don’t just blanket ban your way through screen time restrictions.” It’s a bit more nuanced than “one can get around the rules.

JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
Yup. I think American culture is broadly too permissive with under-14s and too restrictive with over-14s (but under-21s).
- mc3301 2mo ago
  I told my elementary-age child that they can have a phone when they are old enough to sneakily buy one without me knowing.
kelipso 2mo ago
There are kids under 18 who drink and plenty under 21 who drink. Still a very good idea to ban under 18 drinking, and not a terrible idea to ban under 21 drinking. You can do this for lots of rules and laws. So yeah, they're basically saying "one can get around the rules" and nothing more than that. Therefore, there is no argument here, just a truism.
- Forgeties79 2mo ago
  >relative ineffectiveness >generally speaking I felt like I couched and prefaced enough that somebody wouldn’t read this and go “this guy thinks you literally can’t ban teens from anything ever,” which is a ridiculous stance that no reasonable person would hold. I’ll be more explicit in the future. Wholesale banning teens from screens is generally highly ineffective, like many but not all things people try to prohibit at that age. It leads to their seeking it elsewhere, perhaps in less safe environments and certainly with less guidance. It also means they won’t communicate about it with their parents, which has a lot of bad secondary effects. Personally, if my kid experiences or witnesses something disturbing (or illegal/potentially dangerous) when they are young, I want to make sure the lines of communication stay open between us so I can help - or at least help them process it - when they need me. TL;DR: banning smartphones when they can easily access them elsewhere is almost certainly going to end in a net negative. I am not saying we can’t ban anything. That is a ridiculous interpretation of my comment. I hope this clears that up for you.
- Grombobulous 2mo ago
  I wasn’t trying to make an argument, I was trying to offer a story of a personal experience.

bawolff 2mo ago

Just because someone can get around rules doesn't neccesarily mean they will want to.