6/8/2026 at 12:25:47 PM
"with nine out of 10 parents saying they are in favour of a ban in response to a government consultation"I wonder why those 90% of parents don't cut their children off from social media right now.
They have the power to do it.
by CrzyLngPwd
6/8/2026 at 12:36:10 PM
I suspect they don't really; once you give a teen a smartphone your control over what websites they visit ends.(you will reply "don't do that then")
But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them. The parents recognize it's a collective action problem.
by pjc50
6/8/2026 at 2:30:09 PM
Quite a twist, no? This generations of parents are telling their children "Well all your friends are jumping off a bridge, so you need to as well."by everdrive
6/8/2026 at 2:54:38 PM
The generations of parents who came up with the original bridge hypothetical also worked to have the government ban alcohol and cigarette sales to minors.by rayiner
6/8/2026 at 3:20:13 PM
You can order cigars, loose tobacco and rolling papers, and wine straight to your house without any ID check, all completely legal. I did it as a minor and you can still do it today (well today you can also add "CBD" on to that list). The truth is there is no meaningful controls on teenage minors getting access to tobacco and alcohol. The limitations used are just window dressing for Karen to pretend like the government is doing something.by mothballed
6/8/2026 at 4:02:47 PM
They should (and frequently do) require ID for delivery. The postal carrier will literally check ID before delivering the package. It costs about $8 extra. Any company that’s not using these services is exposed to some dire consequences if/when ATF comes knocking.by nativeit
6/8/2026 at 4:25:36 PM
In practice USPS carriers everywhere I've lived completely ignore the check and drop it straight in the box. Good luck getting the government to prosecute themselves, particularly when ATF needs USPS for investigations against private individuals. And AFAIK, since the carrier requested to check the ID has no idea what's actually in the package, there's no mens rea to even prosecute them.It's a legal loophole where the seller requests the check but the person delivering it has no binding liability to do so and they simply will not because it takes extra time. The economics practically guarantee the check won't be performed and the interface mechanics of carrier-seller means there's no practical way to prosecute either party when the carrier doesn't perform a requested ID check.
by mothballed
6/8/2026 at 4:39:22 PM
For most of the time these laws have been in place--since the late 1800s--you had to buy alcohol and tobacco in person. You couldn't bypass the law through shady Internet dealers.by rayiner
6/8/2026 at 4:49:49 PM
Mail order tobacco has been a thing since practically the mail existed.https://www.periodpaper.com/cdn/shop/products/EM2_315_1200x1...
The last time I ordered some tobacco a major, non-shady, licensed vendor literally had USPS pick it up and drop it straight in my mailbox.
by mothballed
6/8/2026 at 5:12:15 PM
Mail order back then involved checks or money orders, which minors would not have had easy access to, or cash on delivery, which would have involved an interaction with a postal deliveryman.Moreover, the point of these laws isn't to prevent any particular illegal sale. It's to eliminate the market and reduce the volume. In-person, cash transactions are difficult for parents to track. But most kids aren't going to risk their parents finding credit card charges from mail-order alcohol and tobacco vendors. If a large fraction of kids were actually using that loophole, then enforcement of those laws would be a higher priority, like it is with in-person sales.
Product bans do, in fact, work. For example, sports betting has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court overturned a ban on online gambling: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/01/sports-bettin....
by rayiner
6/8/2026 at 12:41:26 PM
Also, it is arguably dangerous to not let your teen have a phone in a time when payphones (and to a great extent landlines) no longer exist.by goodcanadian
6/8/2026 at 1:02:08 PM
Dumbphones are still a thingby akramachamarei
6/8/2026 at 1:19:26 PM
I really don’t know why there isn’t a brand that’s capitalising on this.Messaging, calls, maps, notes but no way to take or view images. Marketed simply from a global brand.
by tombot
6/8/2026 at 2:21:23 PM
There are many brands that have tried the "phone that does less" angle. They haven't been very successful.by kube-system
6/8/2026 at 2:01:48 PM
Because of the ostracization problem. Kids are ruthless, and failure to conform is swiftly punished.by delusional
6/8/2026 at 2:52:06 PM
Images are also a huge part of messaging. For memes obviously, but also other communication (here’s the flyer for the event, look what the teacher wrote on my exam, should I get this gift for mom, look what my significant other sent me — what do you think I should say?), etc.by smelendez
6/8/2026 at 3:22:53 PM
Parents need to weigh potential otracization against the cost of giving a smart device, which could be as high as ending their normal childhood development.Personally I think no phones until 16 is a good rule.
by HlessClaudesman
6/8/2026 at 3:40:21 PM
Parents need to weigh the potential bad effects of social media against the cost of otracization, which could be as high as ending their normal childhood development.Social development is very critical during school-age years.
by kube-system
6/9/2026 at 8:44:59 AM
Do you think kids are developing socially whilst on their phones?by HlessClaudesman
6/9/2026 at 3:52:54 PM
Most kids today go through their developmental years while using smartphones, yes. Is that quality of development affected by it? Probably also yes. Are children harmed when their parents force them into out-groups among their peers during their developmental years? Unquestionably yes.by kube-system
6/10/2026 at 6:03:48 AM
There are other groups: scouts, football, dance, crafts, etc. Actually doing stuff in the world does not require a phone. Kids learn by doing stuff.In general around this topic, there is a lot of post hoc rationalisation about choices already made. I've actually got a family member approaching her 30s who has spent the last 2 decades mostly staring at a screen, and has nothing to show for it. So for me the choice is easy, maybe less so for my kids.
by HlessClaudesman
6/9/2026 at 5:39:47 AM
16 is steep, at 14 I was going around by bus a lot, having google maps to track when, what and where the bus is stopping would have made an enormous difference (this is a big city, changing route due to delays is possible). I wish I had it. (I had a normal phone, smartphones didn't exist yet)by Fire-Dragon-DoL
6/9/2026 at 8:49:12 AM
I was navigating a big city and the surrounding countryside at the age of 12 before the internet was a thing. Apps and phones are not necessary for exploration.by HlessClaudesman
6/9/2026 at 4:33:49 PM
I did not say it's necessary, but it's a HUGE improvement to moving with transit. You cannot change at the last minute unless you know all the bus routes, which you can do with a map app.It makes an enormous difference for transit.
Knowing when the bus is arriving allows you to decide to walk. Not every places has buses that arrive on time. In Rome a bus can be late by 40 minutes, in which case walking is an option, especially if you are young.
by Fire-Dragon-DoL
6/9/2026 at 3:55:38 PM
Your peers when you were 12 probably also didn't use transportation that required a smartphone app.by kube-system
6/8/2026 at 3:32:27 PM
Easier to say. Your child will just despise you for willingly making their school life hell.by tokioyoyo
6/8/2026 at 3:59:23 PM
I went through high school until almost 16 with no phone whatsoever. Twas fine. I remember peers around me for the most part had smartphones at the start of high school, maybe even some in middle school? I don't want to say exactly when this was for privacy, but I don't see why phoneless school living could be so disastrous. But then, I am a bit of an oddball and introvert.by akramachamarei
6/8/2026 at 5:24:10 PM
I also grew up without a smartphone, but “stuff that kids talk about” happens online now. Wasn’t the case even 10-15 years ago, since you could still be part of conversations without a phone.But yeah, I support the school-wide smarthphone bans. Not uncommon in Tokyo.
by tokioyoyo
6/8/2026 at 3:38:21 PM
I'm living it. They don't despise me, yet. My youngest just spent a rainy afternoon reading books, drawing pictures, and is now breaking out a boardgame, the horror! Hopefully they grow up well adjusted and come to appreciate the sacrifice.Cell phone and social media addictions arn't inevitabilities they are choices.
by HlessClaudesman
6/8/2026 at 5:29:25 PM
I really hope it goes well! I’m in favour of smartphone bans, but I can see how it sucks when you’re the only one without access to it. I was a teenager once after all.That being said, I can’t imagine myself drawing pictures, or playing boardgames every day with my friends when I was 13. Wouldn’t be happy if my parents didn’t let me play WoW/AoM with my friends. Obviously everyone is different, and I’m in no place to say you’re doing it wrong. Just trying to say how it would suck if I couldn’t do something that all my peers are allowed to do.
This all is the main reason why I support nation-wide social media bans. Would solve the issue if no kids were allowed.
by tokioyoyo
6/8/2026 at 3:12:24 PM
I knew so many kids that got into selling cigarettes, alcohol, or weed because their parents did not want to buy them things that would facilitate social integration. Most optimistically, if you don't give a kid a smart phone then they're going to mow lawns or something and get one and hide it; that scenario isn't really a bad one.by mothballed
6/8/2026 at 3:06:20 PM
> Because of the ostracization problem. Kids are ruthless, and failure to conform is swiftly punished.Shocker, but those are probably not the people you are going to give a shit about after you leave school.
by esseph
6/8/2026 at 3:27:19 PM
Shocker, but a lot of psychological damage can be done before you leave school. Do children really not have value, except as far as they become adults?by wizzwizz4
6/8/2026 at 7:49:44 PM
> Do children really not have value, except as far as they become adults?Of course they do, which is why any sane (imo) parent wouldn't let their child on social media to begin with. Basically feeding your child's developing brain into the dopamine farm, along with the "it's on the internet forever" tax.
Social media is a cancer, not some bizare tool for their social or economic wellbeing or general happiness.
by esseph
6/8/2026 at 9:55:53 PM
While I agree that the most popular social media systems have been engineered to be extremely harmful, and something I would seek to protect the children under my care from, this is unrelated to the comment I was responding to. "This won't feel important when you're an adult" is a really bad argument.by wizzwizz4
6/9/2026 at 3:46:06 AM
Two of mine have come to adulthood in the past 7 years. They're fine. Didn't turn purple or become social outcasts.by esseph
6/8/2026 at 4:46:42 PM
there is, pretty much every single smartphone brand offers parental controlsnobody stops you from limiting your kid to bunch of whitelisted apps, for instance whatsapp (it has parental controls as well), duolingo, wikipedia, phone, SMS, calculator, maps, flashlight, sudoku, chess, camera
not exactly sure why you wanna ban cameras
by Markoff
6/8/2026 at 1:17:11 PM
Payphones were mostly extinct even when I was a kid. I didn't have a cellphone either and smartphones didn't exist yet, except for the extremely rare Blackberry. But it wsn't a problem because basically every establishment around me had a landline phone I could use in an emergency. Now even landlines are extinct because just about everyone has their own phone on them at all times. Phones are easier to come by now more than ever. Kids have never been safer, even without their own phones.by CivBase
6/8/2026 at 2:56:05 PM
Even when I was teen back in the 1980s while payphones were still going strong, they weren't everywhere you wanted them to be. My mother had a standing rule that if I was going to be out past 10pm, I had to call her to let her know. Depending upon where I was, it was often a pain to find a payphone before 10pm so I didn't get in trouble. If I had an emergency, it wasn't at all guaranteed I'd be near enough to a payphone for it to be helpful.by technothrasher
6/8/2026 at 12:46:37 PM
Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone. I don't want my kids to be someplace where there are not some responsible adults around (drunk adults are not responsible)Note that I agree with your point overall. My kids have phones for times when they are away and might need to contact me. I'm just saying it isn't as bad as it sounds.
by bluGill
6/8/2026 at 12:53:54 PM
Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone.This isn't very compatible with also teaching children that they can't trust the majority of adults, and that every stranger is a potential danger.
by onion2k
6/8/2026 at 1:46:43 PM
That trope is pretty dangerous in itself (there WILL be time they have to rely on the unrelated adult), and I'm pretty adamant on teaching my kids that the vast majority of adults can be trusted, instead trying to instill Tricky People in them: https://fitzroyelc.com.au/the-tricky-people-lesson-you-need-...by subscribed
6/8/2026 at 2:36:35 PM
Thanks for that, it is a much better idea/link than the common stranger danger. It also matches better to what other groups (schools, scouts) that I know of are teaching kids.by bluGill
6/8/2026 at 1:13:50 PM
Good point - folks should stop teaching them that. If your kid is really in a sea of dangerous adults their phone won't save them anyway.by rel_ic
6/8/2026 at 12:57:14 PM
> Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone.that's not even true for adults. Why would you assume it's true for kids?
by szszrk
6/8/2026 at 1:40:27 PM
It is close enough to true where I live anyway. I don't know your situation.by bluGill
6/8/2026 at 2:02:48 PM
Which part is untrue?by delusional
6/8/2026 at 2:43:59 PM
> and will allow you to make a call from their phone.People can be wildly reluctant to just hand over a thousand or two dollars worth of equipment to a teenager in a busy street and hope they don't run off with it. Smartphone theft is still a thing.
by zdragnar
6/8/2026 at 3:16:31 PM
When I was homeless I would just ask people to call on my behalf. If it was an innocuous message about 10-50% of people would be willing to do it. I've even gotten people (complete strangers) to make phone calls for me while I was in handcuffs and everyone thought I was the bad guy but even then they were willing to make a call. You don't ask for the phone, you ask for someone to relay the message.by mothballed
6/8/2026 at 3:19:15 PM
> People can be wildly reluctant to just hand over a thousand or two dollars worth of equipmentWho owns a $2,000 phone which isn't insured and should they really be leaving their house?
by ctoth
6/8/2026 at 3:46:20 PM
I own a $60,000 dollar car that's insured, still doesn't mean I'm going to just let anyone use it when I depend on it.by pixl97
6/8/2026 at 3:51:42 PM
I would assume that you cannot merely walk in to the nearest Apple car store and get a new car the same day if something bad happened to your car, so I don't really understand your statement as there is no equivalency here to exploit in your analogy.by ctoth
6/8/2026 at 3:56:59 PM
I mean, you can go get a new car the same day, hence rental places while insurance figures everything out.How about this, I'll pick a random day in your future while you're out doing stuff to show up and break your phone in half. How much is that going to ruin your day?
by pixl97
6/8/2026 at 7:30:12 PM
What hellscape are you living in? I have never had anyone try to trick me like that. I'm not saying theft doesn't exist in Denmark, but it is not something I have ever considered when helping a person out.by delusional
6/8/2026 at 11:16:15 PM
Any tourist area with a lot of people is going to be an area with potential for pick pockets and other theft of opportunity types. Even Vatican City has a crime rate often upwards or in excess of 1.5 per resident, and that's only what is officially recorded. Most people don't bother reporting a loss when there's no chance the police can do anything about it anyway.by zdragnar
6/9/2026 at 5:23:15 AM
The vatican city, having essentially no residents, would obviously be an outlier in any statistic measured against residents.I take your point though, but I have to wonder who in their right mind would go to times square to ask to borrow a phone. Surely you'd go somewhere less busy.
by delusional
6/8/2026 at 2:08:20 PM
>Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone. I don't want my kids to be someplace where there are not some responsible adults around (drunk adults are not responsible)I remember about 10 or 12 years ago, I'd answer every incoming call. Many were wrong numbers (guy who had the phone number before we was, I kid you not, some sort of wine salesman... people were wanting to order crates of wine). But I'd answer. Now, not so much. I get 15 calls a day some days, all are robots. I screen through voicemail transcription most of the time, unless I recognize the number. Blocking does not good. Numbers in my area code mean nothing... a surprising number of robot calls match my own exchange number (why? what's the point?). For 3 weeks a few months ago, one even matched my own phone number but for the last two digits being transposed, but it wouldn't leave a voicemail.
I no longer have the reasonable ability to answer strange phone numbers. If it were just mean, I'd chalk it up to some idiosyncratic neurosis and be quiet, but my own impression is that everyone else is doing the same thing. We not only tore down the old POTS network, we got rid of all the norms around it.
by NoMoreNicksLeft
6/8/2026 at 2:40:06 PM
The alternative networks have solved this problem for me. I don’t get spam calls on Signal or WhatsApp though WhatsApp and Telegram do both have a spam text problem.I also have a phone number from a different area and I blocked that area code and everything near it.
by arjie
6/8/2026 at 2:38:12 PM
10 years ago I was wondering if things would reach that point. However these days I almost never get junk calls and so I answer the phone again. I guess our experience is different.by bluGill
6/8/2026 at 3:45:17 PM
Is your phone company blocking them?I have phone numbers in an area code that just seems to get flooded with spam calls. Even our unpublished numbers get them so it doesn't seem like directed attacks, just broadcast spam.
by pixl97
6/8/2026 at 3:53:34 PM
It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't know. There have been enough complaints that I'd expect everyone to do some blocking.by bluGill
6/8/2026 at 3:04:54 PM
> a surprising number of robot calls match my own exchange number (why? what's the point?).The robocallers have found that if the fake caller id given matches the area code and exchange of the number being called, that more of the recipients are willing to answer.
And from a robocaller's perspective, getting folks to answer is critical to being able to transfer them to someone in the scam boiler room for reaping.
by pwg
6/8/2026 at 2:07:47 PM
> once you give a teen a smartphone your control over what websites they visit ends.Isn't it pretty easy to set up a whitelist of apps/websites kids are allowed to use?
Whether or not that's a healthy thing for your parent/child relationship is a different question.
by RandallBrown
6/8/2026 at 2:19:17 PM
Not easy. Kids can bypass very easy. Like those security-theatre apps companies use - but crappier. Then, once on a site/app like Instagram or Roblox it's a whole other layer of whitelist to manage (if possible).It's simpler to take the phone away. And iPad. And stop hanging out with your friends that have it.
Phone management is hard to solve for pre-teen and teens.
It's like taking heroin away from an addict. They hate you for helping.
by edoceo
6/8/2026 at 2:11:27 PM
> But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them. The parents recognize it's a collective action problem.OP already gave you your answer, you just chose to ignore it
by vlovich123
6/8/2026 at 2:24:28 PM
on iOS this is basically impossibleby larrik
6/8/2026 at 3:23:18 PM
Using the built-in Screen Time tools, yes. Qustodio works pretty well though as an add-on product. Not perfect UX, not perfect functionality, but it's the best I've found.by mwigdahl
6/8/2026 at 3:45:47 PM
Maybe legally banning minors from smartphones instead of from arbitrary websites is the better idea.by AnonymousPlanet
6/8/2026 at 2:39:48 PM
Don't do it then. :)It's not hard. If they need to be contacted get them a dumb phone. And yes, my kids will miss out. They will miss out on their attention span being destroyed, their ability to critically think destroyed, body issues, radicalization, horrible influences, etc... My children will miss out on all that and I'm very glad that will be the case. I'm not sure why other parents are rushing to destroy their kids brains but that's their choice.
by thinkingtoilet
6/8/2026 at 2:54:16 PM
Or they’ll be mildly resourceful and pickup a cheap Walmart phone, or a friend’s old phone and learn that they can’t be open with you.I ran a summer camp for teenagers. They know how to get around that stuff if they want. They know how to hide it from their parents to keep access.
You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy.
Below a certain age I’m sure it works for a time, but you will eventually have to find a balance.
That’s why parents want bans. Their kids are going to go where the other kids are. If they are all banned on instagram, they won’t care about finding a way onto a platform where none of their friends are.
by dghlsakjg
6/8/2026 at 7:49:59 PM
This is always the response. I'm not an idiot. I understand kids will do things to break the rules. The point is, it won't be something they have access to constantly. If they see a phone at a friend's house that's fine.>You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy.
Yes. And the healthy decision is to not have a phone. That's like saying I should let my kid eat ice cream for dinner every night but talk to them about how it's better to eat healthy. I'm a parent. It's my job to make some decisions for my children.
by thinkingtoilet
6/9/2026 at 3:02:50 AM
It sounds like you have a plan!Best of luck.
Sucks that we’re stuck as parents running an experiment on children where the only beneficiaries are corporations, and there is no correct answer.
by dghlsakjg
6/8/2026 at 3:16:19 PM
I can smell the reply of someone who doesn't have a teenager from a mile. Yes, you will do everything right. Yes, your kids will be perfect. Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face.by postexitus
6/8/2026 at 2:16:18 PM
So does grounding a kid, so I guess parents shouldn't do that either unless all parents collectively agree to ground their children.by Emanation
6/8/2026 at 2:19:19 PM
That's not remotely comparable. Grounding is very temporary. (not arguing in favor of social media, I'm pretty much against them, but I'm quite interested in how to deal with their existence)by jraph
6/8/2026 at 7:03:56 PM
Are you arguing that if something is fine as a deliberate punishment it's fine full-time? If that's not your point I can't figure it out.by Dylan16807
6/8/2026 at 3:05:03 PM
> But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them.2 of my 3 have never touched social media are are healthy, functioning adults with jobs and friends.
FOMO chasing Jones family bullshit.
by esseph
6/8/2026 at 1:02:24 PM
Network effects from the other side:If one parent forbids their child then their child becomes a pariah. If no child is able to access social media then they will all interact without it. So yeah, a parent needs their peer's children to also not use social media so that their child is not left out.
In general I'm against age based bans. I think there are alternatives where we would identify and just generally regulate the harmful features of social media. In the meanwhile, I feel empathetic towards the difficulties of parenting in this era.
by BlackFly
6/8/2026 at 1:37:01 PM
My 13yr old granddaughter has an iPhone that is locked down by her dad using the apple tool.It's not difficult.
Her and her friends don't need social media.
by CrzyLngPwd
6/8/2026 at 3:24:38 PM
If I did that to my 13yrs old, she would not know about when her friends are organizing to meet up. Simple as that. They usually agree on going to visit one of them or local center in chat group. And since they are young, it is all spontaneous "lets go now" kind of thing.A kid that cant use a phone will sit home alone while others meet up. And I am actually glad my 13 years old has friend group she does in person things with.
by watwut
6/8/2026 at 3:40:50 PM
If only there were some way to use a phone to contact people, without going through a social media platform.by ThinkingGuy
6/8/2026 at 3:56:02 PM
1.) What is the exact way to contact people via phone if those people do not have phone?2.) And yes, organization among 12 years old means that someone writes "lets do X" and other write back "cool". Those available show up. Those not available sometimes talk back and negotiate different time.
3.) If 5 12-16 years old kids organize in a group chat, not being on that chat means missing out spontaneously organized actions. Even if they are unusually serious and recall to call your parents instead of just jumping into action, you are not there to have input into agreements. So, the meetup will be when you are not available and it will be too late for you.
4.) And yes, even among adults, if others have to jump through special hoops to join you specifically whereas everyone else does not have such requirement ... you will miss out.
Yes, 12-14 years old act on impulse and organized spontaneously without creating org chart around it. That means forgetting to do extra steps so that people not being in chat even know what you are about to do.
by watwut
6/8/2026 at 1:33:50 PM
> alternatives where we would identify and just generally regulate the harmful featuresGood point. The age ban is based on the idea that it is worse for kids (and other exploits) when the big idea is that it is bad for everyone, just moreso for kids. Might as well protect the whole populace when one change of the app design will do that.
by eks391
6/8/2026 at 1:38:02 PM
Alcohol and cigarettes are bad for you but we've decided that when you turn 18 you have the freedom to ruin your own life. (But not with LSD, for some reason)by trumpdong
6/8/2026 at 12:28:29 PM
Yeah, this I will seriously never understand. When I was a kid, if my mother didn't want me doing something then she would make sure I couldn't do it. Is nobody parenting their children anymore? Do they just let them do whatever they want these days? I've got a 2 year old of my own and can't imagine just handing him an iPad and ignoring him all day like I see other parents do. I can't tell if it's laziness, or ignorance, or some combination of the two.by Hugsbox
6/8/2026 at 1:37:11 PM
My 7 year old came home crying the other day because every single person in her class has a phone except her.I can't imagine taking it away from my older kids (14,11). They use it to chat with friends and play games with them, do homework together, make plans and share common experiences and videos.
It's not as simple as you think. You have no idea how shitty screentime is how much of a cat and mouse game it is. It's pretty easy with a two year old, you just wait and see though...
by jraby3
6/8/2026 at 4:18:41 PM
I'm reminded of a statistic I read. 75% of the time you will spend with your child happens by age 12. I think I would eschew the phones until 13, purely because I'd never get that time back. Once they're adolecents and "too cool" to hang out with parents anymore, then fine, here's your phone, don't kill yourself.Anyway, let's not assume everyone is a parent and ruin the whole online world with rules to "protect the children" made by the same people that never arrested any Epstein clients. We know they're not doing it to protect children. Let's not even pretend they are.
by panny
6/10/2026 at 5:34:30 AM
That only works if the rest of the parents in your neighborhood also do it. Otherwise your kid won't be in group chats, will miss events.I live in Israel where kids are given a phone at an extremely young age (partially because of the security situation). Teachers give homework over WhatsApp, schools announce changes to the schedule, etc.
What I'm saying is it's almost not just up to you anymore, it really depends on your circumstances.
by jraby3
6/8/2026 at 1:20:52 PM
Co-working space coworker went once to a school to teach kids about online safety and such.One of the exercises was to check out what you can and can't do with a locked-down smartphone. Several minutes later the kids figured out how to bypass parental controls using ChatGPT and the method spread like wildfire.
I recall defying my father's orders regularly. Teenagers who set their mind to something can be amazingly persistent. Most parents don't have the sort of resources required to control every aspect of their child's life like that. It's also harmful in the long run.
by Tade0
6/8/2026 at 5:21:15 PM
Not just teens. If you are overly strict, this stuff will begin in elementary school.by Broken_Hippo
6/8/2026 at 2:49:14 PM
"If I see you on social media, I'm grounding you for two weeks with no phone."You can't fix a behavior issue with tech, just like you can't fix your computer by being good.
by vorpalhex
6/8/2026 at 5:57:00 PM
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48444567by pseudalopex
6/8/2026 at 12:36:30 PM
Uh-huh. For me, that meant that I didn't do something At Home, and was pretty much unsupervised other places. My mother was strict at a time when a lot of kids had freedom. I couldn't do much that other kids did. When I could, I had to jump through hoops.I lied to my mother a lot. My mother still isn't in the loop with my life - I'm in my late 40s now. It would have been much better to have been able to talk to my parents honestly about stuff I went through. It would have been much better to talk to me about things and get honest information about dangers.
by Broken_Hippo
6/8/2026 at 12:47:47 PM
I relate to this quite a lot, to be honest. There has to be some happy medium somewhere, though.by Hugsbox
6/8/2026 at 1:23:30 PM
The happy middle is you not using social media, or smartphones for that matter, in front of them. Kids scrutinize everything you say and do and will notice the discrepancy.by Tade0
6/8/2026 at 5:17:29 PM
My parents didn't watch scary movies, eat hard candy, have sex, wander the area cornfields without supervision, or smoke pot in front of me, yet I still did it. (these were at different ages, of course)Not doing something isn't enough. If your kids know about something, it isn't always going to matter what you do. If I were smart enough to know different folks did different things, I'm guessing other children are as well.
by Broken_Hippo
6/8/2026 at 12:49:20 PM
There are more angles on this, not exactly easy. The easiest way to make a kid to do something, is to forbid that very thing.If you are the one cutting it off, while your kid's whole school is very much up to date with latest brainrot content, then you still lose.
Your kid is the outcast, while it will be exposed to it anyway, through peers. Meanwhile you are the bad one, making it much harder to have an actual conversation on the topic.
I am vividly interested in this, as my kid is growing up. I hear how a bit older kids play and what they talk about on the playground and feel that I have very little time left to react (kid is still just now starting to show interest in phones and such). A ban on all social media for kids would make this so much easier.
by szszrk
6/8/2026 at 1:05:50 PM
You're a parent. Be the bad guy if you feel it's right.Wanting the government to levy a society-wide information tracking system because you don't want your child to be upset at you is incredibly selfish.
by knome
6/8/2026 at 3:54:45 PM
I mean, we already have corporations levying a society-wide information tracking system that they just sell the government information from, so there's that.With this said, if the government doesn't ban cellphones/tablets at school all of your blocking kids at home from electronics is fucking useless.
My daughter pulled this crap as a teenager where we banned her from social media... so she got an old tablet from a friend and setup all new accounts. It was only months later that we caught her at it.
Kids are way more resourceful than you think.
by pixl97
6/8/2026 at 6:23:30 PM
Of course they pull that kind of crap. Teens are often plenty smart, just generally naive to consequences.They'll do this kind of stuff even if we require spybotting the entire internet. Kids already lean on sketchy older siblings or friends or stolen/fake credentials to acquire booze illegally. Getting them to sign up for and verify online accounts would be next. Or paying/doing favors for random sketchy adults. Or buying them online, as the original article mentioned.
Anything more than the equivalent of "mark this device account as being PG/PG-13/Adult" isn't buying more security for kids, just more intrusion into the lives of everyone else, while pushing access into a black market that will create new dangers for the kids entering into it.
A device flag enabling an http header indicating a device account is "PG-13" could still allow a kid to sign up to non-adult sites online, but then have appropriate restrictions on usage etc applied to the accounts. Kids can access their friends, maybe the media cuts off during school hours, but they don't feel the need to escape the system, and are more likely to stay within it.
Requiring invasive overbearing authoritarian systems be put in place with the excuse of saving the children won't accomplish the stated goal, just the unstated one.
by knome
6/8/2026 at 1:33:31 PM
Your response is incredibly ignorant. You force your kid to be excluded if they don't have a phone. They're disconnected from friends, group chat, and common experiences.You don't have a problem with age verification for drivers license, or buying a gun, or buying alcohol. Why is social media so different?
by jraby3
6/8/2026 at 1:57:55 PM
> Why is social media so different?Because of what that ban entails that the others don't.
by brigandish
6/8/2026 at 2:53:23 PM
That's like arguing against bans on alcohol and cigarette sales to minors because parents "have the power" to ban it for their kids themselves. There is a role for the state to help parents socialize their children properly.by rayiner
6/8/2026 at 1:20:49 PM
This statistic comes from here -- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/parental-support-... -- a preliminary analysis of the consultation. The headline statement is: "Of the parents and carers of children aged 21 and under who responded to Question 12 on the full-length version of the consultation, 89% supported “a legal requirement for social media services to have a minimum age of access”."
Caveats and limitations
Users should note the following when interpreting these results:
Self-selecting sample
The consultation was open to anyone who chose to respond. The results reflect the views of parents and carers who were motivated to take part, and are not representative of parents and carers nationally. As with any open public consultation, respondents may differ systematically from the wider population in their views and characteristics.
Question routing
These questions were only presented to respondents who wanted to respond to Chapter 2: Interventions for safer, more positive experiences. All questions in this section were optional. Finally, Question 13 was only presented to respondents who answered “Yes” to Question 12 (i.e. those who supported a legal requirement for a minimum age of access in principle). The 96% figure therefore relates to the level of agreement with a minimum age of at least 16 among those parents and carers who opted to respond to this Chapter and already supported some form of minimum age requirement. It does not represent the views of all consultation respondents, nor all parents and carers who responded.
Full consultation only
The figures relate only to the full-length version of the consultation, not the streamlined parents’ and children’s consultations. These figures should be treated as provisional. A comprehensive analysis of all consultation responses will be published separately.consultation, respondents may differ systematically from the wider population in their views and characteristic
The representative study isn't published yet. The provisional headline 90% number is.
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educatio...
by azalemeth
6/8/2026 at 2:51:17 PM
> They have the power to do it.Do they? It seems like schools are pushing tech and "ed-tech" in schools pretty hard while being typically incompetent at actually controlling how students use it[1].
Some choice exerpts:
> Lisa Sunbury is a professor of early childhood education in Santa Cruz, California, and she had a child at Mission Hill Middle School. Her 7th grade daughter has a set of serious issues that require an IEP. Lisa did her part at home, enforcing the low-screen policy. One element of this plan was supposed to be minimal access to school devices and a clear requirement that the device be inaccessible outside of certain classes. This was all on doctor’s orders.
> Yet, Sunbury would regularly find her daughter awake at 3am, playing video games on the school Chromebook that she wasn’t supposed to have. She discovered a prohibited TikTok account, made on the school device, with dance videos posted from gym class using that same device.
> Beverly Hyde, a parent in Concord, North Carolina, was explicitly told that if her son wasn’t going to use his Chromebook, “he will just sit alone and spend the day doing nothing.”
> And this was no empty threat. Linda in Texas discovered that while her doctor-ordered opt-out request for her 2nd grader was technically being honored, the school wasn’t providing any alternative instruction. They were just “having her sit and draw while the other kids were online.”
[1] https://www.persuasion.community/p/inside-the-anti-tech-rebe...
by AlexandrB
6/8/2026 at 2:04:55 PM
denying smartphone basically makes your kid an outcast, which might be fine for some kids, not fine for others, but ignoring that, the school basically requires smartphones, even uses apps to open the lockers, or to communicate about group projects.apple's parental controls are total joke, per app blocks are not good at all, what you want is content type blocks, which of course is impossible.
example: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254480754?sortBy=rank
by jackdoe
6/8/2026 at 12:43:46 PM
You fail to understand just how good kids are at getting around restrictions. This despite having been a kid yourself who would have found ways around it.Often we don't really have the power we want either. It is easy to say ban everything. However realistically that isn't the correct answer, too much school work really is on devices - often provided by the school so I can't lock them (except for the limited controls the school gives to us - if the correct app works on our devices that then we are expected to have). Every week some new hole in their block app gets spread around school - until the school figures it out and blocks it all the kids have it.
The only think unique about the above is devices. I guarantee if you go back 3000 years in history you will find parents complaining about their kids in similar ways.
by bluGill
6/8/2026 at 4:20:26 PM
Are you a parent?by 2OEH8eoCRo0
6/8/2026 at 3:15:01 PM
That does not mean that these parents understand the technical aspects of it.e.g. How effective it will be: less than they might think, software is not infallible magic
What the side effects might be - more than they might think - excluding the underage means verifying the age of everyone.
So articles like this aim to raise awareness, all of this is clearly spelled out in the article.
by SideburnsOfDoom
6/8/2026 at 1:59:13 PM
Most parents probably don't think, and just say an automatic yes when it comes to governmental restrictions. I am not sure why that is so - they are probably happy with their assumptions about how the world works, so they are fine with governments being restrictive in general.by shevy-java
6/8/2026 at 1:48:41 PM
Has been discussed here again and again.Apparently parenting "its too hard", you "dont know how hard it is", and the alternative of "not having kids" is somehow impractical.
by dormento