Now the title makes sense. (Reading the article often helps.) Rejecting the gadgets is not grift. Phishing for identifying documents to use them is. I wouldn't have thought of a suggestion that people should scan confidential documents into (what I call, taking the customer's side) a stupidphone as "anti-smartphone." I do think it's scammy!
Just to be clear, people are prosecuted in the US NOW for social media posts. ALL THE TIME. Prosecutors and the State will use the laws they have (primarily stalking and “telephonic or telecommunications harassment” statutes and the laws they make to accomplish this.
While it is possible to articulate the slippery slope argument you make, since it is predicated on the false belief that we are currently free from digital surveillance and state action against viewpoint and content, I can’t say it’s super persuasive. See for example Ashli Ford in Ohio who the state requested be imprisoned for 3 years for posts she made that municipal government didn’t like.
I agree with much of this, but the woman you mention who was jailed for a social media post inciting violence in the UK is not a part of this.
Inciting violence is a crime, on social media or otherwise. Her actions had real world consequences, there was real world violence and rioting and she contributed to that.
She was rightly jailed under existing, long-standing legislation, Section 19 of the Public Order Act ***1986***, for publishing and distributing written material intending to stir up racial hatred.
She pleaded guilty.
Those upset (or claiming to be, she's a useful tool for them) about her jailing are the far-right, who wanted the violence incited. They hide behind 'freedom of speech' but their ultimate aim is actually the opposite - free speech for themselves, the silencing of critics, and far, far worse.
Her case has no place in this article. And there's no risk of 'opening up' your country or any other civilised country to this, as it is surely already illegal, and if it isn't, it should be.
This argument is just as dumb as the libs who say removing pornographic books from the kid's section is book banning. The exact same logic is used. Deeply unserious.
This doesn't make any sense. You yourself say banning phones in class is a sensible idea. End the article there. Supporting the ban on phones in classrooms is not equivalent to supporting age verification laws, nor is it an automatic slippery slope. Lorenz was rightfully criticized online because she was explicitly discussing cell phone bans in schools and conflated support for these bans with support for broad-based censorship, which is a straw man argument. To propose that any criticism of young people using smartphones misses the broader issues —which you then rattle off dozens of (declining birth rates?!) — obfuscates the very obvious issue: These devices are addictive and make it harder for educators to do their jobs and for students to learn.
Isn't the real problem smartphones. I mean specifically, SMARTPHONES.
If parents gave kids flips phones - the ones where all you can do is call someone (I know, a phone that's actually used just for making calls - what a concept!) and maybe texts too, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. Because it's the web and social media that distracts/depresses/endangers kids.
There really aren't responsible answers that start at schools or classrooms. The current economic paradigm is incentivizing every complaint everyone has about smart phones. It's the only logical conclusion and it's shocking how much people will do to not look there.
Right, we've the biggest companies to ever exist that WANT people to be mindlessly glued to their screens and have their opinions shaped by algorithms.
But nooooo, we couldn't possibly do anything which would actually threaten even a single dollar of their profit, let's blame it all on people being weak and use it as an excuse to introduce more measures to control them.
Yes, we are weak and bad, obviously! Companies have nothing to do with algorithms! Algorithms just do what algorithms do! They aren't set up to accomplish a goal for the people who own them or anything like that...
The school phone debate isn’t complicated. Giving kids a slot machine in their pocket during math is insane. They don’t need constant access to the feed. Lock the phones up, finish class, check them later. Done.
The censorship point is real but the framing’s sloppy. Schools have always been about control. That’s not new authoritarianism. The real danger’s outside the classroom where “protect the children” turns into ID walls and surveillance systems. Today it’s porn, tomorrow it’s whatever the ruling party doesn’t like. If we’re worried about censorship, then call it what it is. Don’t bury it in a debate about homeroom.
What would happen if parents put down their own phones while they're with their kids? Are children growing up from toddlerhood watching their parents gaze into and caress this little screen? Are parents giving their phones the attentive gaze that their kids need? If children didn't see their parents scrolling the phone, would phones seem less desirable to children?
Blaming the phones is definitely starting to feel like confusing the symptom with the disease. Dawned on me about a year , around the time we began to allow our middle schooler to have a phone (with all kinds of safeguards and caveats), and it’s mostly been a net positive.
You know what's interesting - and might be a piece for Tablet - when I interview people about their internet usage, ALMOST everyone outside of self-admitted porn addicts say something to the effect of, "It's been bad for other people, but a net positive for me personally."
I hate to be a cliche…. But I also feel like that anecdotally kind of supports the contention of your piece! External, top-down controls on individual Internet usage do more than pave the way for a kind of de facto social credit system. It’s also a kind of Prohibition 2.0: elites decide autonomy has to go because of the irresponsible extremes, even if most people can drink/use the internet responsibly, but it’s framed as a moral crusade. All the age limits and phone bans aren’t going to make better parents out of the kind of people who would let their kids spend 13 hours a day online in the first place.
I’m not qualified to comment on all this, but it sounds much more serious than the “don’t sit so close to the tv, it’s bad for you” of my late boomer childhood.
All I know is that I’m naming my band Moral Panic.
I think this is spot on. And I’m sick of the generation that allowed Reagan to dismantle the Fairness Doctrine and Fox to turn their brains 🧠 into soup complaining about young people being brainwashed…pot, meet kettle. I have a Gen Z kiddo who is not a phone zombie and has nothing but eye rolls 🙄 for adults who won’t do a damn thing to stop school shootings but claim it’s “the phones” ruining kids’ lives.
Now the title makes sense. (Reading the article often helps.) Rejecting the gadgets is not grift. Phishing for identifying documents to use them is. I wouldn't have thought of a suggestion that people should scan confidential documents into (what I call, taking the customer's side) a stupidphone as "anti-smartphone." I do think it's scammy!
Just to be clear, people are prosecuted in the US NOW for social media posts. ALL THE TIME. Prosecutors and the State will use the laws they have (primarily stalking and “telephonic or telecommunications harassment” statutes and the laws they make to accomplish this.
While it is possible to articulate the slippery slope argument you make, since it is predicated on the false belief that we are currently free from digital surveillance and state action against viewpoint and content, I can’t say it’s super persuasive. See for example Ashli Ford in Ohio who the state requested be imprisoned for 3 years for posts she made that municipal government didn’t like.
I agree with much of this, but the woman you mention who was jailed for a social media post inciting violence in the UK is not a part of this.
Inciting violence is a crime, on social media or otherwise. Her actions had real world consequences, there was real world violence and rioting and she contributed to that.
She was rightly jailed under existing, long-standing legislation, Section 19 of the Public Order Act ***1986***, for publishing and distributing written material intending to stir up racial hatred.
She pleaded guilty.
Those upset (or claiming to be, she's a useful tool for them) about her jailing are the far-right, who wanted the violence incited. They hide behind 'freedom of speech' but their ultimate aim is actually the opposite - free speech for themselves, the silencing of critics, and far, far worse.
Her case has no place in this article. And there's no risk of 'opening up' your country or any other civilised country to this, as it is surely already illegal, and if it isn't, it should be.
What about Lee Dunn?
No idea, first I've heard of him. Weird response to my message.
Lol, You’re A Thielite.
This argument is just as dumb as the libs who say removing pornographic books from the kid's section is book banning. The exact same logic is used. Deeply unserious.
This doesn't make any sense. You yourself say banning phones in class is a sensible idea. End the article there. Supporting the ban on phones in classrooms is not equivalent to supporting age verification laws, nor is it an automatic slippery slope. Lorenz was rightfully criticized online because she was explicitly discussing cell phone bans in schools and conflated support for these bans with support for broad-based censorship, which is a straw man argument. To propose that any criticism of young people using smartphones misses the broader issues —which you then rattle off dozens of (declining birth rates?!) — obfuscates the very obvious issue: These devices are addictive and make it harder for educators to do their jobs and for students to learn.
Great article!
Isn't the real problem smartphones. I mean specifically, SMARTPHONES.
If parents gave kids flips phones - the ones where all you can do is call someone (I know, a phone that's actually used just for making calls - what a concept!) and maybe texts too, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. Because it's the web and social media that distracts/depresses/endangers kids.
I boldly believe that the harms have been exaggerated and distorted, even though I agree that we're all on our phones too often
There really aren't responsible answers that start at schools or classrooms. The current economic paradigm is incentivizing every complaint everyone has about smart phones. It's the only logical conclusion and it's shocking how much people will do to not look there.
Right, we've the biggest companies to ever exist that WANT people to be mindlessly glued to their screens and have their opinions shaped by algorithms.
But nooooo, we couldn't possibly do anything which would actually threaten even a single dollar of their profit, let's blame it all on people being weak and use it as an excuse to introduce more measures to control them.
Yes, we are weak and bad, obviously! Companies have nothing to do with algorithms! Algorithms just do what algorithms do! They aren't set up to accomplish a goal for the people who own them or anything like that...
The school phone debate isn’t complicated. Giving kids a slot machine in their pocket during math is insane. They don’t need constant access to the feed. Lock the phones up, finish class, check them later. Done.
The censorship point is real but the framing’s sloppy. Schools have always been about control. That’s not new authoritarianism. The real danger’s outside the classroom where “protect the children” turns into ID walls and surveillance systems. Today it’s porn, tomorrow it’s whatever the ruling party doesn’t like. If we’re worried about censorship, then call it what it is. Don’t bury it in a debate about homeroom.
Very good post and very well put. You articulated my point much better than I did.
Could you be the voice of reason in your country and kindly use ISO 8601
What would happen if parents put down their own phones while they're with their kids? Are children growing up from toddlerhood watching their parents gaze into and caress this little screen? Are parents giving their phones the attentive gaze that their kids need? If children didn't see their parents scrolling the phone, would phones seem less desirable to children?
Totally agree with this. This is something I struggle with with boomers in my life.
Blaming the phones is definitely starting to feel like confusing the symptom with the disease. Dawned on me about a year , around the time we began to allow our middle schooler to have a phone (with all kinds of safeguards and caveats), and it’s mostly been a net positive.
You know what's interesting - and might be a piece for Tablet - when I interview people about their internet usage, ALMOST everyone outside of self-admitted porn addicts say something to the effect of, "It's been bad for other people, but a net positive for me personally."
I hate to be a cliche…. But I also feel like that anecdotally kind of supports the contention of your piece! External, top-down controls on individual Internet usage do more than pave the way for a kind of de facto social credit system. It’s also a kind of Prohibition 2.0: elites decide autonomy has to go because of the irresponsible extremes, even if most people can drink/use the internet responsibly, but it’s framed as a moral crusade. All the age limits and phone bans aren’t going to make better parents out of the kind of people who would let their kids spend 13 hours a day online in the first place.
I’m not qualified to comment on all this, but it sounds much more serious than the “don’t sit so close to the tv, it’s bad for you” of my late boomer childhood.
All I know is that I’m naming my band Moral Panic.
It is serious, but I think it's problematic that the conversation has been so obviously monetized.
I think this is spot on. And I’m sick of the generation that allowed Reagan to dismantle the Fairness Doctrine and Fox to turn their brains 🧠 into soup complaining about young people being brainwashed…pot, meet kettle. I have a Gen Z kiddo who is not a phone zombie and has nothing but eye rolls 🙄 for adults who won’t do a damn thing to stop school shootings but claim it’s “the phones” ruining kids’ lives.