Minor quibble: ‘Cigarettes have very few upsides, whereas mobile phones have lots.’ Well, they have one very compelling upside, reported by smokers everywhere, which is the sheer pleasure of smoking them.
Clearly some people find them pleasurable and that is a definite upside! The other neglected upside is that they are an appetite suppressant. I suspect some of the current obesity crisis is a result of successful anti-smoking campaigns. However we have semaglutide now so it doesn’t really matter!
Another upside of cigarettes back in the day when smoking was fashionable is it did give you something to do if you went out dancing or partying and got left on the touchline. You could stand around looking super cool as if you weren't that bothered at all. And you didn't have to inhale just having one was enough. Not sure it worked as well with a pipe though!
Love the cars vs cigarettes distinction here, the comparison to early automobile debates really clarifies things. That collective action problem angle is key, nobody wants to be the only one wihtout a phone. Reminds me of how my school tried a phone policy halfway and it just made everything worse than if we'd gone all in.
What an interesting post. I think you're spot on looking at this conundrum from a historical context. I have to say I'm pleased that I'm not a headteacher now having to battle with this on a regular basis. The historical context I'd add is the different social relationships between kids and their families versus schools, kids and families. When I started teaching in the 1980s valuables were not permitted in schools end of. If you wore a watch you could give it to the teacher for safe keeping during P.E. If you did bring anything of value in and it was spotted it would likely be confiscated and returned to you at the end of the day. If it went missing, aka got pinched, that was your hard luck. The same was true when I was a pupil and and I had several things pinched including my fountain pen. Fast forward to now and despite the culture that allows schools, particularly secondary academies, to devise uniform lists that read like something out of Malory Towers. They give regular homework tasks that require access to a PC or laptop. And yet these same schools have seemed unable to say no to kids as young as 7 and 8 bringing smartphones to school. I'm sure this creates or adds to any discipline problems. My reference to relationships comes from the changes over time within families. Now things are much more relaxed and that's a good thing but it can mean that many parents are wary of setting any guidelines. As a regular listener to BBC R4's Today Programme I'm weary of hearing parents bewail the fact that their kids won't do as they're told, especially regarding the use of devices. The parents often say they felt pressured into buying a smartphone for their kids and gave in. Thinking of the smoking analogy would they have been buying their kids cigarettes because everyone else in class smokes. I doubt it. So you have kids armed with their smartphone going from homes where there are few rules or routines into a school where rules rule, OK? It's a recipe for a culture clash. Some kids will cope OK but many won't. I'm not sure what type of legislation might help. One thing I would suggest is that in the wide world outside of schools choice needs to be maintained. I've read arguments that say kids need a smartphone because they need it for the bus/ train/ school canteen etc. If the wider world retained choice in terms of how one can access services and pay for them there'd be less pressure for anyone to have to support the tech companies by buying yet more kit just in order to be able to pay for your parking!
I wish the ban had been brought in ten years ago: before my children had them. I got exasperated by people with no children appearing on shows like 'The Daily Politics' blaming parents for not being strict enough.
It was us against the billionaire tech bros and their armies of tech-savvy minions who are experts in creating addictive apps and software. There was only going to be one winner.
Really love this analogy. In the 1950s there were attempts by the Chief Inspector of Salford to ban cars from residential streets at dusk so children could play on the street. Of course in the end this noble attempt to preserve a valuable childhood experience and community asset was doomed because too many people (understandably) wanted a car and to park it outside their house. I think the blanket phone ban may go the same way, but can see a future with child/adolescent specific phone like devices.
Really interesting - currently a lot of London boroughs have introduced low traffic networks (which are very controversial) and one of the arguments in favour is that they will free up the roads for kids to play in. But of course all the kids are indoors on their phones!
Although the social media ban may change this. I think there is much fruitful thinking to be done around seeing virtual spaces like physical ones when considering childhood wellbeing - we need to make phones like parks.
Nicely written nonsense. Reactionaries of different stripes have been trying to restrict social media use since 2016, when it was clear what the political utility would be - children’s safety is just the latest excuse they have globbed onto, as it allows them to outlaw internet anonymity by the backdoor through age verification.
There is as much evidence that the internet impacts children negatively psychologically as there is evidence that Russia used bot farms to steal the 2016 election from Hilary. None.
Phones are nothing like cigarettes or cars. It is a means for communication. Its analogy is the printing press, which also panicked various governments in Europe when it became a vehicle for social change. Freedom will ultimately win in the end.
"Phones are nothing like cigarettes or cars" – they're like cigarettes with respect to being addictive and dopimanergic. They're like cars with respect to being a new technology that was highly transformative to society.
There's no single analogue for another thing. There are infinite based on whatever feature you are looking to compare.
I think you're right. Its not the access to social media or online material thats the issue. It's to do what young people are doing online, who they’re connecting with and how supported they feel in their daily lives. You mentioned the rise of printing which is an interesting analogy. There's a world of difference between accessing hard core porn and reading your friend's Facebook comments or watching a YouTube video.
Minor quibble: ‘Cigarettes have very few upsides, whereas mobile phones have lots.’ Well, they have one very compelling upside, reported by smokers everywhere, which is the sheer pleasure of smoking them.
Clearly some people find them pleasurable and that is a definite upside! The other neglected upside is that they are an appetite suppressant. I suspect some of the current obesity crisis is a result of successful anti-smoking campaigns. However we have semaglutide now so it doesn’t really matter!
Another upside of cigarettes back in the day when smoking was fashionable is it did give you something to do if you went out dancing or partying and got left on the touchline. You could stand around looking super cool as if you weren't that bothered at all. And you didn't have to inhale just having one was enough. Not sure it worked as well with a pipe though!
Love the cars vs cigarettes distinction here, the comparison to early automobile debates really clarifies things. That collective action problem angle is key, nobody wants to be the only one wihtout a phone. Reminds me of how my school tried a phone policy halfway and it just made everything worse than if we'd gone all in.
What an interesting post. I think you're spot on looking at this conundrum from a historical context. I have to say I'm pleased that I'm not a headteacher now having to battle with this on a regular basis. The historical context I'd add is the different social relationships between kids and their families versus schools, kids and families. When I started teaching in the 1980s valuables were not permitted in schools end of. If you wore a watch you could give it to the teacher for safe keeping during P.E. If you did bring anything of value in and it was spotted it would likely be confiscated and returned to you at the end of the day. If it went missing, aka got pinched, that was your hard luck. The same was true when I was a pupil and and I had several things pinched including my fountain pen. Fast forward to now and despite the culture that allows schools, particularly secondary academies, to devise uniform lists that read like something out of Malory Towers. They give regular homework tasks that require access to a PC or laptop. And yet these same schools have seemed unable to say no to kids as young as 7 and 8 bringing smartphones to school. I'm sure this creates or adds to any discipline problems. My reference to relationships comes from the changes over time within families. Now things are much more relaxed and that's a good thing but it can mean that many parents are wary of setting any guidelines. As a regular listener to BBC R4's Today Programme I'm weary of hearing parents bewail the fact that their kids won't do as they're told, especially regarding the use of devices. The parents often say they felt pressured into buying a smartphone for their kids and gave in. Thinking of the smoking analogy would they have been buying their kids cigarettes because everyone else in class smokes. I doubt it. So you have kids armed with their smartphone going from homes where there are few rules or routines into a school where rules rule, OK? It's a recipe for a culture clash. Some kids will cope OK but many won't. I'm not sure what type of legislation might help. One thing I would suggest is that in the wide world outside of schools choice needs to be maintained. I've read arguments that say kids need a smartphone because they need it for the bus/ train/ school canteen etc. If the wider world retained choice in terms of how one can access services and pay for them there'd be less pressure for anyone to have to support the tech companies by buying yet more kit just in order to be able to pay for your parking!
I wish the ban had been brought in ten years ago: before my children had them. I got exasperated by people with no children appearing on shows like 'The Daily Politics' blaming parents for not being strict enough.
It was us against the billionaire tech bros and their armies of tech-savvy minions who are experts in creating addictive apps and software. There was only going to be one winner.
Really love this analogy. In the 1950s there were attempts by the Chief Inspector of Salford to ban cars from residential streets at dusk so children could play on the street. Of course in the end this noble attempt to preserve a valuable childhood experience and community asset was doomed because too many people (understandably) wanted a car and to park it outside their house. I think the blanket phone ban may go the same way, but can see a future with child/adolescent specific phone like devices.
Really interesting - currently a lot of London boroughs have introduced low traffic networks (which are very controversial) and one of the arguments in favour is that they will free up the roads for kids to play in. But of course all the kids are indoors on their phones!
Although the social media ban may change this. I think there is much fruitful thinking to be done around seeing virtual spaces like physical ones when considering childhood wellbeing - we need to make phones like parks.
Interesting thanks. On the same point you might enjoy this https://x.com/i/status/2014095367131025894
Yes - the Fighting Traffic book is really good. Although not as good as And Then There Were None, obviously!
Nicely written nonsense. Reactionaries of different stripes have been trying to restrict social media use since 2016, when it was clear what the political utility would be - children’s safety is just the latest excuse they have globbed onto, as it allows them to outlaw internet anonymity by the backdoor through age verification.
There is as much evidence that the internet impacts children negatively psychologically as there is evidence that Russia used bot farms to steal the 2016 election from Hilary. None.
Phones are nothing like cigarettes or cars. It is a means for communication. Its analogy is the printing press, which also panicked various governments in Europe when it became a vehicle for social change. Freedom will ultimately win in the end.
"Phones are nothing like cigarettes or cars" – they're like cigarettes with respect to being addictive and dopimanergic. They're like cars with respect to being a new technology that was highly transformative to society.
There's no single analogue for another thing. There are infinite based on whatever feature you are looking to compare.
I think you're right. Its not the access to social media or online material thats the issue. It's to do what young people are doing online, who they’re connecting with and how supported they feel in their daily lives. You mentioned the rise of printing which is an interesting analogy. There's a world of difference between accessing hard core porn and reading your friend's Facebook comments or watching a YouTube video.
You can disagree with the "phones cause mental health problems" thesis and still think school phone bans are right. https://substack.nomoremarking.com/p/is-there-enough-evidence-to-ban-smartphones
Also school phone bans don't require doing anything about internet anonymity.