• AuntieFreeze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    They did something similar in Indiana. It’s not a ‘the cops are coming’ thing. It’s more about having a law that the school can reference when whiny ass parents get mad when a teacher takes a students phone away because it’s disrupting class.

    • Masamune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I was trying to think how this could be enforced. It actually makes sense when you frame it this way, didn’t think about the parent side. “Sorry Karen, that’s the law! Your kid week get her phone back in a week!”

    • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      When I was at school we weren’t allowed to eat in class. One day we had a supply teacher who caught a kid trying to eat a sandwich. The teacher confiscated the sandwich and ate it at the front of the class.

      Now imagine if it had been a phone: kid tries to use phone, teacher confiscates phone, teacher tries to root phone and bricks it in the process. “You can have this back at the end of the day.”

  • Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    Good. Kids don’t need cell phones, and they really are a huge distraction.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Makes sense. They’re distracting. Not sure why they were allowed in the first place.

  • qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    We did this a while ago in the Netherlands and so far the research results on the effects look promising.

    • jwt@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes even the kids’ reactions generally seemed positive, some mentioned there were more conversations and joking going on in between classes, and cyber bullying was less prevalent (although ‘old school’ bullying seemed to make a comeback somewhat)

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    While on the one hand I can agree there’s a place and time to be present and participate appropriately, on the other hand it’s so goddamned tiring to see politics that in situations of nuance zoom in on ‘control them’ as a thing everyone can rally to as if the solution of phone control was really going to be simple and accomplish its objectives.

    I mean, criminalizing drugs seemed on its face to be a simple-enough thing to do, and a good idea- who could object to that, right? Who favors addiction, right? What could go wrong? Fundamentally, the ask for enough power to ban anything isn’t a trivial ask, and it shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.

  • OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    These seem all over the place - or maybe it is just this article that is not explaining it well?

    For starters, “smartphones” aren’t the only SIM-carrying devices that can access the internet and install apps - dumbphones can do the former and tablets can do both, which you wouldn’t even be able to visibly see someone using, if it is in their bag and they use something like a watch interface to it. Laptops too…

    The Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (Safe) for Kids act addresses algorithmic feeds. It would require social media platforms to provide minors with a default chronological feed composed of accounts they have chosen to follow rather than algorithmically suggested ones.

    Ngl, that sounds awesome - and not even just for kids! But immediately after that the article continues:

    The bill would also mandate that parents have more wide-reaching controls like the ability to block access to night-time notifications.

    Isn’t this already built-in to various OS’s, so why put the onus onto the app itself?

    Electronic devices like calculators have been a staple inside schools for half a century at least, and poor people who cannot afford one of every type of device will generally opt for one device that can install many different types of apps - so to now ban these apps, b/c they might be used in a certain particular manner… while simultaneously NOT stopping school shootings, it blows my mind.

    “Political theater” is the phrase that comes to mind. Another phrase is “No child left behind”, given how the parents seem to be against these policies, but the State has deemed that it knows better™.

    Then again, perhaps it has a real purpose in mind after all, as a law designed to extract money out of big tech companies as fees pile up?

  • alpacapants@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Only question I have is is there exceptions? I know a few kids with some medical conditions like diabetes that have monitors that synch to their phone to control medication or send alerts… Wonder how they are going to address those situations. Otherwise, I could see the benefits on a smart phone ban during school hours. I just wonder how they are going to administer that.

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Schools with good administrations will make accommodations for kids that need it. Schools with bad administrations won’t until somebody sues.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “I have seen these addictive algorithms pull in young people, literally capture them and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity,” she said.

    The smartphone-ban bill will follow two others Hochul is pushing that outline measures to safeguard children’s privacy online and limit their access to certain features of social networks.

    In New York, the bills have faced pushback from big tech, trade groups and other companies, which collectively spent more than $800,000 between October and March lobbying against one or both of them, according to public disclosure records.

    This differs from other state-level bills across the country, which place some reliance on self-policing by tech companies to decide which features could be harmful by completing assessments of whether products are “reasonably likely” to be accessed by children.

    “Meta itself admits its own parental controls aren’t widely used – they’re often confusing and frequently fail to work as intended,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a policy advocacy organization.

    The major social media firms have faced increasing scrutiny over harms against children, including sextortion scams, grooming by predators and worsening mental health.


    The original article contains 922 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Willy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    “I have seen these addictive algorithms pull in young people, literally capture them and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity,” she said.

    literally capture them? you should be literally ejected from office.

    • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Spend 5 minutes on any HS campus during passing period and you’ll see that it’s correct to say capture.