What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Are You In Favor Of Not Allowing Social Media For Young People? (1 Viewer)

Would you be in favor of not allowing people under 16 years of age to access social media sites?

  • Absolutely in favor of not allowing people under 16 to access social media

    Votes: 39 36.1%
  • In favor of not allowing people under 16 to access social media

    Votes: 17 15.7%
  • Slightly in favor of not allowing people under 16 to access social media

    Votes: 14 13.0%
  • On the fence

    Votes: 9 8.3%
  • Slightly opposed to not allowing people under 16 to access social media

    Votes: 10 9.3%
  • Opposed to not allowing people under 16 to access social media

    Votes: 9 8.3%
  • Absolutely opposed to not allowing people under 16 to access social media

    Votes: 10 9.3%

  • Total voters
    108
It's none of my business how other people raise their kids and I don't want others telling me how to raise mine.
So it's OK if parents give their kids alcohol when they are young? It's not our kids so why should we give a damn?
-It might not be your business but it's going to be your business when these damaged people roll into your circle of life at some point in the future

Absolutely support kids 16 and under being BANNED from social media
There are reasons we don't let children drive cars and do a lot of other things I won't mention

In theory, I sorta agree about not wanting to be told how to raise your kid...but you are likely a responsible parent Joe.
I don't share your optimism about all the parents being like you.
 
So it's OK if parents give their kids alcohol when they are young? It's not our kids so why should we give a damn?
-It might not be your business but it's going to be your business when these damaged people roll into your circle of life at some point in the future
Isn't it legal for parents to allow their own kids alcohol at home?
 
This is a strawman argument.
The point I was trying to make was that since it isn't going away I would rather teach them about the good, bad indifferent so they can navigate it rather than trying to eliminate it and make it the forbidden fruit. I believe it is the parents responsibility to help teach their children to navigate these types of things. Teach them how to be good people. Etc.

Drinking, driving, gambling age limits are what they are. I suppose this could be similar but I also don't make those other things "forbidden". I discussed them with my kids and let them know about how to properly approach them. I have gambled with them. I have allowed them sips of alcohol if they were interested. I have let them drive in situations where it wasn't a danger to others or themselves (think abandoned area with no other cars around). It was part of teaching them the bad and good of these things.

It's a parents job to teach their kids. Social media is no different.
 
So it's OK if parents give their kids alcohol when they are young? It's not our kids so why should we give a damn?
-It might not be your business but it's going to be your business when these damaged people roll into your circle of life at some point in the future
Isn't it legal for parents to allow their own kids alcohol at home?
Hey Rich, good to hear form you
I don't know the answer but we could expand it to narcotics/prescription drugs.
Alcohol is a drug and if parents don't keep it out of the hands of their children, seems like child abuse

-My dad would let me sip his Old Milwaukee can back in 1979 when I was 5 yrs old and we were watching baseball.
I mostly thought it was awful and it stopped me from curiously wondering what they tasted like. I don't think I drank anything again until I was in college
 
This is a strawman argument.
The point I was trying to make was that since it isn't going away I would rather teach them about the good, bad indifferent so they can navigate it rather than trying to eliminate it and make it the forbidden fruit. I believe it is the parents responsibility to help teach their children to navigate these types of things. Teach them how to be good people. Etc.

Drinking, driving, gambling age limits are what they are. I suppose this could be similar but I also don't make those other things "forbidden". I discussed them with my kids and let them know about how to properly approach them. I have gambled with them. I have allowed them sips of alcohol if they were interested. I have let them drive in situations where it wasn't a danger to others or themselves (think abandoned area with no other cars around). It was part of teaching them the bad and good of these things.

It's a parents job to teach their kids. Social media is no different.
Nobody is saying make a law where parents can’t us IG or Twitter with their kids and show them how it functions. There’s a difference between letting kids have a sip of wine with you and giving them their own key to the liquor cabinet.
 
This has been a good discussion.

Please keep discussion 100% non political.

"Today, Haidt explains how this massive change happened, its detrimental effects on kids, and what actions we can take—both in our own lives and legislatively—in order to reverse course and free the anxious generation."

This is from the OP. This discussion started with "legislatively" as one of the two components for limiting child access.

To then ask "Are you in favor of not allowing social media for young people?" is inherently a political question. If was about "in our own lives," then the question would be phrased differently.

Haidt is a distinctly political writer who discusses political topics.

If you're asking us to be non-partisan then I think we can do that. To say we should keep this apolitical is just . . . well, discussion about the topic is impossible without it, and the source that inspired the question is a political book by a political author.

So my conclusion is . . . C'mon. What the heck?

That's sort of an impossible request.

I think what they're saying is to keep partisan politics out of it. We've done a good job of that for several pages.

If you're not able to keep politics out of it, and I fully understand that may be the case, it may be best to find another thread and let the folks here who have been able to discuss it thus far continue.
 
My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.
I think a lot of kids sort of feel this way. I've talked to many that acknowledge their phone in general is a problem and they think they would be better if they were on it less they admit they are addicted to it.
I suspect there's a very large chunk of the population -- a chunk which includes a lot of adults -- that would like to see social media go away but those folks as individual don't feel that they can drop it unilaterally, in part because it's too socially isolating to be that one weirdo who's not on Facebook (or whatever your little social circle uses).
Freakonomics just did a podcast about a study attempting to quantify that.

Thanks. Can you elaborate on important parts of the podcast?
 
There’s a difference between letting kids have a sip of wine with you and giving them their own key to the liquor cabinet.

Yes. As I understand it, this is about age restrictions. The same way we restrict people by age with alcohol, gambling, legal marijuana, cigarettes etc.
 
There’s a difference between letting kids have a sip of wine with you and giving them their own key to the liquor cabinet.

Yes. As I understand it, this is about age restrictions. The same way we restrict people by age with Alcohol, gambling, legal marijuana, cigarettes etc.
Same and nobody has an issue you teach you kid how to play poker or invite him to gamble a bit on family night. We just don’t think they should able to go and play at casinos or start their own PokerStars account.
 
It's none of my business how other people raise their kids and I don't want others telling me how to raise mine.
So it's OK if parents give their kids alcohol when they are young? It's not our kids so why should we give a damn?
-It might not be your business but it's going to be your business when these damaged people roll into your circle of life at some point in the future

Absolutely support kids 16 and under being BANNED from social media
There are reasons we don't let children drive cars and do a lot of other things I won't mention

In theory, I sorta agree about not wanting to be told how to raise your kid...but you are likely a responsible parent Joe.
I don't share your optimism about all the parents being like you.
All aspects of social media? Or are there certain ones you're thinking of?

Social media by definition includes facebook, tiktok, youtube, reddit, instagram, twitter, online forums
 
Facebook and twitah are 98% of the issue imo. I laid out why. Mostly the ads, celebs, "news", and general nonsense. Tic Toc, Insta, youtube, reddit, and Discord are no big deal imo. Lots of creativity on those platforms from where I am sitting at least. The comments sections of "news" posts are the worse garbage in existence. I'm on the fence with message boards
 
Where do we draw the line? Child obesity is a problem, due we make it against the law for children under 13 to eat fast food and drink soda?

This doesn’t seem like a great comparison.

Kids can’t drive cars or go to R rated movies.it’s similar to that.
 
My daughter turned 18 recently. Has been on social media since she was around 14, one of the last of her friends. So I asked her about this topic, and whether social media should be banned and until what age, and she said yes, until age 15 or 16. I asked if she had to go back in time to her 14 year old self, but with the knowledge and wisdom of her 18 year old self, would she have been glad if social media was banned for kids her age and she said yes with no hesitation. She had a hard time articulating why, there was no specific bullying or other incidents that drove that, but I was a little surprised at how strongly she felt about it.
I think a lot of kids sort of feel this way. I've talked to many that acknowledge their phone in general is a problem and they think they would be better if they were on it less they admit they are addicted to it.
I suspect there's a very large chunk of the population -- a chunk which includes a lot of adults -- that would like to see social media go away but those folks as individual don't feel that they can drop it unilaterally, in part because it's too socially isolating to be that one weirdo who's not on Facebook (or whatever your little social circle uses).
Freakonomics just did a podcast about a study attempting to quantify that.

Thanks. Can you elaborate on important parts of the podcast?
The study basically found that, if given the option, college students would pay $X for everyone at their school to no longer be able to use social media. But even though they dislike the product so much that they'd pay to banish it, they are generally unwilling to give it up as long as it remains available to everyone (basically FOMO).
 
I also believe that Social Media is the root cause of much of the political hysteria (for lack of a better description) going on in the world today.

Coupled with the emergence of the smartphone, the world/society wasn't ready for these technologies....and the world is racing/ to and grappling with how to deal with them.

I mean, look at this forum over the years...grown *** men couldn't handle it and had to take self-imposed timeouts or were given timeouts. Children + smartphones + social media is a disaster.
 
I'm a high school teacher in Florida. Cell Phones are -illegal- for students to have on campus during school hours. Do I see students use them in the halls, or when they come out of the bathroom, or during lunch? Absolutely. Do I also see a HUGE decrease in phone usage during class compared to a few years ago? Also, yes. Overall, the new law (went into effect to start this current school year) has been an overwhelmingly positive step for our school.

Social Media is *potentially* dangerous for everyone. If passing laws can make our people and society safer and happier? Pass the law. Does that mean we'd have more laws? Yeah it does.

It is interesting to me that a fairly large portion of our society and our elected officials spent a good number of years trying to eliminate regulation and oversight and attempting to "get the government out of my life!" but are now, sort of changing their tune a little bit.

There has to be a balance. You can't strip away every regulation and oversight without there being some intended bad consequences. Additionally, you can't legislate every problem away, either.

I will say, it is absolutely astonishing to me that many people are so willing and eager to "outlaw" social media apps because they give kids anxiety or spread misinformation. But the thing that contributed to the deaths of more children from the ages of 1 to 17 in 2020 and 2021 - shall not be infringed. Maybe if Smith & Wesson started manufacturing in China, we'd see some movement on that front.
 
The study basically found that, if given the option, college students would pay $X for everyone at their school to no longer be able to use social media. But even though they dislike the product so much that they'd pay to banish it, they are generally unwilling to give it up as long as it remains available to everyone (basically FOMO).

Thank you. That lines up with what I was thinking on how how people would see it after the learnings from the past week or so. Super interesting.
 
I'm a high school teacher in Florida. Cell Phones are -illegal- for students to have on campus during school hours. Do I see students use them in the halls, or when they come out of the bathroom, or during lunch? Absolutely. Do I also see a HUGE decrease in phone usage during class compared to a few years ago? Also, yes. Overall, the new law (went into effect to start this current school year) has been an overwhelmingly positive step for our school.

Social Media is *potentially* dangerous for everyone. If passing laws can make our people and society safer and happier? Pass the law. Does that mean we'd have more laws? Yeah it does.

It is interesting to me that a fairly large portion of our society and our elected officials spent a good number of years trying to eliminate regulation and oversight and attempting to "get the government out of my life!" but are now, sort of changing their tune a little bit.

There has to be a balance. You can't strip away every regulation and oversight without there being some intended bad consequences. Additionally, you can't legislate every problem away, either.

I will say, it is absolutely astonishing to me that many people are so willing and eager to "outlaw" social media apps because they give kids anxiety or spread misinformation. But the thing that contributed to the deaths of more children from the ages of 1 to 17 in 2020 and 2021 - shall not be infringed. Maybe if Smith & Wesson started manufacturing in China, we'd see some movement on that front.

Thank you. How do they practically handle this?

Are they allowed to be on their person, just not out? Or not even be carried?

Do kds put their phone in a locker when they get to school?

What is the penalty if they don't stick to the rule?
 
It's none of my business how other people raise their kids and I don't want others telling me how to raise mine.
So it's OK if parents give their kids alcohol when they are young? It's not our kids so why should we give a damn?
-It might not be your business but it's going to be your business when these damaged people roll into your circle of life at some point in the future

Absolutely support kids 16 and under being BANNED from social media
There are reasons we don't let children drive cars and do a lot of other things I won't mention

In theory, I sorta agree about not wanting to be told how to raise your kid...but you are likely a responsible parent Joe.
I don't share your optimism about all the parents being like you.
All aspects of social media? Or are there certain ones you're thinking of?

Social media by definition includes facebook, tiktok, youtube, reddit, instagram, twitter, online forums
I'd ban children from having log ins to all of them
Can't be any clearer
There are some redeeming qualities to Youtube and I have definitely learned many things on there, but I'm an adult and I don't really get into the comments section of them
 
Facebook and twitah are 98% of the issue imo. I laid out why. Mostly the ads, celebs, "news", and general nonsense. Tic Toc, Insta, youtube, reddit, and Discord are no big deal imo. Lots of creativity on those platforms from where I am sitting at least. The comments sections of "news" posts are the worse garbage in existence. I'm on the fence with message boards
In my house TikTok is the worst. Followed closely by snapchat, discord and Insta.

But this highlights one of the biggest obstacles in the discussion... The population will have a tough time agreeing what apps/media should be restricted.
 
I'm a high school teacher in Florida. Cell Phones are -illegal- for students to have on campus during school hours. Do I see students use them in the halls, or when they come out of the bathroom, or during lunch? Absolutely. Do I also see a HUGE decrease in phone usage during class compared to a few years ago? Also, yes. Overall, the new law (went into effect to start this current school year) has been an overwhelmingly positive step for our school.

Social Media is *potentially* dangerous for everyone. If passing laws can make our people and society safer and happier? Pass the law. Does that mean we'd have more laws? Yeah it does.

It is interesting to me that a fairly large portion of our society and our elected officials spent a good number of years trying to eliminate regulation and oversight and attempting to "get the government out of my life!" but are now, sort of changing their tune a little bit.

There has to be a balance. You can't strip away every regulation and oversight without there being some intended bad consequences. Additionally, you can't legislate every problem away, either.

I will say, it is absolutely astonishing to me that many people are so willing and eager to "outlaw" social media apps because they give kids anxiety or spread misinformation. But the thing that contributed to the deaths of more children from the ages of 1 to 17 in 2020 and 2021 - shall not be infringed. Maybe if Smith & Wesson started manufacturing in China, we'd see some movement on that front.
Love your post, props to being a Florida school teacher, I live in Jupiter
 
It's none of my business how other people raise their kids and I don't want others telling me how to raise mine.
So it's OK if parents give their kids alcohol when they are young? It's not our kids so why should we give a damn?
-It might not be your business but it's going to be your business when these damaged people roll into your circle of life at some point in the future

Absolutely support kids 16 and under being BANNED from social media
There are reasons we don't let children drive cars and do a lot of other things I won't mention

In theory, I sorta agree about not wanting to be told how to raise your kid...but you are likely a responsible parent Joe.
I don't share your optimism about all the parents being like you.
All aspects of social media? Or are there certain ones you're thinking of?

Social media by definition includes facebook, tiktok, youtube, reddit, instagram, twitter, online forums
I'd ban children from having log ins to all of them
Can't be any clearer
There are some redeeming qualities to Youtube and I have definitely learned many things on there, but I'm an adult and I don't really get into the comments section of them
That's taking it way too far for me. I think you're also minimizing the good that comes from social media. Online interaction can be a net positive for a lot of kids.
 
I'm a high school teacher in Florida. Cell Phones are -illegal- for students to have on campus during school hours. Do I see students use them in the halls, or when they come out of the bathroom, or during lunch? Absolutely. Do I also see a HUGE decrease in phone usage during class compared to a few years ago? Also, yes. Overall, the new law (went into effect to start this current school year) has been an overwhelmingly positive step for our school.
I don't see this as much different from teacher not allowing students to read comic books, play cards, or otherwise disrupt class by not following along with the material. I see "keeps phones out of classrooms" and "banning social media" as completely separate topics with no real overlap.

Social Media is *potentially* dangerous for everyone. If passing laws can make our people and society safer and happier? Pass the law. Does that mean we'd have more laws? Yeah it does.
I can't agree with this in a vacuum. Society would be safer if we imposed (and enforced) 20 MPH speed limits on highways. Would that safety be worth the cost we'd all have to bear? Most would answer no, so we shouldn't just pass any laws that make us safer. As always, we should weigh the benefits against the costs.


Most of this discussion seems to be centered on whether social media is harmful to children. I'd guess that most agree that it is to some extent. Unfortunately, the reflexive jump from "it's harmful" to "we should impose limits" skips over the most important part of the discussion. That is, HOW might we impose limits and what are the costs and benefits of those limits and the methods used to impose them.
 
Facebook and twitah are 98% of the issue imo. I laid out why. Mostly the ads, celebs, "news", and general nonsense. Tic Toc, Insta, youtube, reddit, and Discord are no big deal imo. Lots of creativity on those platforms from where I am sitting at least. The comments sections of "news" posts are the worse garbage in existence. I'm on the fence with message boards
In my house TikTok is the worst. Followed closely by snapchat, discord and Insta.

But this highlights one of the biggest obstacles in the discussion... The population will have a tough time agreeing what apps/media should be restricted.
I'm on Facebook. Twitah, and Discord the most. Facebook is the WORST for time wasting and negatively, and sadly, it could be awesome imo. Twitah is ok at times. Discord is ALWAYS great, especially for art and music. My wife is an art teacher and LOVES tic toc for her and the students fwiw. I don't understand snapchat enough to comment, but it seems to be a black hole for high school and college kids. But it's the one they use to live more than anything so that's important I think.
 
It's none of my business how other people raise their kids and I don't want others telling me how to raise mine.
So it's OK if parents give their kids alcohol when they are young? It's not our kids so why should we give a damn?
-It might not be your business but it's going to be your business when these damaged people roll into your circle of life at some point in the future

Absolutely support kids 16 and under being BANNED from social media
There are reasons we don't let children drive cars and do a lot of other things I won't mention

In theory, I sorta agree about not wanting to be told how to raise your kid...but you are likely a responsible parent Joe.
I don't share your optimism about all the parents being like you.
All aspects of social media? Or are there certain ones you're thinking of?

Social media by definition includes facebook, tiktok, youtube, reddit, instagram, twitter, online forums
I'd ban children from having log ins to all of them
Can't be any clearer
There are some redeeming qualities to Youtube and I have definitely learned many things on there, but I'm an adult and I don't really get into the comments section of them
That's taking it way too far for me. I think you're also minimizing the good that comes from social media. Online interaction can be a net positive for a lot of kids.
Cocaine makes you feel really good at first...
 
Facebook and twitah are 98% of the issue imo. I laid out why. Mostly the ads, celebs, "news", and general nonsense. Tic Toc, Insta, youtube, reddit, and Discord are no big deal imo. Lots of creativity on those platforms from where I am sitting at least. The comments sections of "news" posts are the worse garbage in existence. I'm on the fence with message boards
In my house TikTok is the worst. Followed closely by snapchat, discord and Insta.

But this highlights one of the biggest obstacles in the discussion... The population will have a tough time agreeing what apps/media should be restricted.
I'm on Facebook. Twitah, and Discord the most. Facebook is the WORST for time wasting and negatively. Twitah is ok at times. Discord is ALWAYS great, especially for art and music.
Kids just use it differently. I don't think they care about facebook. That is where Adults go to be toxic.

Discord seems innocent enough but they have school specific servers where all the kids go to. It becomes like a digital lunch room but the gossip and ugliness is off the charts.
 
Facebook and twitah are 98% of the issue imo. I laid out why. Mostly the ads, celebs, "news", and general nonsense. Tic Toc, Insta, youtube, reddit, and Discord are no big deal imo. Lots of creativity on those platforms from where I am sitting at least. The comments sections of "news" posts are the worse garbage in existence. I'm on the fence with message boards
In my house TikTok is the worst. Followed closely by snapchat, discord and Insta.

But this highlights one of the biggest obstacles in the discussion... The population will have a tough time agreeing what apps/media should be restricted.
I'm on Facebook. Twitah, and Discord the most. Facebook is the WORST for time wasting and negatively. Twitah is ok at times. Discord is ALWAYS great, especially for art and music.
Discord seems innocent enough but they have school specific servers where all the kids go to. It becomes like a digital lunch room but the gossip and ugliness is off the charts.
Kids are gonna kids no matter what we do there imo. They have text chains that are super negative, but we can't ban texts. In the 80's nd 90's the phone was where the bullying and gossiping went down fwiw. Some things we can't fix. I believe that the majority of humans are pretty awful when it comes down to it. We ain't fixing that. That was the one thing I didn't dislike about organized religion. It certainly kept many people in line. I think that ship has sailed though.

I also don't understand how anyone could say Instagram is the worst. It's just pictures, lol. Super boring at times really.
 
I see "keeps phones out of classrooms" and "banning social media" as completely separate topics with no real overlap.

Thanks. But I disagree. I think they're on the same continuum of how much they're restricted. Not in school is a first step. And maybe the only step. But it seems to many like it's a good thing even if it's the only step.

It's like smoking.

There are designated areas we deem to be no smoking no matter the age of the smoker.

And we have an age restriction for people on who can smoke in smoking approved areas.
 
I believe that the majority of humans are pretty awful when it comes down to it.
I think the majority of humans are selfish.........not necessarily awful. It's a slight distinction but it does get closer because the selfishness leads to acting bad on social media because the individual wants to look good and feel good and social media allows that to happen by making others look bad.
 
I'm a high school teacher in Florida. Cell Phones are -illegal- for students to have on campus during school hours. Do I see students use them in the halls, or when they come out of the bathroom, or during lunch? Absolutely. Do I also see a HUGE decrease in phone usage during class compared to a few years ago? Also, yes. Overall, the new law (went into effect to start this current school year) has been an overwhelmingly positive step for our school.

Social Media is *potentially* dangerous for everyone. If passing laws can make our people and society safer and happier? Pass the law. Does that mean we'd have more laws? Yeah it does.

It is interesting to me that a fairly large portion of our society and our elected officials spent a good number of years trying to eliminate regulation and oversight and attempting to "get the government out of my life!" but are now, sort of changing their tune a little bit.

There has to be a balance. You can't strip away every regulation and oversight without there being some intended bad consequences. Additionally, you can't legislate every problem away, either.

I will say, it is absolutely astonishing to me that many people are so willing and eager to "outlaw" social media apps because they give kids anxiety or spread misinformation. But the thing that contributed to the deaths of more children from the ages of 1 to 17 in 2020 and 2021 - shall not be infringed. Maybe if Smith & Wesson started manufacturing in China, we'd see some movement on that front.

I'd also love to hear more detail on the backlash when the new rule went into place.
 
I see "keeps phones out of classrooms" and "banning social media" as completely separate topics with no real overlap.

Thanks. But I disagree. I think they're on the same continuum of how much they're restricted. Not in school is a first step. And maybe the only step. But it seems to many like it's a good thing even if it's the only step.

It's like smoking.

There are designated areas we deem to be no smoking no matter the age of the smoker.

And we have an age restriction for people on who can smoke in smoking approved areas.
Phones are allowed in our schools and it's not really an issue from what I am told. The teachers teach, and sometimes will use the phones in lessons. Phones and computers are basically the same thing in that regard. Easier to let the kids use the phones then pass out computers like they used to do. I feel like the adults are more the problem with phones than the kids are. I think I will never coach again because of parents. They just want to dump kids and play on their phones. Until they feel bored on the phones, and decide to cause issues on the sidelines. It's so bad.
 
I believe that the majority of humans are pretty awful when it comes down to it.
I think the majority of humans are selfish.........not necessarily awful. It's a slight distinction but it does get closer because the selfishness leads to acting bad on social media because the individual wants to look good and feel good and social media allows that to happen by making others look bad.
I think both, lol. I used to think the total opposite because my mom taught us to be selfless and generous, almost to a fault. I still try to see the best in people, but they just want to show you the worst. Especially if they have money on the line or a business to protect. Selfishness is a huge issue in 2024. But it's kinda what America is built on, no?
 
Still trying to answer my own question of how Sports Books effectively have this solved.

An editorial on the topic

Seems to be mostly location services, multiple devices, and (in some cases) requiring a government issued ID to sign up.

For social media I am wondering how many adults are on board with providing that ID to participate?
 
I'm a high school teacher in Florida. Cell Phones are -illegal- for students to have on campus during school hours. Do I see students use them in the halls, or when they come out of the bathroom, or during lunch? Absolutely. Do I also see a HUGE decrease in phone usage during class compared to a few years ago? Also, yes. Overall, the new law (went into effect to start this current school year) has been an overwhelmingly positive step for our school.

Social Media is *potentially* dangerous for everyone. If passing laws can make our people and society safer and happier? Pass the law. Does that mean we'd have more laws? Yeah it does.

It is interesting to me that a fairly large portion of our society and our elected officials spent a good number of years trying to eliminate regulation and oversight and attempting to "get the government out of my life!" but are now, sort of changing their tune a little bit.

There has to be a balance. You can't strip away every regulation and oversight without there being some intended bad consequences. Additionally, you can't legislate every problem away, either.

I will say, it is absolutely astonishing to me that many people are so willing and eager to "outlaw" social media apps because they give kids anxiety or spread misinformation. But the thing that contributed to the deaths of more children from the ages of 1 to 17 in 2020 and 2021 - shall not be infringed. Maybe if Smith & Wesson started manufacturing in China, we'd see some movement on that front.

Thank you. How do they practically handle this?

Are they allowed to be on their person, just not out? Or not even be carried?

Do kds put their phone in a locker when they get to school?

What is the penalty if they don't stick to the rule?

It is tough. A new iphone can be $1,500+. As a teacher, confiscating that device from a student is a slippery slope for a number of reasons. For example, a parent could say that *I* 'stole' the phone from the kid. They are worth enough money that it isn't -that- crazy for a parent to get upset about an expensive phone to no longer be in the possession of the student or other family member. Another problem is that if your student is involved in an after school activity, their cell phone can be a safety tool. They may need it to call their parent or guardian for a ride home from practice or performance. So, if I take a phone from a kid for sending a tweet during class, I may have now just really screwed up the entire day for a whole family.

So, as this was a new law, we have sort of seen an "evolution" of how we deal with the phone issue.

Step 1: "Don't bring your phone to school, it is now illegal. There is zero tolerance." At the same time, teachers were instructed to -not- take phones from students. Why? Well, the powers that be, genuinely thought that students would follow the law. That phones would likely no longer be a major problem anymore, and so because the belief was that phones would essentially "dissapear" from campus - We were told to call the Dean's Office and have them come to our classroom to take the phone of any student that was violating the policy. Of course, this is a problem, because the deans have a lot of things to do, and it feels like a huge distraction / inconvenince to "escalate" the situation to stopping class, getting on the phone, calling the office, asking for a Dean, waiting for them to arrive, the student then deciding whether or not to comply with the Dean and give up the phone.......and on and on.

So, after we realized that the law wouldn't stop many (any) student from bringing the phone to campus (and to be honest, I truly believe it is essentially a safety tool / necessity for a lot of kids - even if it is just after school) we moved to Step 2.

Step 2: Be militant about having non-teacher staff members confiscate phones when they see them. We started giving the deans drawstring bags (some used fishing nets) and during passing periods, lunch etc, they would stand near entrances & exits and take phones. It did not take long for this to become effective.

As Step 2 began gaining traction, students began "policing" themselves. I saw fewer phones in the halls and in-class I saw zero phone usage.

Step 3: As with any school rule, as the school year goes on, the teachers, deans, admin etc. get a little more "loose" with policing the rules. I see more phones during passing period. I see phones when kids are coming out of the bathroom (the bathroom is now just a place to check your phone and/or vape), but overall - compared to past years - cell phone use on campus is WAY WAY down and in terms of it distracting kids during class time, is an absolutely night & day difference - in a good way. I truly believe that if you could get the students in an honest moment, that they would actually agree that not having their phones out during class is a positive for themselves and their peers.

A school rule we had imposed a few years ago, is that all students must put their backpacks into a designated area when they come into the classroom, so the aisles are clear. I use this to my advantage in terms of policing phones. My classroom rule, is that if you ask to use the bathroom, you go over to your backpack, show me that your phone is in your bag, and then sign-out to use the hall pass. We can do this with literally no extra words being exchanged and it takes maybe an additionaly 10 seconds for the kid to show me that their phone wasn't at their desk. Do all students put their phone in their bag? No. But, typically the kids that want to use the bathroom pass all the time, are the exact kids that would be distracted by their cell phone at their desk. It is extremely rare for me to see a phone out during class time anymore. It's been a huge positive for me and the staff.

Step 4: I think we are sort of "evolving" (devolving?) into this step now. Where, while the staff isn't as militant about taking phones, the staff and the student body have figured out a "happy medium" of where phones are and are not acceptable. In-class? No. Checking it as you walk to your bus? Fine.

As far as punishments for phone use go:
1st time: Confiscated, student can get the phone back at the end of the day
2nd time: Confiscated, parent must come to the school to get the phone
3rd time: Confiscated. Parent has to come get the phone. 1 day of in-school suspension.
4th time and on: Out of school suspension. Meeting with parents.

From what I've heard through the grapevine - the repeat offenders are actually being told by their parents to essentially ignore the rule, and to just do whatever they want.
 
Last edited:
The more I think about it, it seems no phones allowed in school seems to make a ton of sense.
Huge difference between no phones in school and no phones in class. No phones in class isn't really different than no comic books in class and no Walkmans in class.

No phones in school is something different, especially in high schools where kids have free periods, activities like practice and games to coordinate, and in some cases, can even leave campus during lunch or free periods. This doesn't all mean "no phones in school" is a bad idea, but it's definitely not the same as "no phones in class".
 
Step 3: As with any school rule, as the school year goes on, the teachers, deans, admin etc. get a little more "loose" with policing the rules. I see more phones during passing period. I see phones when kids are coming out of the bathroom (the bathroom is now just a place to check your phone and/or vape), but overall - compared to past years - cell phone use on campus is WAY WAY down and in terms of it distracting kids during class time, is an absolutely night & day difference - in a good way. I truly believe that if you could get the students in an honest moment, that they would actually agree that not having their phones out during class is a positive for themselves and their peers.

One - thank you for being a teacher. We as society need good teachers/schools. Thank you.

Second, this is a great example of how something doesn't have to be airtight to make a difference.

Just like kids will smoke in the bathroom, some kids apparently are using the bathroom for phone.

But I can see how it would be as you said and be night and day difference not having them out in class.

Thank you.
 
The more I think about it, it seems no phones allowed in school seems to make a ton of sense.
Huge difference between no phones in school and no phones in class. No phones in class isn't really different than no comic books in class and no Walkmans in class.

No phones in school is something different, especially in high schools where kids have free periods, activities like practice and games to coordinate, and in some cases, can even leave campus. This doesn't all mean "no phones in school" is a bad idea, but it's definitely not the same as "no phones in class".

Agreed. Of course, there's a difference. And as noted above, seems the most obvious place is in class.

When kids are allowed to use them would be the next discussion.
 
Last edited:
I’m in favor of it. I’m not sure it’s possible without some sort of North Korean mandates/rules on the internet. That train has left the station. A long time ago.

For context, my daughter is 17. She was the last person in her friend group to get a phone. The last to get the social media apps. We made the decisions to allow them/get her a phone because she was an outcast without them. She was out of the loop and unable to communicate with her friends. This is not good for a 13-14 year old girl. I heavily monitored her phone usage for the first few years and we constantly had conversations about the dangers online. Covid was another factor. The lack of in person socializing drove the need for virtual socializing for all of us.

I think 14 is a more reasonable age but like in the other thread, how do we enforce it? Government restrictions aren’t the answer IMHO.
Late to this thread and don't have the time to read the entire 5 pages at this point, but this is where we've been at... to a degree.

Our daughter was the "outcast" at 12. When she turned 13 we got her an iPhone and made her sign a contract, which went into extreme detail about usage and social media in particular. No Snapchat and we have full access to her TikTok, which is the only social media she has. She really only uses the phone to text/FaceTime her little friends and to make TikTok videos every so often.

Her grades are good (and if they slip, say bye bye to the phone until they are), she's a good kid and knows about the dangers of social media.

My son is 11 and while he has a phone, it's a piece of junk iPhone 3 which has a battery that dies after 2 minutes of being unplugged. We keep it plugged in by his bed as he uses it for a sleep meditation app (lol, yes he's 11 and likes it) and to text our "family" group. I like him having access to texting me/his mom if by chance he's home along for any extended period of time while his sister is out of the house (which is rare). He has no desire to be on TikTok or any other kind of social media at this point nor do I think he will be anytime soon.
 
Still trying to answer my own question of how Sports Books effectively have this solved.

An editorial on the topic

Seems to be mostly location services, multiple devices, and (in some cases) requiring a government issued ID to sign up.

For social media I am wondering how many adults are on board with providing that ID to participate?
If you have a work around for me to use FanDuel or DraftKings without having to be standing inside the casino (state law) I'd like to hear it. The location services deny VPNs and once they have your phone number they know who you are and where you are located.

Have you seen someone sign-up at the social security website recently, since say 2022? It goes like this:

Ready to sign up? You can now create your new my Social Security account through our credential service provider (CSP), Login.gov, or you can access your information using your ID.me account if you have one.
  • Login.gov is your one government account for simple, secure, and private access to participating U.S. government agencies.
  • ID.me is a single sign-on provider that meets the U.S. government’s online identity proofing and authentication requirements.
A credential includes your username, password, and two-step verification factors. A trusted credential partner helps us securely verify your identity online.

They know who and where you are just from the devices you use and the info you've already given them.
 
My state doesnt require to be in the casino. It just requires via location services you are physically in the state but I don't use a vpn. It verifys my location. That being said I had to provide my personal information to get a withdrawal processed :shrug:
 
Thanks. And that's one of the main points of the author in the podcast. That we no longer allow our kids to have free play and explore and do what many of us considered a normal childhood.

We have data that shows this began long before the advent of social media. The internet may have hastened it, but it certainly didn't start it.
Agreed Rich. The internet has very little to do with why my wife won’t let our 9yr old play in the driveway without being supervised or walk to school, 200 yards away from our house, alone. Fear is, and it might be the single biggest thing my wife and I don’t see eye to eye on. Her fear, and all the other helicopter parents out there, is raising anxious fearful children.
 
From the MSN article:
As part of that switch Penn now requires anyone creating a new sports betting account to upload both a government-issued ID and a real-time selfie.

Facial recognition is real too. I've had more than one international flight now where I didn't even need a boarding pass, just look into the camera, welcome aboard Peggy.
 
From the MSN article:
As part of that switch Penn now requires anyone creating a new sports betting account to upload both a government-issued ID and a real-time selfie.

Facial recognition is real too. I've had more than one international flight now where I didn't even need a boarding pass, just look into the camera, welcome aboard Peggy.
If you sign up you can enter MLB games without ever taking out your phone/tickets. They have a special line now
 
I blame that on frightened overprotective parents more than anything else. In fact, we may be driving them to social media where they can experience some freedom and independence, as we don't grant them any in the real world
Its ridiculous.

The delicious irony here?

Parents are terrified of what can happen to kids if they leave the house. Why? Because the dang parents are on social media too much, doom scrolling. 🙄

We need a Facebook account that notifies parents every time a kid leaves the house and does NOT get abducted. Maybe level the field here a bit, and less kids will be sent off to college as pasty little nothings with no social interaction.
It really is insane irony. This over the top fear (despite living in a world far safer than it was 20-30 years ago) drives the kids on to social media which we know for a fact is a mental health nightmare. Talk about a self created problem.
I just had this debate at a dinner party with friends 2 weeks ago. We live in the safest time in human history yet we are paralyzed with fear. People are convinced crime is worse than ever when that’s simply untrue. The difference is we just hear about the stabbing/robbery/rape/murder across the country from us now where we didn’t in 1985.
 
Last edited:
I blame that on frightened overprotective parents more than anything else. In fact, we may be driving them to social media where they can experience some freedom and independence, as we don't grant them any in the real world
Its ridiculous.

The delicious irony here?

Parents are terrified of what can happen to kids if they leave the house. Why? Because the dang parents are on social media too much, doom scrolling. 🙄

We need a Facebook account that notifies parents every time a kid leaves the house and does NOT get abducted. Maybe level the field here a bit, and less kids will be sent off to college as pasty little nothings with no social interaction.
It really is insane irony. This over the top fear (despite living in a world far safer than it was 20-30 years ago) drives the kids on to social media which we know for a fact is a mental health nightmare. Talk about a self created problem.
I just had this debate at a dinner party with friends 2 weeks ago. We live in the safest time in human history yet we are paralyzed with fear. People are convinced crime is worse than even when that’s simply untrue. The difference is we just hear about the stabbing/robbery/rape/murder across the country from us now where we didn’t in 1985.
Yep. For example, now that we publicly out anyone who's gone afoul of sexual misconduct laws and have websites advertising where they live, people think there are more sexual predators than ever before. Like they didn't exist until we started legally doxxing them. Thanks internet.
 
I blame that on frightened overprotective parents more than anything else. In fact, we may be driving them to social media where they can experience some freedom and independence, as we don't grant them any in the real world
Its ridiculous.

The delicious irony here?

Parents are terrified of what can happen to kids if they leave the house. Why? Because the dang parents are on social media too much, doom scrolling. 🙄

We need a Facebook account that notifies parents every time a kid leaves the house and does NOT get abducted. Maybe level the field here a bit, and less kids will be sent off to college as pasty little nothings with no social interaction.
It really is insane irony. This over the top fear (despite living in a world far safer than it was 20-30 years ago) drives the kids on to social media which we know for a fact is a mental health nightmare. Talk about a self created problem.
I just had this debate at a dinner party with friends 2 weeks ago. We live in the safest time in human history yet we are paralyzed with fear. People are convinced crime is worse than ever when that’s simply untrue. The difference is we just hear about the stabbing/robbery/rape/murder across the country from us now where we didn’t in 1985.

I know I'm being the podcast guy but I but you'd enjoy this show https://open.spotify.com/episode/5n8BWGMWWsOt3pLL49Adtz?si=rmdoPvLCQBSRjxPeeFposA

We're in an objectively safer time in history yet we protect as if we're in a war zone. At least physically. Digitally, we mostly let our young teens wander into the most dangerous areas of the internet.

It's an interesting time.

Today’s episode is about the extraordinary decline in face-to-face socializing in America—and the real stakes of the country’s hanging-out crisis.
From 2003 to 2022, American adults reduced their average hours of face-to-face socializing by about 30 percent. For unmarried Americans, the decline was even bigger—more than 35 percent. For teenagers, it was more than 45 percent.

Eric Klinenberg is a sociologist and the director of the Institute for Public Knowledge at New York University. He is the author of several books on the rise of living alone and the decline of social infrastructure. His latest is _'_2020: One City, Seven People, and the Year Everything Changed.' And he's not afraid to challenge the popular notion of an epidemic of loneliness in America. “There is no good evidence that Americans are lonelier than ever," he has written. Today, Eric and I talk about teens and parenting, the decline of hanging out, why America sucks at building social infrastructure, and why aloneness isn’t always loneliness.
 
I blame that on frightened overprotective parents more than anything else. In fact, we may be driving them to social media where they can experience some freedom and independence, as we don't grant them any in the real world
Its ridiculous.

The delicious irony here?

Parents are terrified of what can happen to kids if they leave the house. Why? Because the dang parents are on social media too much, doom scrolling. 🙄

We need a Facebook account that notifies parents every time a kid leaves the house and does NOT get abducted. Maybe level the field here a bit, and less kids will be sent off to college as pasty little nothings with no social interaction.
It really is insane irony. This over the top fear (despite living in a world far safer than it was 20-30 years ago) drives the kids on to social media which we know for a fact is a mental health nightmare. Talk about a self created problem.
I just had this debate at a dinner party with friends 2 weeks ago. We live in the safest time in human history yet we are paralyzed with fear. People are convinced crime is worse than even when that’s simply untrue. The difference is we just hear about the stabbing/robbery/rape/murder across the country from us now where we didn’t in 1985.
Yep. For example, now that we publicly out anyone who's gone afoul of sexual misconduct laws and have websites advertising where they live, people think there are more sexual predators than ever before. Like they didn't exist until we started legally doxxing them. Thanks internet.

This is tricky too though. I have a good friend who was in a group setting where he was not made aware of a person who had committed horrendous crimes against children and served prison time for it was not clearly identified to the rest of the group. It's a broken world.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top