• OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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?

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • tearsintherain@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Students phone usage in schools are problematic. It’s not just in the classroom, but (raises hand) can i go to the bathroom (to use my phone). You can’t lock down their at&t or t-mobile phones. Don’t know how an outright ban would work but it’s worth a shot. Education like democracy is in decline and in peril. Especially public education with the onslaught of charter schools.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We often make laws without a way to enforce them 100% effectively. For example, my road has a 25 MPH speed limit even though we haven’t yet installed speed limiting chips on every single car in the nation, we still went ahead and put a speed limit on our road though, and it mostly works, but sometimes someone drives 30 MPH.

    • banana_lama@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny-ly enough you can block their signal. Issue is it’s also going to block everyone within range

      • tearsintherain@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So they listen for phone traffic, then what? Track down every user throughout the school day and intercept them? I would wager people who respond with IT solutions don’t realize they at times sound like a ‘tech bro’ who believes they have s solution for everything even of they have no experience in education, no experience being an educator and understanding their contexts. It’s no wonder why teachers in general in America are treated so poorly. Even folks who say they support teachers don’t understand how much they have to do and with so many students and little time.

  • qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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
      0
      ·
      1 year 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)

  • the_doktor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Can we just ban smartphones in general? Please?

    Go back to payphones and pagers and if you need to carry information in your pocket, PDAs where you have useful non-connected apps and download information ahead of time at home and store on the device instead of using a slow, unreliable, garbage tracking device to find what you need.

    • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you. I have similar relationship with connected devices as I do with cigarettes.

      I don’t like being threatened by the state but banning something has a bonus effect of making it look dirty.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      But even if you decriminalized drugs (good!) you could still ban drugs in schools (also good!). Schools should be allowed to ban smartphones, which is what this bill would do.

    • SickofReddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      How? My first thought was this is good. Kids should have to be in the classroom when they’re in the classroom and not on the internet.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        they said it themselves, parents dont want this. I dont want this for my kids. so they will be fighting both the parents and the students for enforcement. theres going to be a constant tit for tat… administrative churn from enforcement of some stupid state law. what is or isnt a ‘simple device’.

        the reality is, this is a per-classroom thing plenty of teachers currently have a handle on. the teachers that do have a problem with phones just basket them as they walk in. the problem for phone distractions at the classroom level has been solved, per-teacher.

        you dont need special rules laws to send a disruptive internet surfing kid to the office.

        i dont want the state telling me my kid cant carry the device i gave them. they have plenty of real problems to solve.

        • Montagge@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The article defines a simple device as a phone that can send texts but has no Internet access

          • DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            My kids have child phones on Google Fi which allows me to shut down their Internet with a couple of button presses. Are they simple devices if I geofence their internet access off while they’re in school? I somehow doubt it, but it does meet the definition as you’ve stated it, which in turn means it is as @originalucifer said, not exactly cut and dry.

    • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We have tests done in our schools in the Netherlands right now and the early results are that it has a positive effect. Students talk to eachother more, say they have more fun during breaks. Also that they can concentrate better on their schoolwork.

  • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dumb ass American politicians don’t know how to govern beyond “ban or blow up something we don’t like”.