View Single Post
Old 20-05-2024, 15:43   #673
1andrew1
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 15,268
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
Re: Online Safety Bill

There's a long FT article on the subject of a middle way for smart phones and children. Some parts of it:
Quote:
Instead schools could “consult [students]. They will say, no phones in class. Let’s have some lunchtimes without phones, but don’t make me take it out of my pocket because my mum might have an urgent message.” Teenagers “do value the creation of spaces where they look at each other and talk to each other”. But they also “want human flexibility”.

Strict rules often conflict with reality. In homes with little parental supervision, smartphones may offer children intellectual enrichment, says Livingstone. Even recommendations of no screentime an hour before bed may be unsuitable for young people who use apps to help them sleep.

“All the talk of rules cuts down the idea that parents can trust their children to make some good decisions sometimes.” Heavy-handed bans that prevent children from participating in society “will breed resentment and conflict”. What we should offer is better defaults and more advice. “We’re terrified of giving guidance, and parents are desperate for guidance.”
https://www.ft.com/content/c122775a-...2-eba077367757
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote