this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
76 points (97.5% liked)

Canada

7230 readers
807 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is going to be my hot take of the day.

Cars are very much part of our lives and we decided that there was a minimum age to own and operate them. I could potentially get behind a system where we don't let children below a certain age operate / own a phone.

It's illegal to smoke with a kid in your car, but we have no problem giving a 10 year old kid unfiltered internet 24/7 as a society.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

This is a hot take that I can get on board with. I think in order for this to happen we (as a society) will have to come to grips with the real damage device addiction can do to our lives. The harm is easy to find with second hand smoke and alcohol but we do a great job turning a blind eye to all the issues we're causing for ourselves by being stuck on our devices.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don't strictly disagree, but the damage misusing a car can cause is a lot more obvious and quantifiable than a phone, so it is a much harder argument to make

That said, high school students do drive and they can't do so in the classroom, so we're rapidly approaching an apples and oranges argument with regards to how phones should specifically look inside of school.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'll counter your hot take. I don't think kids should have unfiltered or unsupervised access to the internet. That's exactly what I'm stating in my original comment. Classrooms are supervised spaces where kids can learn how to use the internet and technology as a tool. We can't just go "you're 8 so you can't use technology." That isn't an effective way to teach children about the world. Allowing them to use technology in safe, supervised settings, and teaching them how to use it safely and effectively is more useful than straight up banning it until they pass a certain age threshold.

Growing up, I had access to a computer from the age of 2. I could use it to play games, listen to music, make greeting cards, etc. but I had daily time limits for the amount of screen time I was allowed. I also wasn't allowed unsupervised internet usage. This was far more effective than completely banning me from using the computer until I was older, in my opinion. I was far more technically literate than the majority of my friends by the time I hit first grade, and it helped immensely throughout my school years. When you know how to use a tool safely and effectively, you can use it to complete tasks and projects far more efficiently. If we get hung up on labelling all technology as equal and bad and banning it, we're missing the good parts of it. Nothing is inherently bad. The use is what makes it bad. If we teach proper use, we lower the chances of the bad things happening.