NZ Politics

880 readers

12 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other LemmyNZ communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Dave@lemmy.nz

RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz

David Seymour suggests smartphones could be banned for under-16s (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Dave@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Act leader has suggested smartphones could be banned for under-16-year-olds.

In a speech to a business leaders' dinner on Wednesday night, David Seymour said it's clear anxiety, depression and self-harm has increased in children and young people since the advent of smartphones.

He has suggested Parliament could prohibit the purchase, possession and supply of smartphones to under-16s, instead only allowing teenagers to use 'dumb-phones', which don't have access to social media apps.

"We already prohibit adults from supplying minors with tobacco and alcohol, for example.

"The object is tangible, the rule is understandable, and reasonable adults support the purpose of the law. A smartphone is just as tangible."

Citing political commentator Ani O'Brien, Seymour said that instead of regulating the platforms, the device should be targeted instead.

"Put simply, why don't we deal with the hardware instead of the software?"

The government is already considering a social media ban in line with Australia's and the United Kingdom's - but the Act Party has said it doesn't support it.

Seymour said a ban on social media is too hard to implement, and won't work.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ooo_shiny@lemmy.nz 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t be surprised if in 50 years people react in shock to the idea that people allowed their babies and children to have free access to smartphones. There is lots of evidence to show that smartphones are harmful to our young ones.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'd argue many people react in shock now to the idea of free access to smart phones! But I might live in a bubble.

[–] ooo_shiny@lemmy.nz 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I’m a teacher so I guess I’m on the front lines here. The thing that worries me most is that some parents use phones and tablets to replace parenting for their babies and younger children. In high school, I don’t see many kids these days choosing to read books for fun anymore. It’s really sad, and it all definitely affects the way that our kids function (or don’t) in schools.

Governments will tinker with the educational system to try and fix the growing problem of student academic underachievement, but will shy away from the real problem, which is that the level of parental involvement in and support of their child’s learning has decreased. Parents are addicted to their phones too, after all. It’s made me determined as a parent not to let phone use come between me and my own child as she grows up.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

You probably do get quite a different view than I do! But now you mention it, I do know people like that, where the TV is constantly on.

I have three kids who all read for fun (mostly visual novels at the moment, due to reading ability), and I think this is partly because the TV is generally off in our house. When I was a kid it was almost never off, so maybe it's not a new problem!

What is a new problem is that social media sites and app development companies hire psychologists to try to get people to spend more time on their apps (addict them). I say new, but I was reading about this happening 15 years ago, I have to assume they have refined the art by now. I am not sure banning the sale of phones to under 16s will be enforceable, but I like the idea a hell of a lot more than giving my ID to facebook.

I do wonder exactly how it will work too. There is a big difference between giving the kids a phone to watch bluey on for a long car trip, and having free access to a phone. We have spare smart phones the kids use. They have to ask, and they don't have social media on them, just podcasts, music, and libby (plus the above mentioned bluey et al for long car trips). Do they have to possess a social media app for them to count as possession of a smart phone? What if it came on the phone and it's logged out?

What we need is a proper policy defined by experts, rather than politicians defining rules about things they don't understand.

[–] ooo_shiny@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, the ‘are we there yet?’ problem. I suspect parents will always do what they have to do in that situation. It also sounds like you’re teaching healthy phone usage.

The big difference between phones and TVs is that phones serve up short-form content on the TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube type apps that kids just flick through. There is no need to watch them for a sustained amount of time to figure out what’s interesting about each piece of media, and they’re addictive: people choose to spend time on these apps rather than doing other things. I believe that kids these days have a shorter attention span as a result of the increased consumption of short-form media vs traditional tv shows and movies.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 hours ago

My kids are primary school age and don't know about TikTok or Instagram, or Youtube shorts. But I can imagine them getting sucked in if they were allowed to watch that sort of thing. It's probably a challenge I have coming up in the next few years, when other kids their age start getting phones and having access to these kinds of media.

People have been saying for years that attention spans are getting shorter, hopefully someone is studying it!