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.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)
NZ Politics
880 readers
13 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Well I guess this is good news because it means the coalition doesn’t have the support to pass a social media ban, which has been discussed for a while.
This is much more sensible than everyone uploading their IDs and face scans to untrustworthy social media companies; or worse: shady 3rd party identification companies that don't seem to properly protect them: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jmzd972leo
Yeah but I guess I'd like to know more about the dumb phones. My gut feeling is that there will be an argument around safety related reasons for needing a smart phone. Do the dumb phones have GPS, maps, etc?
"Parliament could pass a law defining what constitutes a "dumb phone" suitable for a person under 16.
Because it's Seymour I am also wondering is this line is a request for donations from phone companies or suppliers...
Yay age discrimination and trapping vulnerable children in abusive bubbles without online communities to break them out
Well i guess he had to get something right eventually
@Dave , looks like the low hanging fruit atm,
generally, what about guns, alcohol, fossil fuels,...
This is being talked about because it's a hot topic around the world, with many states and countries introducing or planning to introduce age check based restrictions on social media.
Honestly based on how Facebook money was traced to the plan to push age checks to the OS instead of the service, I wouldn't be surprised to find a nice donation to Act behind this too.
Ultimately I think most people would agree it's better than the age checks on sites that the government have been suggesting so maybe we have to take our wins when we get them, in whatever form they come.
Wow. Twice in a month. We must have stepped into the twilight zone....I agree with Seymour again.
This is a great suggestion.
It's better than age checks on social media. But I do still wonder if there is a solution to the fact that all the problems with social media are not exclusive to under 16s.
Totally.
But getting kids addicted is probably the first thing we should stop.