TThe genie is out of the bottle. With the advent of smartphones and smartwatches, human life has moved online. Anyone who wants to limit young people’s participation in the online world is as doomed as the fools who don’t know how to use the wishes they get in fairy tales. The social ills attributed to the Internet have complex causes that cannot be solved by blocking children’s access.
This is a caricature of the tech-positive view. In real life, most people recognize that the portable computers we carry around with us make excessive demands on our time and attention. Just as children need support to develop healthy eating habits, they need encouragement to use the internet in moderation—especially when they’re very young. But reluctance to give in to unrealistic “ban them!” messages about smartphones can lead to the impression that there’s really nothing that can be done. Or that if there is, it’s up to parents to do it.
Jonathan Haidt, the American social psychologist, is the most prominent proponent of the opposite view on smartphones. In his book The Anxious Generation , he controversially argues that their use has led to a dramatic increase in mental illness among teenagers, particularly girls, and that collective action is needed to reverse this. His critics say he oversimplifies the problem. But in recent months, policymakers around the world appear increasingly receptive. The Australian government is considering raising the minimum age for using social media from 13 to 16, while officials across Europe are introducing tighter restrictions.
The UK has some of the toughest laws in the world to protect children online, although campaigners concerned about the implementation. Earlier this year, the government issued guidance encouraging schools to ban phone use during lunch breaks and lessons, and last week it sounded another warning. In his review of the NHS in England, Lord Darzi acknowledged that it was “unlikely that the dramatic rise in mental health needs is entirely unrelated to social media”, but he could not say or it was the “cause or effect of depression”.
One academy chain in England has taken matters into its own hands. In its 44 schools, students’ phones are being taken away during the school day. Peter Kyle, the science secretary, has said he is considering following Australia’s lead in banning social media accounts for under-16s. Smartphone use is not the biggest challenge facing schools in England or the rest of the UK. Teacher shortages, child poverty and a financing gap must be addressed. Against this backdrop, phone bans can be seen as a gimmick that can actually distract from the larger issue of age limits – any increase of which the tech companies will surely fight.
But teachers, along with parents and the wider community, have a role to play in setting boundaries and they cannot be ignored. Nor can the deteriorating mental health of children (referrals have risen far more than for adults) or the tragic cases where online encounters have contributed to the deaths of young people. There are good reasons to take action. Whistleblowers, including Frances Haugen, have shown that social media companies cannot be trusted to put children’s safety before profit. Concerted efforts to create device-free time in children’s lives and build resistance to the attention-hungry business model of big tech are important. Whether they are imposed by schools or spearheaded by campaigns such as Smartphone Free Childhood, they point to real concerns.