SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We see smartphones everywhere. In school hallways, at the family dinner table and plugged in at the bedside table.
But how young is too young to be constantly connected to the rest of the world through sleek apps, social media and video messaging?
One Colorado man has decided that age 13 seems like a good cutoff.
Tim Farnum is leading the charge on a proposed ballot initiative in Colorado that would be the first of its kind in the country. Farnum's proposal would ban the sale of smartphones to children younger than 13, or more likely, to parents who intend to give the smartphone to kids in that age bracket.
Farnum, a Denver-area anesthesiologist, is the founder of Parents Against Underage Smartphones, or PAUS, the nonprofit group pushing the proposal.
Source: Coloradoan.com
Also reported by: The Washington Post
Initial Fiscal Impact Statement: Colorado.gov [PDF]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @11:17PM
... that guy can suck my cock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @11:29PM (1 child)
I'm guessing his parents sucked up to Tipper Gore and her posse of censors at Parents Music Resource Center.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:52PM
I'm guessing his parents sucked up to Tipper Gore and her posse of censors at Parents Music Resource Center.
Damn liberals! On the plus side, Trump opposes this measure since it would make it impossible to communicate with his next wife.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @11:34PM (2 children)
Children under the age of 13 don't belong on the internet. It's Adults Only so we can discuss unprotected anal sex and niggers with chronic bloody diarrhea.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:20AM (1 child)
You know the niggers wouldn't have so much bloody diarrhea if they did less anal sex.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:33AM
Can't help it nigga! My nut is too good for a pussy!!
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:06AM (4 children)
Another unenforceable law. Ranks up there with the sodomy laws.
Besides, if he wants his children to be ignorant he should read this:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3156878/boy-4-saves-his-mum-by-using-her-fingerprint-to-unlock-phone-and-call-police-after-she-collapsed/ [thesun.co.uk]
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:20AM (3 children)
Story seems bogus.
You do not have to unlock an iphone (or android) to call 911 (or 999 in the uk).
Maybe he didn't know that, or maybe he didn't know how to dial, which is why he asked siri.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:27AM
Of course he didn't know. If you tell a 4 year old he can dial 911 with a locked phone, he'll be doing it all the time and be a nuisance to the dispatcher. Back when I was a kid and payphones still existed, we miscreants would dial 0 on public payphones and shout swearwords at the operator just because the call was free.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:31AM (1 child)
You do, however, have to be able to remember the number [youtube.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:37AM
There's a party in my head
Won't let me go to bed
Have to stay up instead
Go to the party in my head
Though you may call 999
They will hang up every time
It's too late they're here with me
Off their heads and on the beat
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:09AM (6 children)
The Coloradoan news site is so obnoxious with loud videos that I gave up while reading the article.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:18AM (5 children)
Mute Tab, leet genius puter hacker you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:04AM (4 children)
Auto-playing video is evil, despite the work-arounds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:08AM (3 children)
You're so right. Whenever I visit a YouTube watch page, I sure as shit don't want that fucker to auto-play.
YOUTUBE IS FUCKING EVIIIIIIL!!!!@11211111`
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:13AM (2 children)
I suspect this is sarcasm, but I actually do have auto-play blocked on Youtube.
You see, I use something called "open in new tab", and if one of the tabs suddenly has a video playing, I need to flip through all of them to find and pause the offender. And that's assuming that audio is playing, otherwise I probably won't notice until I get to the video I want to watch, and notice that it's already half way through the video.
Why I use open in new tab? Because when I see something I want to watch, I need to click on it before scrolling on, or I will never find it again.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:25PM (1 child)
Well, not quite. These days Firefox and Chrome put a speaker icon on sound-producing tabs.
Your complaints are well taken though. The web is a bloated spammy trainwreck. Real pity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:47PM
Too bad browsers aren't more modular. They're a bloated codebase the user has little control over :(
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:21AM
Or a smartphone that's locked to calls and texts only.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Revek on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:23AM (7 children)
I'm betting he wants 8 tracks to make a comeback to.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:34AM
Those made great stashboxes for important things, they even played a short loop of music.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:43AM (5 children)
Pandora sucks and 8 tracks are better because you don't have to buffer an 8 track.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:06AM (4 children)
Spoken like somebody who has never used an 8-tack.
It has a tape loop. If you stop mid tape, you have to wait for the "beginning" to come around again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:11AM (3 children)
Oh no my internet connection is slow today so my 8 track player is experiencing interruptions, said nobody ever.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:06PM (2 children)
Not true. You just said it. Sheesh.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:55PM (1 child)
............
I bet you sell pitchforks on reddit
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:06AM
Good idea.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:24AM
I grew up in the 60s, when TV Was Bad 4 U (tm), and comic books were just getting over their Bad 4 U (tm) reputation. Lived through the violent video games are Bad 4 U (tm).
So, are smartphones really Bad 4 U (tm), or are they our generations comic books. Time will tell, but I'm betting no.
My ducks are not in a row. I don't know where some of them are, and I'm pretty sure one of them is a turkey.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:25AM (3 children)
It's because CO babies have 50% more weed in them from birth compared to god fearing babies. So they need to have the phones given late such that it doesn't affect their development.
Also, I feel like this was a move by the state to get $101,250 approved so that they could upgrade GenTax [fastenterprises.com] and MyLo [wikipedia.org].
Funny thing is, I do otherwise agree with parents having the presence of mind to not give their kid a phone too early. Because there is no possible way exposing fresh eyes to natural stimuli is a bad thing, the reason given in the article is goofyshit however. Pure singular goofyshit.
Because for experience worn like a true gentleman you want this fucking guy. And of course like any good moral guardian he started a watchdog group starting with "parents against".
and to make matters worse. They did the worst possible thing to me: Made me agree with a senator: "Frankly, I think it should remain a family issue". Having a moderate opinion as a politician is crossing the line right now sir.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:34AM
Lol omg the kids are throwing temper tantrums! Give them their Dyziplen!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:08PM
I'd like to chime in and point out that goofyshit is the scientific term.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:46PM
Holy crap how obnoxious.
I've got a better idea for a law: make it illegal for fuckwits like this to bear children.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by J053 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:32AM (5 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lentilla on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:00AM (1 child)
Maybe this one dad can give his new law a trial run in his own home: tell his child that "somebody" made a law that made it illegal for children to have a 'phone. Now he gets two tantrums: the first when he takes the phone away, and the second when the child discovers the removal is in force until age thirteen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:09AM
And if he's not a dad... Snip the sucker so he doesn't procreate more idiots.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:31AM (2 children)
How can a 13 year old get credit and enter into a contract, it makes no sense.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:37AM
There are phones without contracts, and you can buy them (and minutes and service time cards) with cash. Some of them are pretty cheap. Even smartphones.
But there are plenty of things a child could get that a parent may not want them to have. Check up on them occasionally and don't be too paranoid.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:48AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:33AM
When even a robot can point out the low-tech approach [youtube.com], haven't we gone too far?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:37AM (4 children)
We see this kind of thing from time to time. Some person or small group of people decide they don't like the direction the world is going in. The new generation infuriates them with something/anything. So, they want to write a law, because all other parents are to stupid to see the obvious.
This Colorado dad needs to do some research. Today's kids view their smartphones as essential, and no longer view automobiles as so very essential. The world is changing.
Concerned Parents of America™ failed to stop those freaky assed Beatles and their British Invasion when I was a kid, and they'll fail to stop, or even slow, the spread of smartphones today.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:47AM (1 child)
Yeah, you see that from "time to time".
But every single day most of us have reason to wonder "Where are the parents??"
If you don't, why not tune in the local news on TV some evening, even if you have to watch it on your smart phone.
I suspect those kids packing guns and already addicted by 14 might trigger concern even in your free-range-kids world.
You differ from Mr Colorado only degrees.
There's very little convincing evidence that the modern trends in parenting is helping today's kids.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:56AM
Oh, I agree, parenting seems to be a lost art. But, asking your state legislators to take your place as parents isn't the best of all possible solutions.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:34AM
Yeah, this story really sounds like something straight of The Onion describing a "Local Man" with a really stupid idea for everyone to follow.
I actually agree with him that kids probably spend too much time on smartphones, but this proposal is just stupid, unenforceable, won't actually work, and...oh did I mention stupid?
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:15PM
I was going to write a long pseudo-logical rebuttal about how they were right, and we never should have let those mop tops in. I just don't have the energy to go full-on joke troll, today. I think society is doing okay, actually. Still, I wanted to quote some little known Charlie Daniels, which was the whole goal of the post I was going to write.
Imma quote it anyhow.
"There were fellas dancing and fellas kissing,
There's a fella over there wearing high heeled shoes and pantyhose."
It is his sequel to Uneasy Rider.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:37AM (11 children)
As a kid I knew how to pick up the telephone and see if my friends could come out an play (before climbing into the snow pants and parka and trudging over there).
Of course there was only one phone, and it was a party line to boot, and our phone numbers were only 4 digits long.
This story isn't about a phone. Its about an unlimited computer in a kids unsupervised hands.
Surely there must be some age below which we could all agree a child should not have a phone.
Its probably some age less than 13.
Kids age 11-12 often babysit their younger sibs. Kids that age can usually be safely left home alone [webmd.com] for an hour or two. Surely you'd want them to know how to deal with a phone. But maybe not a smartphone.
A dumb phone seems plenty good enough for a young kid. Just be sure to get unlimited texting.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:44AM (9 children)
"Surely there must be some age below which we could all agree a child should not have a phone."
Sorry, but, no. People are complex. Kids are complex. There are kids almost 30 years old who aren't smart enough to decide what to have for dinner. There are other kids almost 10 years old who are pretty damned mature and quite responsible. I have some of both kind in my own family. What about your family?
How about, instead of banning kids with phones, we hold the parent responsible for enforcing good decision making. Someone earlier mentioned that this dad is probably wimping out. He wants to deny his kid a phone, but he's afraid of just saying "NO!" He wants a law to hide behind. "Oh, I'm sorry, Katy, but the law says you can't have your own phone until your an old, withered hag."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:53AM (1 child)
Easy, whatever mom brings down to the basement is what's for dinner.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tibman on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:08AM
Still in the larval stage, i see. In pupa she stops bringing it to you and just places it on the first step. You'll want to begin your mushroom and bacteria mat growths in this phase. You should have accumulated plenty of dishes by this point. Hopefully you left some extra biomass in them to start your cultures.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:11AM (4 children)
One possible way to solve it is to have the phone require simple mathematical riddles solved. Like "What is the derive of cos(5x+2) ?" ..answer in 30 seconds. Or the phone will lock for a week. If the user is too young they will not be able to answer it. The OS could implement this. And if the user is smart enough to hack it then they passed the "brains" test anyway.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:38AM (1 child)
How incredibly irresponsible. Are you suggesting that children wouldn't be sufficiently motivated enough to learn how to solve these problems? Or perhaps to write short, grammatically correct answers to demonstrate comprehension of increasingly complex reading material? What sort of a future are your recommendations guiding these poor children, and possibly even young adults, towards?
(Score: 3, Touché) by kaszz on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:41AM
A future where people that should not handle powerful things are prevented from doing so?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:13AM (1 child)
Huh, looks like this already exists [studylockapp.com]. Neat!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:19PM
Now that is interesting. However they probably need a education in HTML and user interface design themselves first ;)
(hint.. background makes the text undecipherable)
(Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:48AM
"Mommy, how old are you? You have your own phone and daddy said I had to wait until-- Er, Katy, why don't you come back here and we'll see what we can work out for you ..."
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:50PM
True that! I know of one 71 year old guy that should probably have his phone taken away too!
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:44PM
His age he picked seems pretty arbitrary. His own son he took the phone from was 12. He says 13 as a cutoff. He thinks he's going to magically mature that much in less than 12 months?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:57AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:03AM
Finally a solution to the problem of butt-dialing.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:15AM (2 children)
It's a misnomer from the get go "Smartphone". Just taste the word. A phone is not smart to begin with. And the current models of computer phones which they are. They are full of shit like a radiomodem that can backdoor the main processor. A operating system that facilitate spying and does spy itself. Hardware that lack physical blocks against spying and is hostile to field upgrades. A software environment that is built around a walled garden and your credit card.
And of course the "smart" phone can't have the crappy operating system "booted" ..
Nor is there any documentation on how to use the graphics chip like those early VGA chips had.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:33AM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:39AM
Maybe you pointed out the answer. Make the current breed of computer phones so bad that people get dissatisfied with the in large numbers? self replicating malware or whatever.
And ad campaigns that ends up in gigantic public shame for the advertiser?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:30AM (3 children)
Nobody drinks or smokes while underage.
Nobody's parents have ever given them the toy they want, just to get peace...
I wouldn't mind having the supplemental excuse of telling my future teenagers: "It's illegal until you're 18", but for now "You can't afford it" will have to do.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:48AM (1 child)
In the past these things required money to get and skills to repair or modify. Parents could just refrain from sponsoring any phone until they are old enough. And if they succeed to acquire the money needed and repair skills then maybe they are smart enough to handle the connectivity too. The only catch is they might miss out on (positive) social events among friends.
In fact give them a phone preinstalled with LineageOS and a Unix prompt with a 500 page paper manual ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:06AM
This type of government goes for more than just dictating who can use smartphones. It will also go to what you can use on your smartphones. And since it can't be controlled by the company, any independent OS is probably going to wind up impractical to run sooner or later (they're trying for just that with Android and it's already there with iPhone). Eventually it'll probably outright go to illegal for "security" reasons, which is where they'll start making sure you're only going to the "properly secured" websites and overriding that filter will be illegal...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:42AM
Running over kids with their faces planted in a smartphone screen should also become a non-punishable offence too. Darwin will do the rest.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:37AM (1 child)
When I grew up, my parents didn't need a law to tell me I was not allowed to buy a PC until I moved out. Which I didn't do until after I got my degree, so I was actually working as a software developer before I bought a PC of my own.
Kinda messed up if you ask me - which this guys kids will probably also be.
But the point is, if my parents could do it without a law, why does this guy need a law to tell his kids they are not getting a phone?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:22PM
Computers has gotten a lot cheaper and more easy to use (for idiots).
I think it matters a lot which year(s) your parents didn't need any laws to prevent your use of computers.