The genie is out of the bottle. With the advent of smartphones and smartwatches, human life has moved online. Anyone seeking to curtail young people’s participation in the online world is as doomed as the fools who can’t figure out how to use the wishes gifted them in fairytales. The social ills blamed on the internet have complex causes that can’t be fixed by blocking children’s access.
This is a caricature of the tech-positive outlook. In real life, most people recognise 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 very young. But reluctance to give in to unrealistic “ban them!” messages about smartphones can shade into an impression that there is really nothing to be done. Or that if there is, it should be done by parents.
Jonathan Haidt, the American social psychologist, is the most prominent advocate of the opposite view on smartphones. His book The Anxious Generation makes the controversial claim that their use has caused a huge rise in teenage mental illness, particularly among girls, and that collective action is needed to reverse this. His critics say that he oversimplifies the problem. But in recent months, policymakers around the world have appeared increasingly receptive. The Australian government is considering raising the minimum age for social media use from 13 to 16, while officials across Europe are implementing tighter restrictions.
The UK has some of the strictest legislation in the world to protect children online – although campaigners are concerned about implementation. Earlier this year, the government issued guidance encouraging schools to ban the use of phones during lunchtimes as well as lessons, and last week another warning was sounded. In his review of the NHS in England, Lord Darzi acknowledged that it was “unlikely that the dramatic rise in mental health needs is wholly unconnected from social media” but could not say whether it was the “cause or the consequence of depression”.
One academy chain in England has taken matters into its own hands. In its 44 schools, pupils will have their phones taken away during the school day. Peter Kyle, the science secretary, has said he would consider following Australia 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 funding gap need to be addressed. Against this backdrop, phone bans can be viewed as a gimmick that could even distract from the bigger issue of age limits – any raising of which the tech companies are certain to fight.
But teachers, along with parents and wider society, have a role in setting boundaries and should not be ignored. Nor can one dismiss children’s worsening mental health (referrals have risen far more than for adults), or the tragic cases in which online encounters have contributed to young people’s deaths. There are good reasons to act. Whistleblowers including Frances Haugen have shown that social media firms cannot be trusted to put children’s safety before profit. Communal efforts to carve out device-free time in children’s lives, and build resistance against big tech’s attention-greedy business model, are important. Whether imposed by schools or on the initiative of campaigns such as Smartphone Free Childhood, they point to real concerns.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
