Recommendations are well and good, but I can't see them having much if any impact on what people do. It would be better to ban the use of smart phones at schools (or at least in classrooms) entirely, pass laws to better protect people's privacy, and pass regulation to restrict the kinds of exploitative practices that are designed to drive up anxiety and addiction to these devices. Especially those that target children.
Smartphones are banned at school in Aus, for a strong net positive. Kids still sneak them into toilets and so on (and vapes), but the overwhelming impact has been positive.
It’s surprising that more schools haven’t done this. I suspect that we’ll look back in 10 years with it being common and ask ourselves what took so long.
In the US we've completely given up on stopping school shootings, and parents have instead decided that the better thing to fight for is their children having cell phones so they can hear the child's last words when the school shooting happens.
I think the phones are one thing. It was a bit distressing to hear that US schools have “school shooting drills” like Japan schools have “earthquake drills”.
Wait until you hear about how teachers started stocking emergency toilets because of those multi-hour drills, and the right wing in the US responded by using it to accuse schools of setting up litter boxes for self-identified 'furries' in the student body.
You're just making things up, just like those people perpetuating the litter box hoax.
> The only known official instance of cat litter being placed in school classrooms for potential use by students was in the late 2010s by the Jefferson County Public School District in Colorado, where the 1999 Columbine High School massacre took place. Some teachers were given "go buckets" that contained cat litter to be used as a toilet in an emergency lockdown situation, such as during a school shooting.
_Only known official instance_ and not for drills, but in case there was an emergency situation.
It’s not actually about school shootings in the US, as much as that might be cited as justification. Some parents just want to be able to text their kids all day.
At least in Australia the phone ban doesn’t mean you can’t have a phone in your pocket, you just can’t take it out.
Taking your phone out when I was in school meant having it placed on the teachers desk until the end of class, and possibly some other kind of penalty if they particularly didn’t like you. But you always got your phone back before leaving the class.
So, exactly how it was when cellphones first became commonplace? I started high school in 2008 and had a flip phone at that time. Yea, literally everyone was texting behind their back, under a desk, or whatever but it was fine. If we got caught, the teacher picked it up and we could come pick it up at the end of the day.
I can imagine if the current “meta” is literally holding your phone in your hand for the entire school day that problems would indeed arise.
Personally, I think banning phones in the classroom similar to what I grew up with is the minimum. If students still have poor outcomes or are being bullied by other kids sneaking phones, then yea, collect them at the door or implement stricter punishment for students caught with a phone.
I’m not sure what ‘the US’ means here. In California it’s now required (as of next year) for schools to limit or restrict student phone use, and several other states have done similar things as mentioned in the article [1].
I think it is reasonable for a teacher to say you can't actively use your phone while class is in session but not appropriate for them to say you can't have your phone on you. It is also inappropriate to say your phone must be in some special pouch that only they can open, etc.
This is just my own opinion, of course. I think it is also inappropriate to say you need someone's permission to use the restroom. All my opinions of appropriate ness is mostly about adults behaving like adults though. They probably don't make sense when it comes to children?
I tend to agree, and the vast majority of policies that I've seen (e.g. US states) do in fact target the use of phones, not possession. Schools in the CA bill can continue to implement or exceed those requirements as they see fit.
> parents have instead decided that the better thing to fight for is their children having cell phones so they can hear the child's last words when the school shooting happens.
What's a ridiculous appeal to emotion. Between 2020 and 2022 there were 131 school shooting deaths, including suicides. Let's put those all in 2022, and assume that there were actually 0 suicides.
That means you have a 0.0026% chance to be killed (at most) in a school shooting. This is too much, but this is not the reason to allow cell phones in schools. Come on.
I am more worried about dogs in school. Many teacher are fine to blame 11 years old for "provoking" dog attack! It is ok to send a kid to hospital, for eating a sandwitch!
Teachers at my school do not believe allergies are real! If there is asthma attack, it is an uncorrelated event! School will stab my kid with epipen, call ambulance and send me hospital bill! Avoiding it is too much work!
Once school brought unrestrained police dogs to school for a demonstration! Those had a record of attacking and torturing suspects!
School shootings are extremely rare. If you want to protect kids you will be much more effective if you work on pedestrian safety, or anything related to driving at all really.
In Australia all the private schools have done it for ages, it’s just only recent that public schools did it.
Sure we still did sneak in a bit of phone usage in the bathrooms and behind secluded buildings but it’s a huge difference from being able to freely scroll social media all day.
How do you know that it has had an overwhelmingly positive impact? Can we, for example, see a marked increase in PISA scores for Australia from after the ban?
Or is this one of those "I hate phones, therefore banning them must be good for kids" things?
These are the key findings from the UK research which was part of the reason we started banning phones in schools here in Denmark.
> our results indicate that there is an improvement in student performance of 6.41% of a standard deviation in schools that have introduced a mobile phone ban.
> Finally, we find that mobile phone bans have very different effects on different types of students. Banning mobile phones improves outcomes for the low-achieving students (14.23% of a standard deviation) the most and has no significant impact on high achievers. The results suggest that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by the presence of mobile phones, while high achievers can focus in the classroom regardless of whether phones are present.
I believe OECD and Pisa results have also pointed towards banning as a net postive since their 2022 report.
I think it's fair to say that it's not a "black-and-white" thing. As the research points out, digital devices aren't the only factor in the equation. I believe OECD research has also found that using a digital device with a parent can be a benefit while using it alone will most certainly be a negative for children aged 2-6. I'm sure you can imagine why there might also be other factors that make a difference between parents who can spend time with their children and those who can't.
Aside from that there are also benefits from digital devices for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia. In most class-rooms this can be solved by computers + headphones, but for crafts people (I'm not sure what the English word for a school that teaches plumbers, carpenters etc. is), having a mobile phone in the workshop can often help a lot with insturctions, manuals and such.
So it's not clear cut, but over all, banning phones and smartwatches seem to be a great idea.
California GPA average is about 3.0 with 1.5 standard deviation. A 6.4% SD improvement would be a 0.1 point improvement in GPA. Certainly not an overwhelming result, compared to the subjective reactions how phones and screen are “obviously” destroying kids lives/attention spans/ability to hold a conversation, etc.
Given that teachers are no longer competing for student attention in class, that is one single and quite important positive which doesn't require an academic study and referencing to demonstrate.
I'm not sure what you were hoping to achieve with the request for evidence, but what you're asking is not yet subject to a longitudinal study. The move has certainly been praised by educators, and that should be enough given it's the first or second year year of implementation in many cases, and what they are advocating for isn't a social taboo, nor draconian.
Meet kids who have smartphones in school. A lot of them aren’t able to maintain eye contact in a conversation. It’s a remarkably jarring change that looks like it will wind up stunting the development of low-income kids for a generation.
Folks on the spectrum are different in a way I can’t quite explain. I’m talking about full-blown can’t have a conversation or express an interest in anything.
The iPad kids are more prevalent and highly recognisable. They’re also highly concentrated in the lower and lower-middle classes. (The country’s richest communities and private schools are banning devices in schools.)
There are neurodivergent people who have a low threshold for how long "normal" eye contact lasts. Using smartphones is also an excellent excuse to avoid eye contact.
Basic common sense? We are dealing with CHILDREN IN CLASSROOMS here. Leaving aside the obvious psychotropic properties phones and social media have on people of all ages, in what universe can preventing children from diverting their attention from live classes ever be good?
What sort of argument is that? Anybody who lived long enough anywqhere saw many times what a cancer screens are to kids and their development, the smaller the worse. You can't make any sort of strawman out of this topic, its proper cancer.
If you want to measure something for this measure happiness or strength of social circles. Good luck with that.
>What sort of argument is that? Anybody who lived long enough anywqhere saw many times what a cancer screens are to kids and their development, the smaller the worse. You can't make any sort of strawman out of this topic, its proper cancer.
That's not science, that's a demonstrably false assumption that everyone thinks smartphone usage is bad for kids.
In my experience with kids and smartphones, kids of the young generation (gen Z) are way better informed (and less brainwashed) than kids of their parents' generation were, whose only access to information about the world when growing up was through the captured, centralised legacy media.
So what needs to happen to ban smartphone use while driving? I mean not "formally forbidden" but "thoroughly enforced".
Personally, I avoid phone use even as a pedestrian in busy city spaces - I think the time it takes to fully switch attention to be fully aware of things like a reckless driver running a red light is too long to not affect safety.
In the Netherlands we have 'focus cameras' now that specifically detect smartphone use while driving, with hefty fines of €430. These cameras are mobile as well, so they get placed on different spots over time.
You definitely need a source for that comment given that it only just happened.
Smartphones are neutral pieces of technology. It can create the next Einstein or radicalise the next terrorist, the 1's and 0's don't mind.
Why not ban them at universities also? Are these kids suddenly protected the moment they leave high school?
Like your opinion I have my own, and banning smartphones in Australian high schools will turn out to be overwhelmingly negative for outcomes. I predict it will be reversed and looked back upon as a failure.
Khan academy taught me more than dozens of different teachers. Kids are now blocked from accessing it for their entire time at school and when they would be most intruiged to learn.
Just like terrible having internet, Australians seem intent on being left behind in a hypercompetitive world.
"Our team screened 1,317 articles and reports as well as dissertations from masters and PhD students. We identified 22 studies that examined schools before and after phone bans."
"Our research found four studies that identified a slight improvement in academic achievement when phones were banned in schools. However, two of these studies found this improvement only applied to disadvantaged or low-achieving students."
"In a sign of just how little research there is on this topic, 12 of the studies we identified were done by masters and doctoral students. This means they are not peer-reviewed"
Do you really want to keep wasting people's times here because I'm more than happy to debate it with someone who actually cares.
Nothing in that article suggests it's of overwhelming benefit. I'm talking much bigger than teachers having an easier job too, education outcomes like this take decades to be seen.
All of these seem valid, too, but they don’t need to be mutually exclusive. I’m all for common sense recommendations - even if it only helps a relatively small percentage of families.
I look at it in a similar light to nutritional guidelines.
> It would be better to ban the use of smart phones at schools (or at least in classrooms) entirely, pass laws to better protect people's privacy, and pass regulation to restrict the kinds of exploitative practices that are designed to drive up anxiety and addiction to these devices.
Once again, I must reiterate that parents choose the schools their children attend, and that means that they choose the solution. I argue strongly that we, as a society, should not impose arbitrary restrictions on parents and children. If we afford the freedom of letting parents be parents, there is no scientific basis for reallocating smartphone use responsibility to the state.
The state exists to protect the majority from the minority. If the majority believes phones are bad, then they’ll be banned in schools to prevent whatever effect having them would have.
In Japanese culture recommendations (for lack of better word in translation) carry quite different load in comparison to western society. It’s usually accepted and followed (unlike west where recommendations are usually ignored)
If only those games weren't infested with micro/macro transactions to manipulate players out of their money in the first place. Mobile gaming is a cesspool of ads, gambling, greed, data collection, and bullshit all of which has been slowly spreading like a cancer to gaming on every other platform for decades. I'm not happy about Apple and Google demanding a cut of the action either, screw them too, but making these tactics even more profitable for shitty mobile game devs isn't going to benefit players.
Apple did this to itself. Reportedly it was Jobs' opinion turned policy that Apple don't do games or pornography.
Exactly this policy and their interference to app developers created a selection pressure and a cutout hole in shape of "only slightly gamelike && technically not pornographic && in high demand", and the category of apps more accurately represented as "strip clubs with casinos with no cash-out" filled the vacuum like a Ghibli film blob monster.
Early iOS games were more game-like. Apps like SNES remakes, flappy birds and music games, were more common, but they all converged down and down into porn territory.
It doesn't happen naturally; not even pornographic game markets, let alone Steam or Itch, aren't as badly infested with gambling as App Store. It only happened artificially by how Apple ran it over the past ~15 years.
Microtransaction infested games were inevitable even if mobile gaming didn’t exist. Like, of the top 10 highest lifetime grossing games, 3 are arcade pay-per-play (the original microtransaction), 6 are f2p that got their start on PC, and only one is mobile-first / only.
Last year, 58% of PC gaming revenue was from microtransactions, and that percentage is only growing.
> Early iOS games were more game-like. Apps like SNES remakes, flappy birds and music games, were more common, but they all converged down and down into porn territory.
Game devs discovered pretty quickly that, Apple having set the initial expectation that an iOS game should cost $0.99, the only viable way to run a business on a mobile platform was a f2p/exploitation/casino model.
Is there anything wrong with walled gardens hypothetically taxing the shady microtransaction-infested unregulated-gambling games and data-mining apps 5x and using that to correspondingly reduce fees for honest indie developers?
(Setting aside the issue of defining who are the goodies and who are the baddies in a way that does not enable the baddies to purely technically comply with the goodie guidelines while remaining baddies.)
The walled gardens don't give a shit about the "honest indies", they make 30% off of the micro transactions while doing nothing. Billions in effortless money.
Designing entire hardware, software, and backend platforms and investing billions of dollars into them every year is not nothing. If what these companies built took no work, try making your own platform to release games on and see how little work it truly needs.
Indeed—try to make a platform where a solo developer can create an app that is then distributed to almost the entire planet, where anyone can find, buy and install it (with a nearly 100% guarantee that it will work) with a click, and get paid for it without having to open branches in every jurisdiction and deliver paperwork for N different, constantly changing tax regimes.
Designing the hardware does not entitle you to extracting more money from anything. If you don't want to lose money on your hardware, don't sell it at a loss. (Which Apple isn't doing, nor are any of the Android device manufacturers.) I haven't seen Dyson try to extract 30% off of every hairdressing salon that uses their dryers.
> software, and backend platforms
Are made to attract users on the platform. With the intention of making money from it after. Cool. Quick question, do you pay for Chrome, or Firefox ? They invest hundreds of millions of dollars every year into it, how dare you not pay them 30% of every purchase you make online ?
> investing billions of dollars into them every year is not nothing
The billions have been invested initially. The ongoing costs of running the App Store / Play Store are not even close to a billion, especially not for Google that already owns all the network infrastructure necessary to run it.
>If what these companies built took no work, try making your own platform to release games on and see how little work it truly needs.
Sure, that's very simple: take any open publishing store on Android, and ask yourself why noone uses them for games delivery. I'll even add a hint: it's not because they don't offer diff based assets upgrades.
> The walled gardens don't give a shit about the "honest indies", they make 30% off of the micro transactions while doing nothing. Billions in effortless money.
Do you give a shit about honest indie devs? Putting them in quotes says you probably don’t.
If you did, perhaps you’d find that this is an obvious path to a better state of affairs that to walled garden operators is zero cost (or even profitable), financially and reputationally, while making it more economically viable to make good games that don’t use dark patterns to keep your kid glued to the screen and regularly asking for money to exchange for some in-game coins and lootboxes.
Ah yes, putting words inbetween quotes to, uh, quote someone is a very novel usage of quotes. As an aside, being indie isn't a guarantee for honestly: I have seen come incredibly scummy behavior from indies.
> zero cost (or even profitable)
Having to handle _more_ developers isn't zero cost, but let's assume they actually sell games and indeed, make profit. That would be great! I would love a mobile ecosystem where there is a variety of things, where my phone is an actual viable platform for more than just browsing online and shitposting on HN.
>financially
You fundamentally misunderstand just how much money gachas generate every year. You could release a dozen Hollow Knights, a dozen Balatros, a dozen Stardew Valleys every year, and you'd still make less money than taking 30% off of a _single_ gacha. Genshin Impact grossed $10 billion last year. WuWa, ZZZ, HSR all gross close to half a billion each, each year. Pokemon TCG is on track for 1.5bil. And that's just gachas: games like Call of Duty Mobile and other just print out money.
There are no universes, neither in Apple or Google's imagination (which is very locked in on how much money they're making right now, as opposed to how much they could) or in anyone reasonable's thoughts where indie games take off so much they overtake any amount of profit they're currently making. There's no catching up to the amount of content a team like Genshin's puts out every three months.
> reputationally
If you think Apple gives a single shit about reputation when they're the only dealer in town, I have news for you. If you think Google gives a single shit about reputation when 90% of traffic goes through their store anyways, I have news for you.
When games went "free to play", platform commissions for in-app purchases (sometimes misleadingly called "payment processing charges") were the only way that walled-garden game stores could make money from them.
The irony is that Japanese game platforms have been using the walled-garden licensing and platform fee business model for more than 40 years[1], and it continues today in the Nintendo eShop and PSN store. I doubt Nintendo and Sony are going to reduce their platform fees just because developers don't like them.[2]
Interestingly enough the Wikipedia article claims that Nintendo introduced DRM and licensing to combat shovelware. But shovelware on Nintendo platforms has continued to be a problem from the Wii to the current Switch eShop.
You are 100% right! The difference is that a phone is necessity that tends to a monopoly, unlike say a PlayStation or a handheld game platform. But no question in the game space where you can choose platforms, a walled garden is great. That's why Steam is really good, and if it wasn't you could get your games from the Windows app store, or the Epic Store..
The phone/necessity part of smartphones seems largely independent from the game store part, since you can usually choose from multiple wireless providers, sms/mms (and now rcs) all work, email works, and web browsers also work.
More seriously: There have always been mobile games that have a purchase price or ask for a single payment. You could find one right now. The vast majority of popular apps have in game transactions. Game developers just want to get paid for the work they do.
Interestingly, in the Apple App Store, there is no option to filter by "paid". Only free. I want an option to filter by "paid, no IAP". Actually, I don't mind IAp for things like new levels and such. It's just so badly abused by mobile games.
Apple made one concession to consumer protection law and the FTC by changing the "free" button to "get", but I'm sure they know how those slot machines work, and where the money comes from.
At one point in-app purchases were listed clearly and prominently so they were easy to inspect (and hopefully embarrassing for nonsense like $99 wheelbarrows of smurfberries[1].) Now it seems like IAP rates are hidden below the fold, unfortunately.
I'm not saying the Apple store isn't responsible for the problems of free to play. They really are. Apple has a memory of when their hardware was beholden to software like Adobe or Microsoft and they designed the store to avoid that problem. It really favors cheap apps, and they used to really discourage offering a sample and then unlocking the full app for a purchase. This was supposed to be so you didn't have "bait and switch" but really it just trained people to think no app was worth paying for. Even though they did pay so much for loot boxes..
So now there's an alternative way to pay. Let's be happy about that.
Every so often Apple will themselves feature a selection of popular pay-once-and-get-it-all games in the store as an ad capsule.
... actually, I just checked, and if you scroll down enough in the Games tab on your iPhone's App Store app, they seem to be running it now under "Pay Once & Play". Might be worth a look.
I feel pretty confident that Captain Marvel, Emilia Perez, Spy Kids, Sausage Party, The Last Jedi, and Ghostbusters 2016 aren't at much risk of going over the heads of audiences, but you're entitled to your opinion if you think they count as avant garde cinema
If a corporation can make money hand over fist by doing something, they will do it. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or unethical. As long as it's still highly profitable it will be done.
They might not sell "your" data outright, but it doesn't mean they won't sell inferences/assumptions that they make about you using your data.
The reality is that no matter how ethical the company you trust with that data is, you're still one hack or pissed off employee away from having that data leaked, and all of that data is freely up for grabs to the state (whose 3 letter agencies are likely collecting it wholesale) and open to subpoena in a lawsuit.
There are so many companies across many industries who are salivating at the thought of everyone using wearables to monitor their "health" and getting their hands on that data. Including law enforcement, lawyers, and other government agencies.
The next time I'm in the area I'll have to check to see if it's still true that copies of The Onion are offered all over the place at no cost (I'm guessing they don't do it anymore though). Back in the 90s I was actually shocked when I saw that people in other places had to pay money for them.
The last time I forgot to scan something hiding the back of my cart I caught the mistake as I was leaving and ran to another self-checkout to scan the item. The one employee they had watching over at least 7 self checkout stations thanked me personally because apparently if the cameras caught the error the overworked employee would have been responsible and might have lost her job.
reply