[andrewvc]

I can’t tell you how many professors I’ve had this exact conversation with.

It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t.

A good starting point would be fully banning all phones for the entirety of the school day in K-12.

[hardwaregeek]

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it'd be that bad for schools to be almost completely analog. Obviously not for classes like CS, but do math class es or English classes really need computers? The whole "digital learning" push feels like it hasn't resulted in significantly better learning than with a book, pen, and paper.

[beezle]

Totally agree. Unless the use of the computer is integral to the material at hand (learning to program, learning to solve problems numerically, modeling) it is superfluous. Tons of dough spent on making it "modern" just for the sake of it.

[paulcole]

> Obviously not for classes like CS

Why is this obvious? Unless you’re talking CS = Programming a specific language, I think it’d be better for the K-12 version of CS to be completely analog save for maybe a “lab” for students in later years of high school.

[hardwaregeek]

CS at the lower levels should be programming and playing with computers. What else should it be? Analysis of algorithms? That sounds dreadfully boring for a high schooler

[DrFalkyn]

We started with algorithm analysis freshman year CS, in the early 90s. It’s not too difficult for simple algorithms like bubble sort

Exams we would have to write code, or predict the results of code or spot bugs

My teacher was a bit of a dick and would sometimes intentionally leave out a brace. Therefore “does not compile” was sometimes a valid answer :-)

[LorenzoGood]

As a senior in high school, I have wanted the latter for most of my time here. I can program and fool around with computers on my own time (and more efficiently than in class). After taking (and being bored in) AP CS A freshman year, I have just dedicated more time to high level math classes instead.

[smugma]

I took AP CS freshman year (30+ years ago), spent the rest of high school learning UNIX, becoming a sysadmin, putzing around with computers. I did spend a summer taking the Berkeley course teaching SICP, but I regret it. I recommend saving that for when you’re a freshman. There will be plenty of time for the theory.

Bulking up on math in HS is smart. I took AP Calculus and then went to community college to take more calculus.

[LorenzoGood]

Yeah, I ended up spending a lot of time messing around with Linux, etc. Then I got bitten by the hardware bug and am off to school for EE instead.

[tekla]

High School CS was programming in Java 25% and 75% algorithms when I went to school.

[porridgeraisin]

Pretty much. We had one lab period and couple of classroom periods in a week. We even wrote java on notebooks! Can't imagine writing java without IDE autocomplete these days, but "back then"(it was just 7 years ago) I was banging out JOptionPanes and JButton event handlers for a selection sort frontend with pen and paper perfect syntax, all the options memorized. Of course, the salary calculator as well (you enter the different components, it subtracts tax and tells you the answer - obviously a simplistic version)

[paulcole]

So except for playing with computers class then school should be mostly analog?

Yeah, I do think that kids would get a ton out of hands-on analog classes where they learn logic, problem solving, etc.

[hardwaregeek]

Yep! Like how except for gym class, school should be mostly in classrooms

[VyseofArcadia]

It's fiction, but the NEAL Stephenson novel Anathem explored this idea.

[jevndev]

It really feels the same as weed/nicotine/alcohol/sex/other vices. If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit. We need to explain (and frequently reinforce) these negative effects of modern phone use so kids can grow up understanding them. Right now, it seems like a lot of people really only start to understand the impacts of this kind of phone use long after they're addicted. Hopefully informing them before that happens would help.

Of course, this kind of thing is easy to do wrong. Programs like D.A.R.E. and THRIVE tried going the way of fear tactics which seems to really not work well. We need to have an open and honest discussion about "yes, this is fun. But it DOES have a bad side" instead.

The last sticking point there is that it assumes people will be rational and come to the conclusion of using with moderation. Hopefully people can be rational... Otherwise I think there's no hope for us in solving the brainrot epidemic.

[braincat31415]

"We need to explain..."

From my own experience and that of fellow parents that I talked to, explanations will be dismissed outright by the all-knowing teenagers, and any attempt to have a rational conversation on the topic will fail. Just like any addict, kids will deny that they are addicted. I had to act once the smartphone addiction reached a disaster level. What worked the best for me was "no you cannot bring your phone to school or use it before the homework is done, that's my decision and I don't have to provide you with any explanation." Did this generate some resentment and a few tantrums? You bet, but I got the result I wanted, peace of mind and homework done on time. I disagree with you.

[quadrifoliate]

> outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit

I think it should be fine to outright ban them in certain contexts, like classroom learning; just as they are outright banned (usually) in theaters or playhouses or places of worship.

And to cite your example, even in the most liberal jurisdictions I think it's not acceptable for students to take drugs in the classroom. Phones are basically the same thing.

[jevndev]

Oop, I totally missed the "during the school day" part of the grandparent comment. I totally agree with banning them during the school day. My argument was against the point that the grandparent wasn't making which was banning phones from K-12 students both during and after the school day

[BJones12]

> If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit.

They may be 'forbidden fruit', but does that means that it would lead to more use of them?

Do you think people drank more in 2020 or 1920 during prohibition?

Do you think people smoked more weed in 2025 or, say, 1985 when it was less legal?

Do you think there is more gambling in 2025, or in 1925 when the laws banning it were still fresh?

I think you'll reach the conclusion that outright banning does in fact reduce the usage of the vice.

[charlie0]

OP didn't say ban. They said restrict. Moderation is what's needed here.

[jevndev]

> A good starting point would be fully banning all phones for the entirety of the school day in K-12.

Is what I was responding to in the grandparent of your comment

[elicksaur]

“Banning” during a specific time at a specific location is not really a “ban”. It is a restriction.

[jevndev]

Oh I just realized I missed the "during the school day" part of the comment I cited. That's totally my mistake. For what it's worth, I agree with banning during the school day but (although no one is making the point here) I would disagree with banning them from children everywhere always.

[beezle]

What is really needed is parents that teach their kids impulse control and how to prioritize, to know what is extracurricular and what is not. You can play video games, smoke weed, do whatever on your phone once your work is done, not before or during.

[Jaxan]

As a society we need to help parents to achieve that. It’s not helpful to just blame parents.

[monooso]

There was no mention of an outright ban, merely restrictions on use. Much as we have restrictions on where and when one can indulge in weed, nicotine, alcohol, and so forth.

[jevndev]

You are correct. I absolutely missed the "during the school day" stipulation.

[lm28469]

> It really feels the same as weed/nicotine/alcohol/sex/other vices ... banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit.

How many 10 years old smoke weed, have sex, and drink alcohol ?

10 years old spending hours per days on their phone on the other hand...

[pglevy]

We did this with our kids, now college freshman and high school junior, and it was absolutely worth it. In middle school we established "screen break" from Friday night to Saturday afternoon. It was challenging at first but they came to love it. We've had many conversations and read many books on those breaks (and still do). Advice to new parents: keep them off screens as long as possible, and then build in and enforce breaks that become a part of your family routine. Chances are they will end up noticeably different from other kids.

[gehwartzen]

It seems some are. My kid is in 4th grade in a city public school (US) and the district just this year banned all phones, tablets, and smart watches during the school day. We’ll see how it goes.

[hx8]

Are laptops also banned?

[gehwartzen]

No. Not sure what the expectations are for HS kids who use their laptops for classwork.

[jay_kyburz]

ACT Australia did K-10 starting 2024. It's been great!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-06/mobile-phone-ban-canb...

[sien]

Yeah. I was coming here to state this. It is working.

It's surprising that this isn't done everywhere.

Note, kids from year 4 (9 years old) in many parts of Australia do have a Chromebook.

[jaybrendansmith]

This is the ONE THING I wish I had done with my kids. They are both pretty good but the phones did absolutely nothing good for them.

[rmholt]

For what goal? Just for them to get instantly addicted once the ban is lifted? For them to lack any communications with their friends and to be excluded from their social circles discussing the newest tiktoks or whatever?

I think you chose well

[hx8]

To the end of reducing exposure during developmental periods, with the aim of having a long term benefit.

[rmholt]

Yeah that's fair.

I still don't believe that it's worth it, with the exclusion from their social circle causing a bigger health issue than social media, but I get it.

[kmoser]

First, lack of a phone won't cause them to be completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with. Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing. Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.

[rmholt]

> completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with.

I believe you underestimate the power of being "in". Even if the friends wouldn't be "true", it is still extremely valuable socially. That is, speaking as someone who, due to unrelated reasons, was prevented from fitting in fully. It may not hold much water from a stranger on the internet, but i would've given anything to be able to fit in more at that time. I believe it has set me back socially 3-5 years, with lasting consequences which I may never truly heal.

> Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing

Sure, but they won't learn that when you prevent them from participating activities with their friends. This isn't them deciding that they don't want to participate in something.

> Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.

Attention spans can be fixed.

And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that. You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will. And the damage done by controlling their life like that is more lasting. Their relationship with authority, with you, with their own autonomy will be forever changed. (Speaking as figurative you, I don't mean to imply you specifically) This teaches them "You don't have a right to own things the authority doesn't want you to own" (Or it teaches them how to lie and hide contraband.)

[goatlover]

Somehow kids were able to make friendships before everyone was online all the time. Perhaps they don't need to be spending time discussing the newest tiktoks. Maybe their friends should be hanging out and doing things.

[only-one1701]

As the parent of a young kid: how do you do this? Does this just mean not giving them a smartphone until they’re teenagers? Not letting them take it to school. My oldest kid isn’t even four yet, but I’m already wondering about how to limit his eventual phone usage and also not make him a social pariah.

[mrkpdl]

It should be enforced by the schools: put the phones in a tub in home group and hand them back out at the end of the day. If there’s an emergency call the office or the office calls you. Use exercise books for note taking, etc.

[ryandrake]

The "social pariah" thing is FUD. It's just people repeating what other people claim to be afraid of, and then becoming afraid of it themselves. Kids can be shitty--if they want to exclude someone or bully them, they're going to do it whether or not the victim has a cell phone. Conversely, if people will only be friends with you if you have a cell phone, then I have some bad news for you: They're probably not genuine friends.

[Agree2468]

You may consider it FUD, but that was 100% my reality. It's not about people only being friends with you because you have a phone, it's about the shared cultural experience that a group of kids have because of some media they have access to via the phone.

In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to.

I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.

[dghlsakjg]

Being banned from all forms of broadcast pop culture is a completely different thing than having limited access to phones and social media.

[JR1427]

Lead by example, and show there is much fun to be had away from phones etc.

I make sure that my daughter (6) sees me writing in my notebook, reading, making things etc. More often than not, she then wants to join in.

I will hold out giving her a smartphone as long as possible, and up until she has one, I will try and show her all the other fun things.

[nemo44x]

Tiktoking in the bathroom will be the new smoking in the bathroom.

[rmholt]

No. It's not the smartphones that are the problem. Smartphones are a wonderful invention, capable of connecting anyone anywhere.

It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent"

It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors.

There, the phone addiction crisis solved.

[anonym29]

If we can all agree that cannabis is bad for the still-developing mind, and can generally get on board with the idea that kids should be kept as far away from it as possible, because it's addicting, because it causes long-term alterations to brain development, because it diminishes motivation and hijacks executive functioning networks, why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?

I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.

Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.

[rmholt]

> why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?

I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.

> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.

Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.

[anonym29]

Sorry if my post was unclear, when I say "platforms", I am talking about Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, open-ended MMORPG's, etc - I agree that the problem is the addiction-optimized psychological experiments, not the operating system or device itself.

[rmholt]

Yes!!! That's why I would ban just the "addiction-optimized psychological experiments".

I would also ban them globally, not just for kids but like I'm sure that would be a whole 'nother discussion.

[rmholt]

Because phone is just a box of wires, without apps it's inert.

It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.

[anonym29]

Sure - to be clear, I am not suggesting banning technology itself. Computers and the internet were also a boon of joy and discovery for me. I self-started programming in TI-basic back in middle school because "computer science" classes that covered anything beyond typing and "here's how to use to a web browser, here's how to use a text editor" skills weren't available until high school for me. I have vivid and fond memories of learning visual basic and making my own GUI apps after this, before eventually starting to learn javascript, python, and "real" programming languages like C.

None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.

And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.

I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.

[rmholt]

> I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole.

Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.

> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.

That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.

> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,

Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting

[ThrowawayR2]

No, that doesn't address the incentives that cause all those things: maximizing engagement to maximize ad impressions for money. You have to choke the money supply off at the source or the big corporations will just find other engagement mechanisms to hook users to get at more profits.

Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.

[vohk]

> There, the phone addiction crisis solved.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV. Cutting back to chronological feeds might improve some things but I don't think that's the root of the issue.

I would suggest the primary difference between then and now is accessibility. As a kid, my screen time was limited not just by my parents indulgence but the social pressure from using a shared device. Smart phones let you carry your personal distraction with you.

I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.

[rmholt]

> I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV.

Yeah that's fair.

> I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.

Well to their friends in other classes ("Wanna go out after 3pm lesson").

Additionally, and socially, smart phones, if banned, would be instantly seen as a status symbol. And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality. The kids won't understand it, hell adults wouldn't. So it's also the case that you can't really ban them without really adverse social effects.

[hx8]

> And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality.

Probably something we should be encouraging in our youth.

[rmholt]

Sure, but the natural consequence is that they will be more inclined to distrust society, authority, and vote for anti-estabishment populist parties.

To quote a great man, we live in society. And it's better to work within a system and get to know it rather than it is to just hate it. And if the first experience of a large portion of youth is system beating them down, you can see how that's gonna grow a strong "tear it all down" mentality.

[kmoser]

I don't buy arguments from parents about why they can't just take away their kids' phones, or simply decline to buy them a phone in the first place.

My family didn't have a TV growing up. (This was way before the Internet, when TV was king and HBO and cable were a status symbol.) Me and my siblings tried every argument in the book to get them to buy one, to no avail. Out of the loop on TV pop culture? Boo-hoo. Peers make fun of you for not having a TV? Too bad, so sad. The result was that I participated in more activities that engaged my body and brain. Aside from being bad at TV pop culture trivia from those decades, I turned out just fine.

At the end of they day, parents need to set the standards that they want their children to live by, and stick with them. Even today, a phone is a luxury that a kid doesn't really need, and will likely contribute to low attention span and cause them all manner of anxiety. Don't take my word for it; many studies will back me up.

[dartharva]

You sound like one of the author's students. Just restricting juvenile phone use to dumb phones is obviously the more feasible solution than banning or manipulating entire platforms.

[rmholt]

I never said ban platforms? TikTok, Facebook could still very well exist and still make more money than any of us ever will. Just without the brain rotting engagement algorithm

[kmoser]

People will still easily find ways to become addicted to content streams, regardless of the algorithm. The algorithms just make it that much worse.

[Arisaka1]

Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?

I vaguely recall too students back in the era where our biggest distraction was MSN messenger and our university forums. They kept both off until late at night.

We're letting people experience the downsides of the attention economy when it's almost (if not entirely) too late to avoid the negatives.

[rmholt]

> Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?

Because social media is precisely in the short term benefit x long term risk that human brains are bad at conceptualizing. Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.

[prussia]

> Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.

Hardly anyone in the "west" gets pulled over by police for seat belt checks (unlike say, India, China), yet nearly everyone still wears them, because they understand if they don't, they'll probably become a stain on the asphalt. I imagine if tomorrow, a law passed that seat belts no longer had to be worn, most people would still use them. Perhaps the regulation and enforcement are only needed initially when not everyone is educated on the long term risks.

[odo1242]

To be fair, belts and phones aren’t the same things. Belts are popular now because wearing them is barely an inconvenience compared to the improvement in safety - abstaining from phones is way harder for the average person.

[ourmandave]

You'll also have to ban all the addictive games.

[rmholt]

To be honest I would, if only to be consistent with the above policy.

[layer8]

You’d have to ban websites with algorithmic feeds as well, like this very site we’re on.

[rmholt]

Fair. I suppose a "highest upvote" kind of feed would also be acceptable - so we don't kill reddit or hacker news

[layer8]

Reddit and HN can be very addictive, and Instagram and YouTube and TikTok with mere “highest upvote” per topic would still be. I’m doubtful that your strategy would do very much about the problem.

I’d actually prefer HN and Reddit to be just chronological (or “newest comment” on the above-thread level), like traditional forums.

[AlienRobot]

It's not acceptable. Being able to read only the upvoted messages warp our perception of the average. Chronological is better.

[Duwensatzaj]

Even on something as anonymous as 4chan where all comments are posted in chrono order I see a difference in behavior after they added direct links to comments so one could easily see how many reactions your comment got as opposed to actually reading every comment.

[James_K]

I've no clue why people have downvoted this; you're right as rain. A phone is nothing short of a digital slot machine and shouldn't be put in front of adults or children. These algorithms are designed for profit, not humanity. They have far greater control over us than they should.

[rmholt]

The funny thing is, they don't even have control. They can't push propaganda. They can just accelerate human desire. Through all the brain rot they have created, they didn't even gain anything significant, just a few % bump in "kEy pErFormAnce iNdiCatoRs".

And they doomed a generation in the process

[James_K]

Capitalism is a system that rewards the selfish and greedy. If you don't pursue every bump in key performance indicators you can, then someone else will and they'll eat your lunch.

[rmholt]

Agreed, the problem is capitalism /s

But seriously agreed, that's why I propose what I propose - when it's banned no-one can do it and no one can eat your lunch (*)

(*) Subject to exceptions, as the War on Drugs can attest, but I think it would work in this instance

[atemerev]

Including Hacker News, presumably.

[oceanhaiyang]

This is a really good take. My mother did this until high school and some of my favorite classes forced this. Lectures were so much more engaging with no computer distracting me.

[lopespm]

> It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t.

Love this phrase. What might happen is that the next generation, upon seeing this opportunity, will do the opposite of their elders and highly value focus, and more readily dismiss quick gains.

[fzeroracer]

Smartphones are easy to blame, but they aren't the core of the problem. They're not just a thing used in the US, but across the world and we don't see the same problems in say, European school systems. The actual issue is multifaceted:

1) Parents in the US are overworked, underpaid and (increasingly) unable to participate in the lives of their children. It should come as zero surprise then that phones are used as a way to get kids out of their hair. If you don't fix this problem then banning phones entirely won't matter, because parents will yell, scream and quite literally assault your schools for taking away phones from their kids.

2) Our K-12 educational system is broken. Kids are graduating with lower literacy rates than ever. College is functioning less as higher education and more like remedial programs, having to teach basic topics that should've been covered as part of the core curriculum.

3) Teachers are also underpaid, overworked and having to deal with the deficiencies in parenting as well as the advent of AI making cheating significantly easier and harder to detect.

These three factors all compound to create a whole generation that we're effectively failing. And given the attacks/teardown of college as an institution, I fear we're going to have our own version of the 'lost generation' until people get angry enough to fix it or our business capabilities collapse.

[doright]

Parenting and upbringing could be an important and overlooked reason for this lost generation.

I can only speak anecdotally. Way before smartphones were invented, I had enforced limits on computer time to 1-2 hours a day via time tracking software. All this did was breed resentment between me and my parents that led to conflict and punishment. As soon as I got to college I was back to being on my computer all night nearly every day, relieved that I didn't have to put up with them anymore.

The technology restriction wasn't the beginning and end of my mentality all through college. The true cause was how I was raised and my relationship with my parents. They were the only real bullies I've ever had.

People will always attack apps, algorithms and corporations since they're easy to feel powerless about. But if a developing person is given good enough reason to doomscroll so that they able to forget the pain that was imbued in them from an early age, then 1) the outcome in the article results, 2) a major underlying factor in the analysis of why we're failing young people will be missed, and people will assume it's solely the fault of addictive "algorithms" and capitalism, and 3) it's unlikely that people are going to open up about stressors as personal as childhood trauma (a cause) as opposed to behavioral addictions like doomscrolling (a symptom), so the focus will be on attacking and regulating the symptoms, and this cycle of trauma will only exacerbate and repeat itself.

A certain level of trauma can steal decades away from developing persons and set them up for failure, with or without smartphones, and smartphones only make their problems worse. Not to mention, past a certain age people start to blame you for your own failings, even though many of them have roots in actions taken against you that were not your fault, and this only contributes to feelings of misery and hopelessness. Knowing this firsthand, it's no wonder so many people find little else interesting than doomscrolling all day - myself included.

You can regulate apps and restrict smartphones, but I have no idea how to fix bad parenting/emotional trauma at scale. What goes on in families is private by its nature, emotional abuse is legitimized if you never lay a hand on the child and some arbitrary standard of defiance is crossed, and intergenerational trauma can have completely arbitrary causes going back decades, which end up transmitted as meaningless stressors to a victim trapped in an endless search of anything at all to hold close to them...

[blatantly]

Hold on. I thought no phones K-12 all day was normal?

[artursapek]

That only works if all their friends follow the same rule at home. Send your kids to a Waldorf school and thank me later.