[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.)

[kmoser]

> And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that.

Every parent exercises some form of control over their child. (Cookie before dinner? No, sorry.) Children need to learn boundaries and it's up to the parents to set those boundaries. It's basic parenting, and isn't as nefarious as you're making it out to be.

> You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will.

In my experience this is untrue. I grew up when TV was the primary medium of household entertainment, and yet I was the sole child in my class, and probably my whole school, to not have at TV at home (a deliberate choice on my parents' part). Now that I'm grown up, I'm thankful for it.

[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.