[quantadev]

It certainly seems like someone would've invented a Kid Friendly phone by now that's completely safe, and doesn't allow access to the "real" internet at all, but only an ability to send texts without images, make voice calls, etc. Now that we have AI it would be easier, an you could potentially give "Google" access that's censored into a "child friendly" output by the AI. You could have a texting app where friends can talk, but only to kids in their own school for example, or at least limited by geographical area, to foster friendships IRL, rather than some Chinese Bot being able to trick your kid into eating Tide Pods or whatever their latest Attack on America happens to be.

But TBH making kids continually solve math problems seems a bit mean to me. Like making a kid do pushups for food if they're overweight. Too militaristic and authoritarian for my liking, but I can respect your creativity for creating that. It's good to try new ideas.

[akho]

“Child friendly output” is not a solution. It is the problem. I trust my 9-yo to avoid porn or violence; I don’t trust him to be able to resist the hours of inane content on YouTube Kids &c. Using AI to facilitate access to more of that, while censoring reality, is the opposite of what’s needed.

[quantadev]

> I trust my 9-yo

Welp, there's your first mistake.

[graemep]

So make a phone without all the things that make it so profitable? Limit what they can be sold? You would have to sell it at a premium for less functionality.

There are ways of locking down phones and apps, I think. I am pretty sure there are apps that will do most of what you want, but they do not have critical mass.

I did set up a Jitsi server for my daughter and her friends at one point when another parent was not keen on allowing kids access to chat and video apps.

You can give kids a basic phone instead of a smartphone.

[quantadev]

Right, I didn't mean it necessarily had to be on it's own hardware. I don't have any Android development experience, but it seems like android could have a version that's as locked down a this.

If I had kids I wouldn't even allow use of a smartphone. I think hardly any BigTech execs let their own kids use these dumpster fires called smartphones and social media. They know there's almost zero benefits to it. Just leads to brain damage, laziness, ADHD, psychological disorders like depression, life-threatening risk-taking, and even su*cicd.

[graemep]

Depends on age, individual, usage and circumstances. My kids had phones as teens, and they were useful to some extent. It also depends what they do - social media + doomscrolling is the worst thing.

There is Android support for locking things down for kids, but I do not know how effective it is - mine are adults of close to being an adult now.

Its also hard to do without. I would have to pay a lot more for my daughter's bus tickets to get to school if she did not use the bus company app (because that would mean daily tickets instead of monthly which are a lot cheaper). Its where a lot of kids not only discuss things and social, but organise things (although I encourage doing that at a desktop rather than a phone when possible) so kids without get left out.

[quantadev]

I agree with all that. Nowadays kids are so addicted to phones, the phone is like a toy (even like a baby pacifier) that they simply never outgrow even into adulthood. They can't sit at a stoplight without needing a "fix" like a junkie. It's so sad.

[graemep]

I somewhat agree, and it is very harmful, but adults who did not have phones as kids can be just as bad. I have even seen someone posting on social media (with a photo of what was happening) to complain about a child not putting their device down!

It is not just sad, it is harmful. "What is life if full of care, we have no time to stand and stare". It is the opposite of mindfulness.

[quantadev]

I dunno. My formative years were the 1970s, and I don't think anyone my age will have a genuine panic attack if denied access to their pacifier like today's kids (and adults) do.

[dylan604]

I'd rather solve math problems than CAPTCHAs any day of the week.

[quantadev]

But would you make your kid do CAPTCHAs every time they need to earn some privilege? We're talking about what's appropriate for kids, not what's easy or hard for adults or kids. I mean why not make them earn dessert by doing push-ups? Because it's mean, that's why.

[dylan604]

If it was up to me, I'd make them do 5 push ups and 5 crunches instead. Or putting the devices down altogether. It's not mean to make your kids do physical activity. In fact, if you are not making them do physical activity, I'd say you are negligent as a parent. I guarantee you that if you had your kids start doing pushups and crunches they would get to the point of it being a nothing burger to do it. It will be a bunch of moaning and complaining at the start, but that goes away. It's just as much of a conditioning as the kid crying and being rewarded with a device.

[quantadev]

If you wanna have successful kids just make 'em solve a coding challenge on a white board for food and/or medical and dental care, whereby noncompliance or failure earns them a night out in the tent in the back yard, especially in winter. You wanna be a disciplinarian, then let's get it right, amirite?

[dylan604]

no, now you're just being obstinate because you think it's cool on the internet or something. if you think doing 5 push ups and 5 crunches is punishment, then we're just on different planets. fine, if you're so against physical exercise. then make the ankle biters clean their room, take out the trash, walk the dog (oops physical exercise again), or any of a number of other things. unless you're one of those parents who thinks chores are too taxing for their sweetwiddleones

[quantadev]

I think you took my post a bit too seriously. I have no kids, but I just know the topic of how to discipline children is hotly debated among the "experts" (if there are any).