[pjc50]

I suspect they don't really; once you give a teen a smartphone your control over what websites they visit ends.

(you will reply "don't do that then")

But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them. The parents recognize it's a collective action problem.

[everdrive]

Quite a twist, no? This generations of parents are telling their children "Well all your friends are jumping off a bridge, so you need to as well."

[rayiner]

The generations of parents who came up with the original bridge hypothetical also worked to have the government ban alcohol and cigarette sales to minors.

[mothballed]

You can order cigars, loose tobacco and rolling papers, and wine straight to your house without any ID check, all completely legal. I did it as a minor and you can still do it today (well today you can also add "CBD" on to that list). The truth is there is no meaningful controls on teenage minors getting access to tobacco and alcohol. The limitations used are just window dressing for Karen to pretend like the government is doing something.

[nativeit]

They should (and frequently do) require ID for delivery. The postal carrier will literally check ID before delivering the package. It costs about $8 extra. Any company that’s not using these services is exposed to some dire consequences if/when ATF comes knocking.

[mothballed]

In practice USPS carriers everywhere I've lived completely ignore the check and drop it straight in the box. Good luck getting the government to prosecute themselves, particularly when ATF needs USPS for investigations against private individuals. And AFAIK, since the carrier requested to check the ID has no idea what's actually in the package, there's no mens rea to even prosecute them.

It's a legal loophole where the seller requests the check but the person delivering it has no binding liability to do so and they simply will not because it takes extra time. The economics practically guarantee the check won't be performed and the interface mechanics of carrier-seller means there's no practical way to prosecute either party when the carrier doesn't perform a requested ID check.

[rayiner]

For most of the time these laws have been in place--since the late 1800s--you had to buy alcohol and tobacco in person. You couldn't bypass the law through shady Internet dealers.

[mothballed]

Mail order tobacco has been a thing since practically the mail existed.

https://www.periodpaper.com/cdn/shop/products/EM2_315_1200x1...

The last time I ordered some tobacco a major, non-shady, licensed vendor literally had USPS pick it up and drop it straight in my mailbox.

[rayiner]

Mail order back then involved checks or money orders, which minors would not have had easy access to, or cash on delivery, which would have involved an interaction with a postal deliveryman.

Moreover, the point of these laws isn't to prevent any particular illegal sale. It's to eliminate the market and reduce the volume. In-person, cash transactions are difficult for parents to track. But most kids aren't going to risk their parents finding credit card charges from mail-order alcohol and tobacco vendors. If a large fraction of kids were actually using that loophole, then enforcement of those laws would be a higher priority, like it is with in-person sales.

Product bans do, in fact, work. For example, sports betting has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court overturned a ban on online gambling: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/01/sports-bettin....

[goodcanadian]

Also, it is arguably dangerous to not let your teen have a phone in a time when payphones (and to a great extent landlines) no longer exist.

[CivBase]

Payphones were mostly extinct even when I was a kid. I didn't have a cellphone either and smartphones didn't exist yet, except for the extremely rare Blackberry. But it wsn't a problem because basically every establishment around me had a landline phone I could use in an emergency. Now even landlines are extinct because just about everyone has their own phone on them at all times. Phones are easier to come by now more than ever. Kids have never been safer, even without their own phones.

[technothrasher]

Even when I was teen back in the 1980s while payphones were still going strong, they weren't everywhere you wanted them to be. My mother had a standing rule that if I was going to be out past 10pm, I had to call her to let her know. Depending upon where I was, it was often a pain to find a payphone before 10pm so I didn't get in trouble. If I had an emergency, it wasn't at all guaranteed I'd be near enough to a payphone for it to be helpful.

[akramachamarei]

Dumbphones are still a thing

[tombot]

I really don’t know why there isn’t a brand that’s capitalising on this.

Messaging, calls, maps, notes but no way to take or view images. Marketed simply from a global brand.

[kube-system]

There are many brands that have tried the "phone that does less" angle. They haven't been very successful.

[delusional]

Because of the ostracization problem. Kids are ruthless, and failure to conform is swiftly punished.

[mothballed]

I knew so many kids that got into selling cigarettes, alcohol, or weed because their parents did not want to buy them things that would facilitate social integration. Most optimistically, if you don't give a kid a smart phone then they're going to mow lawns or something and get one and hide it; that scenario isn't really a bad one.

[smelendez]

Images are also a huge part of messaging. For memes obviously, but also other communication (here’s the flyer for the event, look what the teacher wrote on my exam, should I get this gift for mom, look what my significant other sent me — what do you think I should say?), etc.

[HlessClaudesman]

Parents need to weigh potential otracization against the cost of giving a smart device, which could be as high as ending their normal childhood development.

Personally I think no phones until 16 is a good rule.

[kube-system]

Parents need to weigh the potential bad effects of social media against the cost of otracization, which could be as high as ending their normal childhood development.

Social development is very critical during school-age years.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

16 is steep, at 14 I was going around by bus a lot, having google maps to track when, what and where the bus is stopping would have made an enormous difference (this is a big city, changing route due to delays is possible). I wish I had it. (I had a normal phone, smartphones didn't exist yet)

[tokioyoyo]

Easier to say. Your child will just despise you for willingly making their school life hell.

[esseph]

> Because of the ostracization problem. Kids are ruthless, and failure to conform is swiftly punished.

Shocker, but those are probably not the people you are going to give a shit about after you leave school.

[wizzwizz4]

Shocker, but a lot of psychological damage can be done before you leave school. Do children really not have value, except as far as they become adults?

[Markoff]

there is, pretty much every single smartphone brand offers parental controls

nobody stops you from limiting your kid to bunch of whitelisted apps, for instance whatsapp (it has parental controls as well), duolingo, wikipedia, phone, SMS, calculator, maps, flashlight, sudoku, chess, camera

not exactly sure why you wanna ban cameras

[bluGill]

Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone. I don't want my kids to be someplace where there are not some responsible adults around (drunk adults are not responsible)

Note that I agree with your point overall. My kids have phones for times when they are away and might need to contact me. I'm just saying it isn't as bad as it sounds.

[onion2k]

Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone.

This isn't very compatible with also teaching children that they can't trust the majority of adults, and that every stranger is a potential danger.

[subscribed]

That trope is pretty dangerous in itself (there WILL be time they have to rely on the unrelated adult), and I'm pretty adamant on teaching my kids that the vast majority of adults can be trusted, instead trying to instill Tricky People in them: https://fitzroyelc.com.au/the-tricky-people-lesson-you-need-...

[bluGill]

Thanks for that, it is a much better idea/link than the common stranger danger. It also matches better to what other groups (schools, scouts) that I know of are teaching kids.

[rel_ic]

Good point - folks should stop teaching them that. If your kid is really in a sea of dangerous adults their phone won't save them anyway.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone. I don't want my kids to be someplace where there are not some responsible adults around (drunk adults are not responsible)

I remember about 10 or 12 years ago, I'd answer every incoming call. Many were wrong numbers (guy who had the phone number before we was, I kid you not, some sort of wine salesman... people were wanting to order crates of wine). But I'd answer. Now, not so much. I get 15 calls a day some days, all are robots. I screen through voicemail transcription most of the time, unless I recognize the number. Blocking does not good. Numbers in my area code mean nothing... a surprising number of robot calls match my own exchange number (why? what's the point?). For 3 weeks a few months ago, one even matched my own phone number but for the last two digits being transposed, but it wouldn't leave a voicemail.

I no longer have the reasonable ability to answer strange phone numbers. If it were just mean, I'd chalk it up to some idiosyncratic neurosis and be quiet, but my own impression is that everyone else is doing the same thing. We not only tore down the old POTS network, we got rid of all the norms around it.

[arjie]

The alternative networks have solved this problem for me. I don’t get spam calls on Signal or WhatsApp though WhatsApp and Telegram do both have a spam text problem.

I also have a phone number from a different area and I blocked that area code and everything near it.

[bluGill]

10 years ago I was wondering if things would reach that point. However these days I almost never get junk calls and so I answer the phone again. I guess our experience is different.

[pixl97]

Is your phone company blocking them?

I have phone numbers in an area code that just seems to get flooded with spam calls. Even our unpublished numbers get them so it doesn't seem like directed attacks, just broadcast spam.

[bluGill]

It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't know. There have been enough complaints that I'd expect everyone to do some blocking.

[pwg]

> a surprising number of robot calls match my own exchange number (why? what's the point?).

The robocallers have found that if the fake caller id given matches the area code and exchange of the number being called, that more of the recipients are willing to answer.

And from a robocaller's perspective, getting folks to answer is critical to being able to transfer them to someone in the scam boiler room for reaping.

[szszrk]

> Not really because nearly every adult has a phone with unlimited calling, and will allow you to make a call from their phone.

that's not even true for adults. Why would you assume it's true for kids?

[bluGill]

It is close enough to true where I live anyway. I don't know your situation.

[delusional]

Which part is untrue?

[zdragnar]

> and will allow you to make a call from their phone.

People can be wildly reluctant to just hand over a thousand or two dollars worth of equipment to a teenager in a busy street and hope they don't run off with it. Smartphone theft is still a thing.

[mothballed]

When I was homeless I would just ask people to call on my behalf. If it was an innocuous message about 10-50% of people would be willing to do it. I've even gotten people (complete strangers) to make phone calls for me while I was in handcuffs and everyone thought I was the bad guy but even then they were willing to make a call. You don't ask for the phone, you ask for someone to relay the message.

[delusional]

What hellscape are you living in? I have never had anyone try to trick me like that. I'm not saying theft doesn't exist in Denmark, but it is not something I have ever considered when helping a person out.

[ctoth]

> People can be wildly reluctant to just hand over a thousand or two dollars worth of equipment

Who owns a $2,000 phone which isn't insured and should they really be leaving their house?

[thinkingtoilet]

Don't do it then. :)

It's not hard. If they need to be contacted get them a dumb phone. And yes, my kids will miss out. They will miss out on their attention span being destroyed, their ability to critically think destroyed, body issues, radicalization, horrible influences, etc... My children will miss out on all that and I'm very glad that will be the case. I'm not sure why other parents are rushing to destroy their kids brains but that's their choice.

[dghlsakjg]

Or they’ll be mildly resourceful and pickup a cheap Walmart phone, or a friend’s old phone and learn that they can’t be open with you.

I ran a summer camp for teenagers. They know how to get around that stuff if they want. They know how to hide it from their parents to keep access.

You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy.

Below a certain age I’m sure it works for a time, but you will eventually have to find a balance.

That’s why parents want bans. Their kids are going to go where the other kids are. If they are all banned on instagram, they won’t care about finding a way onto a platform where none of their friends are.

[thinkingtoilet]

This is always the response. I'm not an idiot. I understand kids will do things to break the rules. The point is, it won't be something they have access to constantly. If they see a phone at a friend's house that's fine.

>You’ll do far better to explain how these things are harmful, and help them make decisions that are healthy.

Yes. And the healthy decision is to not have a phone. That's like saying I should let my kid eat ice cream for dinner every night but talk to them about how it's better to eat healthy. I'm a parent. It's my job to make some decisions for my children.

[dghlsakjg]

It sounds like you have a plan!

Best of luck.

Sucks that we’re stuck as parents running an experiment on children where the only beneficiaries are corporations, and there is no correct answer.

[postexitus]

I can smell the reply of someone who doesn't have a teenager from a mile. Yes, you will do everything right. Yes, your kids will be perfect. Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face.

[RandallBrown]

> once you give a teen a smartphone your control over what websites they visit ends.

Isn't it pretty easy to set up a whitelist of apps/websites kids are allowed to use?

Whether or not that's a healthy thing for your parent/child relationship is a different question.

[edoceo]

Not easy. Kids can bypass very easy. Like those security-theatre apps companies use - but crappier. Then, once on a site/app like Instagram or Roblox it's a whole other layer of whitelist to manage (if possible).

It's simpler to take the phone away. And iPad. And stop hanging out with your friends that have it.

Phone management is hard to solve for pre-teen and teens.

It's like taking heroin away from an addict. They hate you for helping.

[vlovich123]

> But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them. The parents recognize it's a collective action problem.

OP already gave you your answer, you just chose to ignore it

[larrik]

on iOS this is basically impossible

[mwigdahl]

Using the built-in Screen Time tools, yes. Qustodio works pretty well though as an add-on product. Not perfect UX, not perfect functionality, but it's the best I've found.

[AnonymousPlanet]

Maybe legally banning minors from smartphones instead of from arbitrary websites is the better idea.

[Emanation]

So does grounding a kid, so I guess parents shouldn't do that either unless all parents collectively agree to ground their children.

[jraph]

That's not remotely comparable. Grounding is very temporary. (not arguing in favor of social media, I'm pretty much against them, but I'm quite interested in how to deal with their existence)

[Dylan16807]

Are you arguing that if something is fine as a deliberate punishment it's fine full-time? If that's not your point I can't figure it out.

[esseph]

> But also: cutting one kid off from social networks ostracises them.

2 of my 3 have never touched social media are are healthy, functioning adults with jobs and friends.

FOMO chasing Jones family bullshit.