Carmen Osorio, expert in technology addiction: ‘It’s not a good idea to give children a smartphone; in any case, you let them borrow yours’
Carmen Osorio, expert in technology addiction: ‘It’s not a good idea to give children a smartphone; in any case, you let them borrow yours’
She advocates for prohibiting the use of phones with internet capabilities to those under 16, and states that the best parental control is, precisely, the parents
I'm torn on this topic because on the one hand there's enough evidence for the harm it does, but one thing these finger wagging experts seem to ignore is that if you keep kids isolated from the tools then you're leaving them behind.
I was probably an Internet addict as a kid with dial up and a CRT monitor, but I don't regret it given how well it prepared me for the tech-dominated present.
I'm inclined to agree. I was definitely an internet addict when I was a teenager, but now as a 40 year old, I'm persistently depressed by how many people my age simply cannot use more than the absolute basics of their phone and computer. Like sure, they can send a text and write in a Word document, but become completely paralysed by anything more complicated than that because they're so terrified they'll break something if they click on the wrong button. Those of us that are used to technology have no fear of pressing buttons to find out what they do.
I feel like there ought to be a sensible middle ground somewhere, where kids can be taught how to use the tools they'll be relying on as adults, without exposing them to all the downsides of the internet and exploitative apps.
I gave my kids phones that have no data plan and are old enough that a lot of stuff just doesn’t work.
They can text and call and use a web browser, but no snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Telegram or Tiktok. Seems to work well.
I'm a father of two young kids nowadays, and I also was a teenager in the 90s with internet access when my parents didn't really know what it is.
I think her statement should read "no unrestricted/unlimited smartphone access for children", but I think for a child time limited, guided smartphone access is important - just by letting her use my phone now and then I don't think I'd be able to have her build up the media competency required for not wasting her pocket money on nonsensical predatory games when she's a teenager.
She's 7 now - she generally can chat with a limited amount of people (family members and some friends), make pictures, and request app installation. I'm approving pretty much every free app nowadays - at the beginning I was curating, but we went over game mechanics several times, so she's now recognizing predatory or low effort games herself, and gets rid of them after trying them out. I have my doubts educating a teenager with significantly more technical skills, disagreeing with everything you say, and some ability to throw money at the problem will be as open as her to slowly learning those kind of pitfalls.
God I hate "screen time" discourse. Not all activity that happens on a screen is of equivalent value.
Tootally. 95% of smartphone screen time is entertainment or distractions of some form. Not something we (or kids) need to carry around at all times.
Dial-up and a CRT implies you had to learn a little bit about computers in order to use them for entertainment. A baby can use a modern smartphone. It's not "preparing" them for anything beides being unable to self-pacify without consumption.
I generally agree. I think there are no great answers, but the expert they interviewed makes good points. The main point that resonates with me is the network effects: if everyone feels pressured to begin using tools because they feel like everyone else is on them, it's very difficult for any parent to constrain their kid's use.
Age prohibitions aren't very restrictive because they're difficult to enforce. They're basically just advice and a legal tool to go after the very most flagrant business targeting minors.
As for the positive effects: that's a great point. I want my kid to have access to explore cyberspace in the same way I want them to have access to explore our city and nearby wildlands. I want them to have as much freedom as possible while teaching them to recognize and avoid danger. I think in all these cases, exposure with supervision before gradually increasing unsupervised access to areas that have become familiar is the only strategy to achieve that that in aware of.
A non-smartphone, that is, a cell phone like the ones that today’s parents had when we were young and with which we made calls and sent text messages, was enough for us, and it did not cause addiction.
That's not the way I remember it. Texting addiction was a thing. That's how Twitter became popular; it was basically a way to broadcast SMS to friends at first.
I guess it's a matter of degrees.
Ad-based services are the real problem here, I think. You don't hear people complaining about Wikipedia addiction.
I'm a Wikipedia addict but I'm not complaining
Yeah and I remember playing Snake for half a day. And spending all the school breaks bragging with the phones. And once they had color displays, we shared funny 5 second video clips each day. And that was more than 20 years ago.
To be fair, I don't think we were more addicted than you were 'addicted' to Pokemon cards. Extensively watching Peppa pig and Minecraft Lets-plays on daddy's phone at the age of 3 is a new level, though.
Texting addiction was a thing.
It was? Honestly asking. Texting for me was cumbersone (T9) and .10c each (recieving too!) For my friends and I, texts were a means to an end (meeting up usually), not a place to have conversations.
You're not wrong about ads though, the main difference today is that many apps are engineered to be addictive.
For teens it almost certainly was. The "no phone policy" of many American high schools was implemented long before the iPhone. And yeah, texts may have been 10c each but that wasn't your 10c ;)
Agreed! That quote shifts the blame onto parents, and completely ignores a decade's worth of evidence that today's social media platforms were designed to be as addictive as possible. On purpose. For better "engagement metrics" so that they can get kids' eyeballs on more ads.
Q. Let’s make a distinction between cell phone and smartphone. Which one do you think is more appropriate?
A. A non-smartphone, that is, a cell phone like the ones that today’s parents had when we were young and with which we made calls and sent text messages, was enough for us, and it did not cause addiction.
Text messaging was absolutely addicting, and had the distinction of being one of the very first forms of always-on, instant-access bullying. Osorio seems blind to the detrimental implications of her own experience.
I agree with you however I do think there's something to be said about the actual actions behind it.
Addicted to texting was certainly a thing, I remember others certainly having it growing up and I myself remember the anticipation. But, it literally is just talking to your friends. At the very least the nature of conversation, to me personally, takes away some of the negative connotations. Being connected to a friend as a form of escapism of the real world, often with kinship as your friend felt very similar to how you did.
Compared to the usage today where it's not conversational. The endless scrolling through posts, to the point where people like and I didn't make enough content for the feed so other random content starts getting added. If the social media does have communication interactions, it's likely not someone you know from real life and the depth of the interactions aren't as deep. When texting all day you either run out of things to say and become complacent with the menial texting or you engage and delve deeper. Some early socials were able to mitigate this by still being able to have personality through it - obviously MySpace, but others like Gaia Online as well were apt for having an online presence. Now everyone and everything is so bland and exactly the same.
It was a tactical move by social media, widening the scope of meaningful interactions out into the friends list on the internet. Why stay talking to one to three people all day when you can be talking at 150+ people every day!
Anyway I hope this makes sense lol. I definitely agree that both were addicting but I do think texting at least is rooted in a social bonding and then reinforced with friendship at school, unlike the contemporary options where the friends likely aren't even in the same state (which isn't inherently bad by any means, but having that tactile friendship makes a huge difference)
Well said.
Even before mobile phones, there where paid phone services, some about sex but some just to talk to people, that got people addicted.
I remember something called "the party line" where you would dial a paid number and you would be connected to sort of a group chat with some other people.
Some people even got in debt because of massive phone bills.
So, what's the correct age? I suppose withdrawing smartphones until the age of 18 works as well as no sex until marriage or no alcohol until 21. I mean at some age you need to slowly learn to grow up and handle the adult world. Including nasty things like addicting stuff. You're not going to stop getting older.
I am not in agreement with the notion that we should not give children smartphones. I am of the opinion that there comes a time, usually during early adolescence, that a smartphone becomes a safety feature of parenting — namely, the tools it provides for location tracking, and very quick two-way communication. The moment the child is starting to become more autonomous and is going to events with friends, staying at their friends’ houses for sleepovers, going on multi-day field trips, and so forth, is the moment a smartphone becomes an increasingly necessary safety measure.
The first step in dealing with addiction is understanding it and identifying it. The problem is that parents often don’t speak to their children about the dangers, and what it could mean, with concrete examples. And this can be expanded as a general parenting issue across more than just addiction. Open and honest communication is how kids can learn without always resorting to the fuck-around-and-find-out method.
Unfortunately, it's not like that. The current state of internet services and social media is inherently addictive and problematic, and that's especially true in formative years.
While education is extremely important, it won't be enough.
My opinion and anecdotal experience is that, yes, it is like that. It’s the same argument concerning sex education. It’s the same argument for almost all child rearing topics. It starts with open and honest communication as early as possible and not sheltering the children from reality. Preparing the child is all we can do as parents. Hiding them from the realities of their surroundings by denying them aspects of it simply makes them want more and they will go to lengths to get it — even so far as to steal, or lie. While I’m not saying give a 3 year old their own device, I am saying that there comes a time in the maturation of the child where it can be a useful tool for both the parents and the child. You teach a child to use a knife, and the dangers of mishandling it, before you let them have one. I’m also not saying all my examples are apples to apples, but the education of using potentially dangerous things is a concept that pervades all child rearing and it’s unrealistic, and I would say possibly does more harm, to keep them from it during their whole childhood.
But I’m not here to convince you or anyone. I simply voiced my viewpoint.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk :)
Happy New Year!!
Use parental controls.
It's not that hard to give them the access you need them to have while completely removing anything you don't want them to have.
I don't really have a formed opinion on this subject. (Though I have some experience with certain things where holding back in childhood has lead to potentially much bigger addictions)
But I can tell you that my uncle bought smartwatches to his children. The watches are only allowed to call family members & have GPS tracking on them, have no games, no Youtube no distractions. They are exactly what you are describing, a safety feature. (though the kids regularly dualwear them to cover for each other, so .... :D )
The first step in dealing with addiction is understanding it and identifying it. The problem is that parents often don’t speak to their children about the dangers, and what it could mean, with concrete examples.
The issue of addiction to technology is deeply rooted in the way our brains are structured. This is particularly concerning for children and teenagers, as their brains are not fully developed until around the age of 21. Simply having conversations about the dangers of addiction is not a sufficient solution, especially considering that many adults are also addicted to technology. After all, here we are, possibly spending time online arguing with strangers instead of engaging in more productive activities.
To address this issue, it's crucial to move away from a black-and-white mindset. Extremes are rarely beneficial. It may be necessary for children to have smartphones for safety and communication purposes, but these devices should come with certain restrictions. For instance, limiting the ability of children to install any app they want or restricting excessive screen time could be effective measures. By implementing these controlled measures, we can provide the necessary safety net while also safeguarding the mental and emotional well-being of younger users.
However, real-world actions should be informed by scientific evidence. Any approach we adopt needs to be backed by data (and not opinions) proving its effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes.
After all, here we are, possibly spending time online arguing with strangers instead of engaging in more productive activities.
This feels like a false equivalency. Just because I decided to engage in this post has no bearing on any addiction patterns of mine or the validity of such an activity.
but these devices should come with certain restrictions. For instance, limiting the ability of children to install any app they want or restricting excessive screen time could be effective measures. By implementing these controlled measures, we can provide the necessary safety net while also safeguarding the mental and emotional well-being of younger users.
They do. I used exactly those features on my child’s. If parents choose not to employ them and become educated on the capabilities of the devices, not much else can be done. But this is a broad issue that extends well beyond smartphones.
However, real-world actions should be informed by scientific evidence. Any approach we adopt needs to be backed by data (and not opinions) proving its effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes.
I agree completely. But ultimately the parents have to know what they are doing and how their knowledge and actions will affect their children. It seems just as disingenuous to blanket smartphones as the problem when it really boils down to parents, education, and understanding the maturity level of their own child.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Agreed. We bought my son a phone when he was traveling between states and flying as an unaccompanied minor a bunch because of split parenting. He was about nine. We had strict rules about when he was allowed to use it and when he ABSOLUTELY was not allowed to NOT have it. We also didn't turn on the data (and made him use Wifi) until he was 12.
We absolutely NEEDED him to have it, given those conditions.
As someone who has built a career in building and maintaining digital services, a lot of what Carmen talks about rings very true to me, especially this part:
"The platforms make money based on the time we spend on them, and they don’t hesitate to use unethical, addictive resources, so how are you going to ask a 10-year-old or a 13-year-old to stop, if it’s even hard for us adults?"
I've struggled with social media and technology addiction myself, so in my mind, allowing a child a smartphone is akin to teaching them how to smoke - that is how toxic and generally "bad-for-your-health" modern internet is, I think.
At the same time, I am not (yet) a parent, so I really don't know how am I going to be making such a decision when the time comes.
The modern internet is weird. It's a space where you can link up a Skinner machine feeding you pure hate and vitriol directly to your brain, but it's also a space where you can teach yourself literally anything.
I feel like the trick is using it more for the latter and less for the former. Even using Beehaw too much, it quickly becomes obvious that I need to shift my focus. Endless streams of news and opinion aren't, like, great.
Back in 2011 I already felt that there should be some sort of easy-to-follow hygiene to maintain around mass media, especially internet. You know, like we hide our coughs and sneezes, maintain healthy distance around people, wash our hands, use slippers in communal pools. I should probably look up if someone smarter has already done the work.
I think there are ways to impose child safety locks, as it were, on a phone's access to the internet? Like a curfew or "max hours in a day" limit. I feel like that would make more sense than not giving a kid a phone.
And there are also tricks one can apply to circunvent some of that attention-grabby design, like putting the phone in grayscale mode.
Also, unlike cigarettes, smartphones serve many purposes, and 99.999% of people (in countries where they are ubiquitous) will need to own one at some point. I think it may be better to actively teach a child how to handle the information-overload, attention grabbing tricks, misinformation, and so on of the internet, rather than leaving them to just figure it out for themselves later on.
My concerns with denying children a smartphone altogether include:
-
Phones are an essential safety device, and smartphones are better at this than dumb phones because of things like GPS and maps navigation (especially for kids who get lost easily), clear emergency alerts (e.g. "expect a tsubami in 3 minutes", or "there is an active shooter currently around the grocery store at x and y street"), the ability to store easily accessible information for first responders in the phone (which can sometimes also be auto-shared when you make a 911 call), and the ability to easily and silently text 911 if they find themselves in a situation where calling is dangerous.
-
Phones and social media are now an integral part of most kids' social lives. If a kid doesn't have a smartphone and can't join in on real time group chats, with the ability to see the things their peers share in that chat, or if they don't have video chat access, they'll be cut off from a lot of other kids and their social life will suffer for it.
And access to social media is especially important for kids who need to find support they can't find easily irl, like for queer or neurodivergent kids who benefit from talking to others like them on the internet - even if they're lucky and their parents are supportive, it's not the same as finding a peer support group. For similar reasons, access to digital library collections can be a big deal. Granted, some of this would be covered if they have access to the internet on a laptop or desktop, but at that point they'd have internet access anyway so they might as well have the phone too.
- Phones are more and more often required for basic utilitarian access, too. Sometimes taking the city bus requires a phone because you can't pay cash anymore. Sometimes the laundry machine doesn't take coins, only app or internet payment. Sometimes the menu at a restaurant is just a QR code that tells you to look at their website. It sucks but it's only getting more this way.
I'm not advocating for giving smartphones to literal toddlers, but beyond a certain (fairly low) age I think at this point the risks of giving a kid a smartphone are outweighed by the risks of them not having one.
-
This is a bad idea for children that are in an abusive household
What's a bad idea?
Given the context, it seems to make sense that they mean it’s a bad idea to withhold smartphones from children in such a situation.
I would argue that they don’t need a smartphone specifically, but some means of external communication (a prepaid normal flip phone, for example).
My opinion is that kids only want to use phones because they see parents use them all the time. If parents would use phones only for calling, kids would not find them interesting. Of course giving up phones is super difficult, beyond what parents are willing to do. And of course I'm talking about small children, not adolescents.
My phone doesn't have a (usable) number since it's registered as a tablet.
So, that's not happening.
It's not a good idea to let children go wherever part of the city they want to go. Specially for no-go zones in the city.
Internet should be treated like streets. If you trust a teenager to go outside with certain restrictions of time and places, same should apply for internet.
But a minor who barely reads shouldn't be alone in the streets all day. The same for the Internet. Similar dangers may be involved.
What about a system where the entire session is recorded in video format for the parent to review later?
How many parents do you imagine are going to actually do this? Free time is a resource most parents rarely have. It's the reason a smartphone ends up in a child's hands: to keep them occupied.