Authorities’ “solipsism bias” assumes social media is the ONLY thing in teens’ lives – not family, not past experiences, not offline relationships, not social issues, not larger life.
I am actually fine with "bell-to-bell" phone-free schools as such, on ONE condition: it must apply to EVERYONE, including teachers, staff, and administrators, period. As a safety valve, they may use it briefly in the faculty lounge or (parked) personal vehicles. After all, they wouldn't want to set a bad example and be flaming hypocrites, right?
I'm not for banning cellphones; turning off their ringers in school and establishing penalties for violators should suffice. Cellphones are vital in emergencies, and they are useful tools in academic learning. Yes, they sometimes cause problems. School sports, pep assemblies, talking, personal interactions, relationships, etc., cause a hundred times more problems, yet we don't ban them. We've got to stop these endless cycles of panicking over each new technology.
Indeed. As for the problem of distractions and cheating etc., I fully understand why phones need to be "off and put away" during class time unless truly necessary. But an absolute ban is an overreach IMHO. And regardless, whatever rules they set, they should apply equally to everyone, not just students.
Note that Haidt's After Babel on one hand admits the problems social media causes adults, but continues to let its grownup posters smugly assert they can ban teen use while continue to use social media and cellphones freely themselves -- all part of Haidt's mistaken belief that grownups can enjoy broad "rights" while imposing authoritarian abstinence on teens. Such "barrier policies" are not how societies work, nor how they should work, as the massive troubles afflicting today's grownups that After Babel cannot acknowledge show.
One good analogy for why such "barrier" policies fundamentally don't work, is the late George Carlin's analogy of a "designated peeing section in a swimming pool". At best such policies are mere window dressing, at worst they are literally worse than useless.
We have all seen this movie before, over and over again, and try as they may, it never ends well.
Take drinking ages, for example. First they raised it from 18 to 19, to "keep it out of the high schools". Didn't work. Then they raised it to 21. Still didn't work. Then they added all sorts of ancillary laws and police-state tactics, first on the demand side and then on both the supply AND demand sides. Guess what? It still doesn't work. And it never will.
Then, a generation or so later, they did the same with tobacco and vaping. And now smartphones and social media (and in the case of some zealots, video games too).
What do you call it when they do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
Haidt's latest After Babel author declares to parents: "You don’t have to get rid of your smartphones or computers entirely like your kids, but modeling restraint is powerful. When you get home, put your phone in a box or another room. Turn off notifications, use grayscale, and hide apps away in folders." Yes, lie to your kids, a great way to parent. And if social media use damages adults, as After Babel repeatedly insists, parents should be the first to give up their internet use.
The latest guest author is apparently one of the most extreme ones yet, and she reminds me a bit of another extreme guest author from earlier, Melanie Hempe. And yet all of them are basically "do as I say, not as I do".
Indeed. A thousand "Amens" to that! The pharisaical hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
And if social media platforms really are so unacceptablly dangerous for young people as they claim, then they are also by definition dangerous for everyone of all ages, and should thus be subject to a "safety recall" until they are made safer. But Haidt and his ilk would never go for that, obviously.
We have to remember how advocates built a groundswell for raising drinking ages in the 1980s. All researchers, using the seemingly logical tactic of comparing fatal traffic crashes among the age group that lost its right to drink (typically 18, then 19, then 20) to those of just-older ages (typically 21-24) found small reductions in crashes among the disenfranchised ages. Politicians then declared higher drinking ages "save lives." The problem was, raised drinking ages were associated with more traffic crashes among the just-older ages, 21-24, due to decreased experience with alcohol previously gained at younger ages -- which had created the artificial impression that crashes had declined comparatively among younger ages. When later, longer-term research pointed out that problem, it turned out that raised drinking ages accomplished no saved lives, only hundreds of thousands more useless arrests of 18-20 year-olds. What is shocking is that all those "safety" advocates who previously championed higher drinking ages to "save our children!" showed no interest in reopening the issue once longer-term research showed no benefits, and perhaps bad effects. That's why I argue these crusades are not about the well-being of young people, but simply power and control.
Very true. And no sooner than the original justification for the 21 drinking age was thus thoroughly debunked long ago, and the supposed lifesaving effect on the highways turned out to be a mirage, they simply kept moving the goalposts with things like junk neuroscience and other alleged effects. (And in all cases, just like the social media moral panic, they grossly exaggerate any tiny effect sizes they seem to find.) It is indeed all about power and control.
My comment on After Babel:
I am actually fine with "bell-to-bell" phone-free schools as such, on ONE condition: it must apply to EVERYONE, including teachers, staff, and administrators, period. As a safety valve, they may use it briefly in the faculty lounge or (parked) personal vehicles. After all, they wouldn't want to set a bad example and be flaming hypocrites, right?
I'm not for banning cellphones; turning off their ringers in school and establishing penalties for violators should suffice. Cellphones are vital in emergencies, and they are useful tools in academic learning. Yes, they sometimes cause problems. School sports, pep assemblies, talking, personal interactions, relationships, etc., cause a hundred times more problems, yet we don't ban them. We've got to stop these endless cycles of panicking over each new technology.
Indeed. As for the problem of distractions and cheating etc., I fully understand why phones need to be "off and put away" during class time unless truly necessary. But an absolute ban is an overreach IMHO. And regardless, whatever rules they set, they should apply equally to everyone, not just students.
Note that Haidt's After Babel on one hand admits the problems social media causes adults, but continues to let its grownup posters smugly assert they can ban teen use while continue to use social media and cellphones freely themselves -- all part of Haidt's mistaken belief that grownups can enjoy broad "rights" while imposing authoritarian abstinence on teens. Such "barrier policies" are not how societies work, nor how they should work, as the massive troubles afflicting today's grownups that After Babel cannot acknowledge show.
One good analogy for why such "barrier" policies fundamentally don't work, is the late George Carlin's analogy of a "designated peeing section in a swimming pool". At best such policies are mere window dressing, at worst they are literally worse than useless.
We have all seen this movie before, over and over again, and try as they may, it never ends well.
Take drinking ages, for example. First they raised it from 18 to 19, to "keep it out of the high schools". Didn't work. Then they raised it to 21. Still didn't work. Then they added all sorts of ancillary laws and police-state tactics, first on the demand side and then on both the supply AND demand sides. Guess what? It still doesn't work. And it never will.
Then, a generation or so later, they did the same with tobacco and vaping. And now smartphones and social media (and in the case of some zealots, video games too).
What do you call it when they do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
Haidt's latest After Babel author declares to parents: "You don’t have to get rid of your smartphones or computers entirely like your kids, but modeling restraint is powerful. When you get home, put your phone in a box or another room. Turn off notifications, use grayscale, and hide apps away in folders." Yes, lie to your kids, a great way to parent. And if social media use damages adults, as After Babel repeatedly insists, parents should be the first to give up their internet use.
The latest guest author is apparently one of the most extreme ones yet, and she reminds me a bit of another extreme guest author from earlier, Melanie Hempe. And yet all of them are basically "do as I say, not as I do".
Amen. But that would make too much sense, of course.
Indeed. A thousand "Amens" to that! The pharisaical hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
And if social media platforms really are so unacceptablly dangerous for young people as they claim, then they are also by definition dangerous for everyone of all ages, and should thus be subject to a "safety recall" until they are made safer. But Haidt and his ilk would never go for that, obviously.
We have to remember how advocates built a groundswell for raising drinking ages in the 1980s. All researchers, using the seemingly logical tactic of comparing fatal traffic crashes among the age group that lost its right to drink (typically 18, then 19, then 20) to those of just-older ages (typically 21-24) found small reductions in crashes among the disenfranchised ages. Politicians then declared higher drinking ages "save lives." The problem was, raised drinking ages were associated with more traffic crashes among the just-older ages, 21-24, due to decreased experience with alcohol previously gained at younger ages -- which had created the artificial impression that crashes had declined comparatively among younger ages. When later, longer-term research pointed out that problem, it turned out that raised drinking ages accomplished no saved lives, only hundreds of thousands more useless arrests of 18-20 year-olds. What is shocking is that all those "safety" advocates who previously championed higher drinking ages to "save our children!" showed no interest in reopening the issue once longer-term research showed no benefits, and perhaps bad effects. That's why I argue these crusades are not about the well-being of young people, but simply power and control.
Very true. And no sooner than the original justification for the 21 drinking age was thus thoroughly debunked long ago, and the supposed lifesaving effect on the highways turned out to be a mirage, they simply kept moving the goalposts with things like junk neuroscience and other alleged effects. (And in all cases, just like the social media moral panic, they grossly exaggerate any tiny effect sizes they seem to find.) It is indeed all about power and control.
Et tu, Denmark?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/25/denmark-to-ban-mobile-phones-in-schools-and-after-school-clubs
The mental gymnastics of these zealots in the face of evidence to the contrary is really something indeed!
Well said. Shout it from the rooftops!