The Debate: Should Smartphones Be Banned for Kids Under 16?

The debate over whether smartphones should be banned for children under 16 focuses on potential concerns like mental health, academic performance, and social skills. Supporters argue that limiting smartphone use can reduce distractions and protect children from online risks, while opponents believe smartphones offer educational benefits and help kids stay connected. This discussion weighs the balance between safety and access to technology for younger users.

Smartphones have become deeply integrated into our daily lives, proving essential for both work and social interactions.

It's no surprise that many children desire them, but the benefits for young users are less clear. Many parents express concerns about the potential for addiction and the exposure of children to inappropriate content, leading to an increasing call for stricter regulations.

Conversely, some believe that the perceived risks are exaggerated. They argue that smartphones offer valuable developmental opportunities, including social interaction, and that the evidence linking them to harm is neither compelling nor definitive.

I facilitated a debate on WhatsApp between an academic and a campaigner to discuss whether there is a case for stronger restrictions on children's smartphone use. I begin with Daisy Greenwell from Smartphone Free Childhood, a grassroots campaign group against big tech.

What kind of restrictions do you propose and why?

Hello, Chris.

To start, we think calling for a ban is an unhelpful approach. We aren't advocating for a total prohibition of smartphones.

Tech companies have placed parents in a challenging position—either grant our kids access to a potentially harmful product (i.e., a smartphone with unlimited internet and social media access) or risk alienating them from their peers by denying them this access.

Governments must do more to assist parents and safeguard young people.

Simply put, we believe that until tech companies can demonstrate their products are safe for children, kids should not have unrestricted access to them.

What kind of restrictions do you want to see?

We think smartphones should have default age-appropriate settings. Age-verification technology exists—how can it be effectively utilized at both the device and content level to ensure children only access suitable services?

Despite the minimum age requirement of 13 for social media, 51% of British children under 13 are using these platforms. They should not be present on these sites as they are unsafe, so we need to enforce this regulation promptly.

We also believe that the government should implement a mandatory smartphone ban in schools, as only 11% of schools currently enforce an effective ban, and research shows that smartphones disrupt learning, behavior, and create significant safeguarding concerns.

Sonia Livingstone, a social psychologist specializing in technology’s impact on children's lives, do the facts support Daisy's claims regarding the risks?

Hi, Daisy.

I think there are several points where we can find common ground, particularly in avoiding the term 'ban.'

However, some aspects, like the implementation of age assurance, are more complex. While important for high-risk services, this needs to be approached cautiously due to privacy implications for everyone.

Regarding evidence, it’s a mixed bag. There’s some support for restricting smartphone use in schools, but we also need to consider the positive aspects of phone usage in children's lives.

Of course, I acknowledge that there are potential benefits to smartphones for children. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all children could enjoy the advantages of this technology without facing its harms?

Unfortunately, we're currently far from that ideal situation.

That’s why urgent changes are necessary.

Sonia, do you think it's a mistake for schools to implement bans?

We're reviewing the research now. It’s evident that parents, teachers, and students would appreciate clear and effective restrictions on phone usage in classrooms.

The challenge lies in our existing policy of 'bring your own device' and integrating digital technologies for educational purposes.

I propose we reassess our edtech policy as a whole. This hasn't been updated since the pandemic and, based on evidence, it currently serves big tech and data brokers more than it does children.

When we consult kids, they recognize some of the risks and issues that Daisy mentioned.

However, they also value their phones for keeping in touch with friends. Our society has diminished many ways for children to play and socialize outside the home.

The network effects of this technology and its addictive design make it an uphill battle for parents and children alike.

Daisy, it’s challenging for a child to purchase a phone, and if they have one, it’s likely from their parents. Why not let parents decide?

Placing the burden solely on parents is unjust.

I believe the responsibility should lie more with the companies. They not only amplify the risks but also fail to offer age-appropriate services and a broader range of products.

Sonia, are the risks as serious as Daisy claims? Is there evidence to back that up?

Both risks and benefits can be argued; both are typically more pronounced for vulnerable children.

Thus, yes, children certainly need improved protections, and the current situation poses problems for many and dangers for some.

The entire business model of social media giants relies on capturing as much attention as possible. Smartphones and addictive apps have diverted children from activities vital for healthy development—like outdoor play, face-to-face interactions, and sleep.

The challenge is finding the balance that the public desires between regulation versus education and individual choice versus overall limits.

If we ask, "Are smartphones detrimental to children?" the evidence indicates that, yes, in some respects, they are; in others, they are not, and it depends on the individual child and the context.

Yes, it’s complex. You can always find two sides in an academic debate, but we need to reassess the societal norm of allowing children to have smartphones at increasingly younger ages. Do they actually need them?

Now it seems you are placing the blame on parents, Daisy?

No, we view this as a significant societal issue that requires creativity and decisive action.

Additionally, when discussing the causes of child well-being or mental health issues, technology use is just one of many factors—let’s consider poverty, family stress, lack of play, community resources, and anxiety about the future.

Are children truly addicted to smartphones?

Sonia, some researchers dispute the notion of addiction; is there solid scientific evidence supporting that?

I believe Daisy is referring to the harmful design patterns and attention-grabbing features ingrained in social media and games, which can certainly have negative effects.

However, clinicians are cautious about using the term 'addiction' since it differs significantly from substance dependencies like alcoholism or drug addiction.

Still, they agree that about 1-3% of children meet the criteria for clinical tech addiction.

What about behavioral addiction?

We all understand what smartphone addiction feels like… it seems unreasonable to question whether they’re addictive or to suggest only 1-3% are.

Children spend four to over nine hours daily on these devices.

I’m not trying to be unreasonable and can provide citations from clinical research.

Daisy, what changes do you believe are necessary? Would you advocate raising the age limits for social media usage, for instance?

We believe that until social media companies can guarantee their platforms are safe for children, kids shouldn’t be using them. We’re particularly interested in the initiatives being explored by the Australian government.

These are all intriguing proposals, but as always, the details matter. I have three questions:

1. Is the British public ready for mandatory age verification? They will need to adjust to sharing personal information with companies. Can we trust those companies with such sensitive data?
2. Yes, let’s enforce age limits. But first, we need to discuss the appropriate age—13 is essentially a result of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, not a well-considered child protection policy.
3. How safe should platforms be? As safe as roads? Or swimming pools? How can we balance risks against opportunities?

Regarding your first question, the public is clearly seeking change. While it's not our responsibility to solve the age-verification technology's challenges, we shouldn’t shy away from it because it’s complex.

In response to your second question, I completely agree; we don't believe 13 is the right age—it’s based on outdated U.S. law rather than child well-being—but as of now, it’s the current standard and needs to be enforced.

Yes, the public desires change, and rightly so. However, unless we can propose viable solutions, our calls may go unheeded.

That seems defeatist; it shouldn't be solely up to parents to devise all the policy solutions in such a complicated area.

I don’t believe it’s solely the parents' responsibility. Academics, regulators, civil society, children’s charities, lawyers, and technologists are all actively working toward solutions.

How young is too young for social media, Sonia?

Why is it a question that seems to evade clear answers?

Let me give it a shot.

1. The right age for one child may not be right for another.
2. It depends on what the child intends to do online.
3. It depends on whether the child is vulnerable or well-supported.
4. It depends on the specific digital product or service in question.

Would you apply the same reasoning to the age of consent?!

Daisy, how do you respond to Sonia’s third question? We do allow children to take risks in areas where we perceive potential rewards, such as in sports.

That's an intriguing way to frame it - it certainly shouldn’t lead to negative outcomes like suicide, eating disorders, anxiety, or depression.

Do you acknowledge, Daisy, that there are advantages to owning these devices, and is it fair to deprive children of those benefits that adults enjoy?

The benefits of technology are evident… Smartphones are incredibly useful. We carry powerful supercomputers in our pockets that connect us to everyone and everything.

However, we must consider the costs involved. We should question the assumption that every technological advancement equates to social progress.

Children don’t need constant internet access. They don’t require phones for work or to manage schedules.

A basic phone can keep them connected to family and friends.

But don't children need to learn to use these essential tools that many adults find indispensable?

A five-year-old can master Instagram in just four minutes—that argument is not particularly valid.

Should children learn how to engage in sexual relationships before they’re 16 or drive before they’re 17? Both are crucial skills for adult life.

Furthermore, we’re not advocating against tech usage; we simply argue against unrestricted internet access in their pockets at all times.

The reality is that school communities are urging schools to be part of the solution.

In summary, many parents feel overwhelmed by their children's technology use and could use support navigating this new terrain.

I appreciate both of you for shedding light on this critical issue.

So, are stronger restrictions necessary?

The challenges are evident, and the answers may be more complex than simple bans or laissez-faire attitudes.

A productive conversation indeed.

Can we strike a balance that promotes safety without hindering beneficial technology use for kids?

What are your thoughts?

For questions or comments write to writers@bostonbrandmedia.com

Source: BBC‍