Recommendations are well and good, but I can't see them having much if any impact on what people do. It would be better to ban the use of smart phones at schools (or at least in classrooms) entirely, pass laws to better protect people's privacy, and pass regulation to restrict the kinds of exploitative practices that are designed to drive up anxiety and addiction to these devices. Especially those that target children.
Smartphones are banned at school in Aus, for a strong net positive. Kids still sneak them into toilets and so on (and vapes), but the overwhelming impact has been positive.
It’s surprising that more schools haven’t done this. I suspect that we’ll look back in 10 years with it being common and ask ourselves what took so long.
How do you know that it has had an overwhelmingly positive impact? Can we, for example, see a marked increase in PISA scores for Australia from after the ban?
Or is this one of those "I hate phones, therefore banning them must be good for kids" things?
So what needs to happen to ban smartphone use while driving? I mean not "formally forbidden" but "thoroughly enforced".
Personally, I avoid phone use even as a pedestrian in busy city spaces - I think the time it takes to fully switch attention to be fully aware of things like a reckless driver running a red light is too long to not affect safety.
You definitely need a source for that comment given that it only just happened.
Smartphones are neutral pieces of technology. It can create the next Einstein or radicalise the next terrorist, the 1's and 0's don't mind.
Why not ban them at universities also? Are these kids suddenly protected the moment they leave high school?
Like your opinion I have my own, and banning smartphones in Australian high schools will turn out to be overwhelmingly negative for outcomes. I predict it will be reversed and looked back upon as a failure.
Khan academy taught me more than dozens of different teachers. Kids are now blocked from accessing it for their entire time at school and when they would be most intruiged to learn.
Just like terrible having internet, Australians seem intent on being left behind in a hypercompetitive world.
In Japanese culture recommendations (for lack of better word in translation) carry quite different load in comparison to western society. It’s usually accepted and followed (unlike west where recommendations are usually ignored)
All of these seem valid, too, but they don’t need to be mutually exclusive. I’m all for common sense recommendations - even if it only helps a relatively small percentage of families.
I look at it in a similar light to nutritional guidelines.
> It would be better to ban the use of smart phones at schools (or at least in classrooms) entirely, pass laws to better protect people's privacy, and pass regulation to restrict the kinds of exploitative practices that are designed to drive up anxiety and addiction to these devices.
Once again, I must reiterate that parents choose the schools their children attend, and that means that they choose the solution. I argue strongly that we, as a society, should not impose arbitrary restrictions on parents and children. If we afford the freedom of letting parents be parents, there is no scientific basis for reallocating smartphone use responsibility to the state.
The state exists to protect the majority from the minority. If the majority believes phones are bad, then they’ll be banned in schools to prevent whatever effect having them would have.
We are discussing local news in a small town in Japan, thousands of miles away for most of us; and how social media is an attention-wasting time-sink for other people. We need to help those other people.
My only position is we should not be quick to judge (or "help"), particularly if we're doing similar things to what we're help-judging others for doing.
Remember, in other countries, especially eastern ones, the recommendation of even your local city means allot. There is a deeper trust of government bodies so this will likely have an impact.
And starting small is probably good, lets the idea iterate before rolling it out wider and this often comes down to making a choice, this city just thought this would be best and I suspect unless this goes horribly wrong it will help
I live in the 23 wards of Tokyo and certainly do. The local governments in other countries I've lived seem to just take and give very little back (while paying their unelected c-suite ridiculous salaries), but ours has given us thousands over the years for child related expenses.
Your child related expenses are not “given”, other taxpayers have paid for it. And for them, they have very little given back, if we factor in very high tax load in Japan.
Just because someone ride the wave of payouts for kids doesn’t mean government is giving back a lot. Japanese government, just like any other government out there, extremely inefficient and corrupt, absorbing huge amounts of money in taxes and giving very little back. Particularly to those who actually earn those money.
Having a base level of trust in your government can have incredibly positive effects on society. In the US, I dream of the day where government could try out ideas without the pitchforks coming out. Sure, some ideas will be terrible and that’s OK as long as we throw them in the trash can.
Not the first time Japan has done something like this[1] and I honestly welcome it. It's not a strict rule, gives people flexibility to at least talk about it and disagree with little consequence. Another severely online commenter mentions protecting peoples privacy and exploitative practices but we're wayyy beyond those types of conversations. Limiting online-ness in a gentle way that's not gonna piss off a bunch of people and get the feels for it seems to be a very Japanese thing to do.
Isn't it the job of a public health agency? Like, at a national or even international level?
Or of a scientific body?
What legitimacy has an administrative, and often political, structure, to make a non-binding health recommandation (thus, an advice), with a scope limited to the city, even though the matter has nothing to nor specific to this city?
It looks like a political stunt, not something initiated by health specialists.
Why aren't they issuing ordinances for people to switch to electric cars?
To learn foreign languages?
To study sciences?
I really don't know what to think.
Like, if they think that the bottleneck, the motivation source, to get people to improve their lifestyle, is to have an ordinance issued, then they really need to study the basics of psychology and sociology. And of public communication.
What I would like from these things is to be able to opt-in to a recommendation. Just a two-minute way to opt-in. They can do the work and we all can have the least possible hassle trying it out.[1]
[1] I’m not up to date on the state of the art of limiting your own smartphone time
If you interested on this new, there was another ordinance in Kyoto city which restrict Kanpai(cheers) must be done with sake. If you kanpai'ed with anything other than sake in Kyoto city, you violate this law.
There is no punishment for breaking these ordinances.
I don't live too far from here (Osaka), Toyoake is not a small city and is pretty close to Nagoya, it is interesting to see somewhere not completely remote try something like this.
There is a value of law with no penalties in a high-trust societies.
If person trusts their city to act in their interest, they will value this recommendation quite higher then tv recommendations.
It also defines "a normal amount of smartphone time" as 2 hours for every citizen, which also has an effect.
In China, parents track their kids with ‘gps smart watches’. Oh yeah there is also a gamified social network for kids only, giving credit for the schools stationairy shop based on likes/popularity. What could go wrong? [0]
>Her parents also believe that watch circles contributed to Liu’s increasingly unstable emotional state in the run-up to China’s high school entrance exams. With just three months to go, teachers advised that she take a leave of absence after a video emerged of Liu rolling on the floor of a classroom before rushing out. Shortly after, she was placed on medication for severe depression.
>While the Asperger’s syndrome and academic pressure no doubt played a part in the breakdown, Wang and Liu’s therapist also felt that she had become overstimulated by her online socializing.
Naturally, it wasn't the Zhongkao, but basic social media.
You do realize those GPS smart watches are everywhere in the US as well right? Some parents opt for the less invasive tool of air tags hidden in clothing or backpacks, same idea though.
Smart watches are actually super useful for kids, it lets them still talk to their parents (or other trusted people) w/o the distraction of smart phones. Plenty of kids age 7-12 or so have them and they are basically used to call kids home for dinner at the end of the day.
Recommendations are well and good, but I can't see them having much if any impact on what people do. It would be better to ban the use of smart phones at schools (or at least in classrooms) entirely, pass laws to better protect people's privacy, and pass regulation to restrict the kinds of exploitative practices that are designed to drive up anxiety and addiction to these devices. Especially those that target children.
Smartphones are banned at school in Aus, for a strong net positive. Kids still sneak them into toilets and so on (and vapes), but the overwhelming impact has been positive.
It’s surprising that more schools haven’t done this. I suspect that we’ll look back in 10 years with it being common and ask ourselves what took so long.
25 replies →
How do you know that it has had an overwhelmingly positive impact? Can we, for example, see a marked increase in PISA scores for Australia from after the ban?
Or is this one of those "I hate phones, therefore banning them must be good for kids" things?
19 replies →
So what needs to happen to ban smartphone use while driving? I mean not "formally forbidden" but "thoroughly enforced".
Personally, I avoid phone use even as a pedestrian in busy city spaces - I think the time it takes to fully switch attention to be fully aware of things like a reckless driver running a red light is too long to not affect safety.
2 replies →
> but the overwhelming impact has been positive
You definitely need a source for that comment given that it only just happened.
Smartphones are neutral pieces of technology. It can create the next Einstein or radicalise the next terrorist, the 1's and 0's don't mind.
Why not ban them at universities also? Are these kids suddenly protected the moment they leave high school?
Like your opinion I have my own, and banning smartphones in Australian high schools will turn out to be overwhelmingly negative for outcomes. I predict it will be reversed and looked back upon as a failure.
Khan academy taught me more than dozens of different teachers. Kids are now blocked from accessing it for their entire time at school and when they would be most intruiged to learn.
Just like terrible having internet, Australians seem intent on being left behind in a hypercompetitive world.
3 replies →
Ohhh I assumed all countries did that. Like common sense.
In Japanese culture recommendations (for lack of better word in translation) carry quite different load in comparison to western society. It’s usually accepted and followed (unlike west where recommendations are usually ignored)
All of these seem valid, too, but they don’t need to be mutually exclusive. I’m all for common sense recommendations - even if it only helps a relatively small percentage of families.
I look at it in a similar light to nutritional guidelines.
What you need to ban is notifications :)
And social networking after that.
> It would be better to ban the use of smart phones at schools (or at least in classrooms) entirely, pass laws to better protect people's privacy, and pass regulation to restrict the kinds of exploitative practices that are designed to drive up anxiety and addiction to these devices.
Once again, I must reiterate that parents choose the schools their children attend, and that means that they choose the solution. I argue strongly that we, as a society, should not impose arbitrary restrictions on parents and children. If we afford the freedom of letting parents be parents, there is no scientific basis for reallocating smartphone use responsibility to the state.
The state exists to protect the majority from the minority. If the majority believes phones are bad, then they’ll be banned in schools to prevent whatever effect having them would have.
We are discussing local news in a small town in Japan, thousands of miles away for most of us; and how social media is an attention-wasting time-sink for other people. We need to help those other people.
If I discuss the stars and planets online am I even wasting more time? It's distance the factor that makes it a waste?
As I read "Comet crossed jupiter's rings at blazing speed!" some guy looks at me at tells me to live in the moment. Thanks.
My only position is we should not be quick to judge (or "help"), particularly if we're doing similar things to what we're help-judging others for doing.
1 reply →
Remember, in other countries, especially eastern ones, the recommendation of even your local city means allot. There is a deeper trust of government bodies so this will likely have an impact.
And starting small is probably good, lets the idea iterate before rolling it out wider and this often comes down to making a choice, this city just thought this would be best and I suspect unless this goes horribly wrong it will help
I live in the 23 wards of Tokyo and certainly do. The local governments in other countries I've lived seem to just take and give very little back (while paying their unelected c-suite ridiculous salaries), but ours has given us thousands over the years for child related expenses.
Your child related expenses are not “given”, other taxpayers have paid for it. And for them, they have very little given back, if we factor in very high tax load in Japan.
Just because someone ride the wave of payouts for kids doesn’t mean government is giving back a lot. Japanese government, just like any other government out there, extremely inefficient and corrupt, absorbing huge amounts of money in taxes and giving very little back. Particularly to those who actually earn those money.
Is this recommandation backed by science? I suspect it is.
Then a public scientific body should come up with such a recommandation, right?
And then there would be no need for a mere city to issue one, am I correct?
Having a base level of trust in your government can have incredibly positive effects on society. In the US, I dream of the day where government could try out ideas without the pitchforks coming out. Sure, some ideas will be terrible and that’s OK as long as we throw them in the trash can.
Not the first time Japan has done something like this[1] and I honestly welcome it. It's not a strict rule, gives people flexibility to at least talk about it and disagree with little consequence. Another severely online commenter mentions protecting peoples privacy and exploitative practices but we're wayyy beyond those types of conversations. Limiting online-ness in a gentle way that's not gonna piss off a bunch of people and get the feels for it seems to be a very Japanese thing to do.
https://english.kyodonews.net/articles/-/17744?phrase=Onaga%...
Just thinking about a mockable law may keep it in the collective consciousness for more people to independently choose to detox from their phone
Why is there a city doing this?
Isn't it the job of a public health agency? Like, at a national or even international level?
Or of a scientific body?
What legitimacy has an administrative, and often political, structure, to make a non-binding health recommandation (thus, an advice), with a scope limited to the city, even though the matter has nothing to nor specific to this city?
It looks like a political stunt, not something initiated by health specialists.
> "We want the ordinance to provide an opportunity for people to think about how they use smartphones," an official said.
I really hope that any city I live in will not try to use city ordinances for feel good things.
Why aren't they issuing ordinances for people to switch to electric cars?
To learn foreign languages?
To study sciences?
I really don't know what to think.
Like, if they think that the bottleneck, the motivation source, to get people to improve their lifestyle, is to have an ordinance issued, then they really need to study the basics of psychology and sociology. And of public communication.
1 reply →
It is a political stunt. The city of Toyoake in question has a land area of 23sqkm(~9 sqmi) with population of 68k(density 3k/sqkm or 7.6k/sqmi).
I don’t know how Japanese city ordinances work.
What I would like from these things is to be able to opt-in to a recommendation. Just a two-minute way to opt-in. They can do the work and we all can have the least possible hassle trying it out.[1]
[1] I’m not up to date on the state of the art of limiting your own smartphone time
If you interested on this new, there was another ordinance in Kyoto city which restrict Kanpai(cheers) must be done with sake. If you kanpai'ed with anything other than sake in Kyoto city, you violate this law.
There is no punishment for breaking these ordinances.
9pm for elementary school children? What are they doing up so late to begin with?
Whatever their parent has allowed them to do, since parenting them is their job and not yours.
It's funny you say this in the context of the article, which is effectively 'parenting' smartphone use across all citizens of Toyoake.
3 replies →
[dead]
Cram school.
late? It's 9pm not 1am.
I don't live too far from here (Osaka), Toyoake is not a small city and is pretty close to Nagoya, it is interesting to see somewhere not completely remote try something like this.
> though there will be no penalties proposed.
As usual this is Japanese politicians being completely clueless and pretending to do something.
There is a value of law with no penalties in a high-trust societies. If person trusts their city to act in their interest, they will value this recommendation quite higher then tv recommendations.
It also defines "a normal amount of smartphone time" as 2 hours for every citizen, which also has an effect.
In a way it builds a point of reference
So how will this work, are explosive ammunitions delivered to your device’s location if you exceed the day’s usage?
Maybe I missed something, but those are spelt "ordnance".
This is clever.
Smart phone use is banned while driving in australia.
Detectors and cameras are used to find and fine those who break the law.
Australia can bring to absurd levels even objectively good ideas.
? Where's the absurdity in the example given.
[dead]
Too late.
In China, parents track their kids with ‘gps smart watches’. Oh yeah there is also a gamified social network for kids only, giving credit for the schools stationairy shop based on likes/popularity. What could go wrong? [0]
[0] https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1017357
>Her parents also believe that watch circles contributed to Liu’s increasingly unstable emotional state in the run-up to China’s high school entrance exams. With just three months to go, teachers advised that she take a leave of absence after a video emerged of Liu rolling on the floor of a classroom before rushing out. Shortly after, she was placed on medication for severe depression.
>While the Asperger’s syndrome and academic pressure no doubt played a part in the breakdown, Wang and Liu’s therapist also felt that she had become overstimulated by her online socializing.
Naturally, it wasn't the Zhongkao, but basic social media.
You do realize those GPS smart watches are everywhere in the US as well right? Some parents opt for the less invasive tool of air tags hidden in clothing or backpacks, same idea though.
Smart watches are actually super useful for kids, it lets them still talk to their parents (or other trusted people) w/o the distraction of smart phones. Plenty of kids age 7-12 or so have them and they are basically used to call kids home for dinner at the end of the day.
I am confused did no one read the part where your popularity can be exchanged for school supplies and is actively abused?