Anonymous wrote:Look, in my view communicating with friends can be done with a simple dumb phone. They do not need an iPhone, ipad or other smart device to communicate once they are out and about on their own. So I reject the argument that iPhones are required for kids to remain socially available to their friends, or for safety. When we’re talking about “wait until 8th,” we’re talking about iPhones/smartphones.

So with that understanding, I agree with the other posters saying this is not a debate about phones for communication. That problem is easily solved. This is a debate about access to the internet and all of its dark corners and access to social media apps. It’s also a question of moving socializing from face to face, to texting.

Access to social media: the research on a lot of this is becoming clearer and clearer. Social media is to depression as cigarettes are to cancer. The result on developing brains is even more profound. And those of you who say “social media is here to stay.” Actually, with the scientific consensus, increase of AI slop out there, and general attitude shifting away from these platforms, I’m not so sure. I wonder if Social Media will be something we look back at like when everyone smoked cigarettes, like “wow, I can’t believe we thought that was OK.”

Access to internet at large: here’s one thing to think about…some sources say the average age for accessing explicit content online is as young as NINE YEARS OLD. Let that sink in for a second. We’re not taking about coming across a picture from Playboy in a nightstand drawer. We’re taking about moving explicit imagery, and tons of it. The vast majority of kids who find explicit content online say their first time seeing it was accidental. Is your kid ready to see that kind of content? If you give your kid an ipad, iPhone, smartphone…with access to internet OR with access to chatting/texting with other kids who have access to the internet, then you are accepting that risk.

I understand that some parents believe they are doing their kids a favor by teaching them to regulate themselves around the internet from an early age. I think it’s naive. Look at the relationships forum. How many adult men are able to regulate themselves around explicit content? How many women feel like crap after looking at social media and yet still do? Kids have a reduced capacity to regulate themselves, I’m not sure how exposure in this case would help them figure it out.

Lastly, socializing: we all know that face to face contact is better for kids and adults. And brains. And hearts. And all of it. Texting is an excellent tool, but if, as a parent, you can emphasize that texting is for communicating and not for maintaining a relationship, I think that’s for the better. Go meet up with your friend. Ask out that person. Go for a walk. Dumb phones are so inconvenient, texting is possible, but not fun. I think that’s what you want for now.

Of course, whether we need to sign pledges or not is another question. But when I see “wait for 8th” this is how I interpret it. It’s about holding off on those parts of technology that will take away kids’ focus, innocence, sense of self, and ability to develop relationships in real life.

Anonymous wrote:I saw this at out elementary school. Why do I need to officially pledge this somewhere? I have no interest in getting my child a phone until he’s 16. When he gets a job and can pay for it. Why do they need a silly pledge.

Gets those kids of screens at school. Too many teachers are using you tube and other videos to teach the children. I witnessed this myself while volunteering for Spanish special class at our local ES.

Anonymous wrote:I saw this at out elementary school. Why do I need to officially pledge this somewhere? I have no interest in getting my child a phone until he’s 16. When he gets a job and can pay for it. Why do they need a silly pledge.

Gets those kids of screens at school. Too many teachers are using you tube and other videos to teach the children. I witnessed this myself while volunteering for Spanish special class at our local ES.

Anonymous wrote:Look, in my view communicating with friends can be done with a simple dumb phone. They do not need an iPhone, ipad or other smart device to communicate once they are out and about on their own. So I reject the argument that iPhones are required for kids to remain socially available to their friends, or for safety. When we’re talking about “wait until 8th,” we’re talking about iPhones/smartphones.

So with that understanding, I agree with the other posters saying this is not a debate about phones for communication. That problem is easily solved. This is a debate about access to the internet and all of its dark corners and access to social media apps. It’s also a question of moving socializing from face to face, to texting.

Access to social media: the research on a lot of this is becoming clearer and clearer. Social media is to depression as cigarettes are to cancer. The result on developing brains is even more profound. And those of you who say “social media is here to stay.” Actually, with the scientific consensus, increase of AI slop out there, and general attitude shifting away from these platforms, I’m not so sure. I wonder if Social Media will be something we look back at like when everyone smoked cigarettes, like “wow, I can’t believe we thought that was OK.”

Access to internet at large: here’s one thing to think about…some sources say the average age for accessing explicit content online is as young as NINE YEARS OLD. Let that sink in for a second. We’re not taking about coming across a picture from Playboy in a nightstand drawer. We’re taking about moving explicit imagery, and tons of it. The vast majority of kids who find explicit content online say their first time seeing it was accidental. Is your kid ready to see that kind of content? If you give your kid an ipad, iPhone, smartphone…with access to internet OR with access to chatting/texting with other kids who have access to the internet, then you are accepting that risk.

I understand that some parents believe they are doing their kids a favor by teaching them to regulate themselves around the internet from an early age. I think it’s naive. Look at the relationships forum. How many adult men are able to regulate themselves around explicit content? How many women feel like crap after looking at social media and yet still do? Kids have a reduced capacity to regulate themselves, I’m not sure how exposure in this case would help them figure it out.

Lastly, socializing: we all know that face to face contact is better for kids and adults. And brains. And hearts. And all of it. Texting is an excellent tool, but if, as a parent, you can emphasize that texting is for communicating and not for maintaining a relationship, I think that’s for the better. Go meet up with your friend. Ask out that person. Go for a walk. Dumb phones are so inconvenient, texting is possible, but not fun. I think that’s what you want for now.

Of course, whether we need to sign pledges or not is another question. But when I see “wait for 8th” this is how I interpret it. It’s about holding off on those parts of technology that will take away kids’ focus, innocence, sense of self, and ability to develop relationships in real life.

Anonymous wrote:Look, in my view communicating with friends can be done with a simple dumb phone. They do not need an iPhone, ipad or other smart device to communicate once they are out and about on their own. So I reject the argument that iPhones are required for kids to remain socially available to their friends, or for safety. When we’re talking about “wait until 8th,” we’re talking about iPhones/smartphones.

So with that understanding, I agree with the other posters saying this is not a debate about phones for communication. That problem is easily solved. This is a debate about access to the internet and all of its dark corners and access to social media apps. It’s also a question of moving socializing from face to face, to texting.

Access to social media: the research on a lot of this is becoming clearer and clearer. Social media is to depression as cigarettes are to cancer. The result on developing brains is even more profound. And those of you who say “social media is here to stay.” Actually, with the scientific consensus, increase of AI slop out there, and general attitude shifting away from these platforms, I’m not so sure. I wonder if Social Media will be something we look back at like when everyone smoked cigarettes, like “wow, I can’t believe we thought that was OK.”

Access to internet at large: here’s one thing to think about…some sources say the average age for accessing explicit content online is as young as NINE YEARS OLD. Let that sink in for a second. We’re not taking about coming across a picture from Playboy in a nightstand drawer. We’re taking about moving explicit imagery, and tons of it. The vast majority of kids who find explicit content online say their first time seeing it was accidental. Is your kid ready to see that kind of content? If you give your kid an ipad, iPhone, smartphone…with access to internet OR with access to chatting/texting with other kids who have access to the internet, then you are accepting that risk.

I understand that some parents believe they are doing their kids a favor by teaching them to regulate themselves around the internet from an early age. I think it’s naive. Look at the relationships forum. How many adult men are able to regulate themselves around explicit content? How many women feel like crap after looking at social media and yet still do? Kids have a reduced capacity to regulate themselves, I’m not sure how exposure in this case would help them figure it out.

Lastly, socializing: we all know that face to face contact is better for kids and adults. And brains. And hearts. And all of it. Texting is an excellent tool, but if, as a parent, you can emphasize that texting is for communicating and not for maintaining a relationship, I think that’s for the better. Go meet up with your friend. Ask out that person. Go for a walk. Dumb phones are so inconvenient, texting is possible, but not fun. I think that’s what you want for now.

Of course, whether we need to sign pledges or not is another question. But when I see “wait for 8th” this is how I interpret it. It’s about holding off on those parts of technology that will take away kids’ focus, innocence, sense of self, and ability to develop relationships in real life.

Anonymous wrote:Truly the dumbest mainstream idea ever. Kinda like Australian govt recent decision to make it illegal for teens to access social media.

NOT that I disagree with the philosophy at all but in the real world we live in, this just isn't a viable solution.

My 14 yr old 8th grader has friends who received a phone in 8th and those who did not. We gave it to her at age 12. Most of her friends received no earlier than age 12. Those friends in 8th who don't have a phone tend to have a watch or something however. ALL have ipads.

Here's the thing: consider that your kid is the most important person to dictate whether they may or may not abuse their phone privileges. You as the parent have so much power to limit those privileges as well. Simply not giving them a phone is stupid. You need to communicate with them quite simply! It makes life easier not harder to do that.

Also, you can't stop a kid from being online. My daughter had a birthday at age 13 where I caught ALL 5 of her girlfriends sitting together and ALL on ipads! I took all of them and told them they don't get it back until end of party. It was unacceptable to me that they are online and not interacting with each other. 2 out of the 5 of those girls did not have a phone. I rest my case

If anything, start earlier in training your kid to manage tech. And I'm sorry but most parents have the same over use problem. It's hard for even adults to track overuse. BUT it's a personal decision. Meaning, if you are going to have a problem with tech, you will have one because of your personality. The fact that you are 13 or 14, 25 or 33 does not negate that. The problem is your personality, not your age! My son on the other hand at age 16 just simply does not have a prob with being on his phone all the time. He has a video game problem

So my point is, it's not 100% that your kid at age 11 or 12 or 14 cannot manage phone privileges. My point is that you have to find a way to teach your kid no matter what age to refrain from going psycho with phone usage. I find it actually easier starting earlier v. later. Also note that peer pressure of all their friends at 13 having a phone except them is just not being a cool parent They aren't going to stop gawking at their friends' phones. They simply will be the only one who can't call you when needed!!!

Anonymous wrote:I was planning on waiting until 9th grade, but I’m oppositional defiant, so if the school or other parents asked me to sign this I’d probably go out and buy them a phone out of spite.

Only half kidding. I just think it’s weird to sign parenting pledges like this. It reminds me of all the messed up purity stuff my parents and I signed when I was a kid. Barf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it misses the point. Kids can get just as addicted and in just as much trouble with an unmonitored iPad.

My kid has a phone, but it's super locked down. No Internet or social media. Those are the real issues, IMO. Her texts are parent-monitored. I have no concerns and the phone gives her a lot more freedom to go places solo and just check in.

This is the way. My kids go to an UMC public and they would be pariahs if we didn’t give them phones but if you are in a K-8, I think it’s doable.

lol. “Doable.” I’m trying to imagine caring more about my children not being seen as cool, then actually parenting and deciding what’s best for them and their character formation.

Some of you need to find a backbone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it misses the point. Kids can get just as addicted and in just as much trouble with an unmonitored iPad.

My kid has a phone, but it's super locked down. No Internet or social media. Those are the real issues, IMO. Her texts are parent-monitored. I have no concerns and the phone gives her a lot more freedom to go places solo and just check in.

This is the way. My kids go to an UMC public and they would be pariahs if we didn’t give them phones but if you are in a K-8, I think it’s doable.

Anonymous wrote:I think it misses the point. Kids can get just as addicted and in just as much trouble with an unmonitored iPad.

My kid has a phone, but it's super locked down. No Internet or social media. Those are the real issues, IMO. Her texts are parent-monitored. I have no concerns and the phone gives her a lot more freedom to go places solo and just check in.