The Debate: Should we ban smartphones for children?
Most people agree that children are spending too much time on smartphones. But what should the government do about it – if anything?
Should we ban smartphones for children?
Yes: Every child now has a potential bully in their back pocket
Parents are worried, when we speak to parents almost 8 in 10 parents of primary school aged children say they want a ban on smartphones for under 16s. Among all parents a clear majority want the government to act fast with an smartphone ban and we should listen to them.
These parents aren’t prudes or luddites, there is strong support for children having phones that allow them to keep in touch with friends and let their parents know where they are. They just don’t want phones that let strangers send sexual messages or expose their children to some of the most gruesome images the internet has to offer. Dumb-phones yes, smartphones no.
The dangers of the new smartphone world are clear for all to see, from algorithms pushing hateful content to extreme pornography. Tech is great but we shouldn’t be naive. Every child now has a potential bully in the back pocket able to torment them 24/7.
Where every teenager has a smartphone, parents are in an impossible and invidious position, either socially exclude their child or hand them the very device that will likely ensnare them.
There is an easy way to ban smartphones for under 16s. The government needs to compel tech giants to use existing facial recognition software to screen out the under sixteens, in effect “banning” smartphones at a stroke by turning the latest device into a phone suitable for children. If they’re unwilling to do this, then they leave only one option, to ban them outright.
Jason Elsom is CEO of Parentkind
No: The market is already dealing with parents’ concerns
Smartphones have made it easier than ever to communicate with friends, access knowledge and connect with people across the world who share similar interests. When used properly, they are a tool that changes lives for the better.
Opponents of smartphones highlight evidence of declining teen mental health. However, the case against smartphones is much weaker than we have been led to believe. For example, a comprehensive review of the evidence concluded that the link between social media use and declining teen mental health is ‘weak’ or ‘inconsistent’. Some studies have found positive effects. Where we have causal evidence of smartphone use having negative effects, such as on sleep, the impacts are far from universal among young people.
Parents are crucial to ensuring smartphones are used in the right way. They know what is good for their children far better than politicians and government bureaucrats. Indeed, for the most part it is parents who are buying smartphones for their under-16s anyway.
The market is already responding to demand for more parental control over their children’s online activity. EE now allows parents to remotely block internet access for specific devices in the evenings. Every mobile network has put in place measures to prevent under-18s from accessing inappropriate content, while Parent Shield provides a bespoke sim card which gives parents more control over their kids’ smartphone use. The devices themselves also offer extensive parental controls.
In any case, do we think a police clampdown on smartphone sales and use is a remotely proportionate response? If we do, then Britain has far bigger problems to deal with than teenagers doom scrolling on Tiktok and Instagram.
Harrison Griffiths is communications officer at the Institute of Economic Affairs
The Verdict: There might be more imaginative ways to deal with smartphone addiction than bans
It’s easy to forget but we are still in the nascent phase of a smartphone-centred world; children nowadays are part of an early stage experiment. As Elsom points out, most parents are worried. Yet parents worry about many things; it doesn’t mean we should necessarily ban them.
Equally, this is a different matter to nerf guns – parents want to ban smartphones because they know, intuitively, that their own phone usage is unhealthy. Griffiths points to the potential of the market to respond to demand for control.
But few could seriously argue child-proof cigarettes or beer bottle lids would be a better system than banning the stuff for kids. What’s more, the tech sector has not exactly proved itself trustworthy through creating addictive, time-wasting widgets and shunning responsibility for serious harm suffered.
Yet overall City PM is loathe to introduce bans or restrictions – which encourage illegality and foster a forbidden fruit mentality. Children will have to learn to live with phones. But limits should be encouraged. There is also a case for expanding children’s worlds outside of smartphones – from youth clubs to sports centres – in a way that avoids any bans.