I would think that a _total_ ban on devices _during school hours_ would hit the 80/20 mark of preventing psychological harm to kids, without the invasiveness of digital ID. Idiot parents that say "omg what if i have to contact my kid during classes" can blow it out their collective *sses - it is they being invasive and harmful.
"Growing list of countries move to require ID for the modern public square, media launders this as a restriction on children and social media companies (despite those same companies lobbying for it [1])."
Interesting to see in 10-20 years if this will have a significant impact for the mental well-being and intelligence of young adults. I'm assuming it will be pretty obvious.
I would think that a _total_ ban on devices _during school hours_ would hit the 80/20 mark of preventing psychological harm to kids, without the invasiveness of digital ID. Idiot parents that say "omg what if i have to contact my kid during classes" can blow it out their collective *sses - it is they being invasive and harmful.
What a coincidence that they chose to do it around the same time they're all pushing digital ID (independently of each other, of course.)
"Growing list of countries move to require ID for the modern public square, media launders this as a restriction on children and social media companies (despite those same companies lobbying for it [1])."
[1] https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...
Do you include California in that?
Interesting to see in 10-20 years if this will have a significant impact for the mental well-being and intelligence of young adults. I'm assuming it will be pretty obvious.
It's being done to push digital ID, not to get children off their screens, since there are plenty of other things they can stare at on screen.
¿Por qué no los dos?