I get that but most people can’t just move to a better neighborhood.
There is a fake moral panic about kidnapping or whatever, but some schools really are not as safe as others unfortunately, or are in more dangerous areas. People aren’t usually targeting kids but they might get caught in the crossfire :/
Sure, I absolutely get that. I just don’t think there’s as big of an intersection between people who give their kids smartphones and smart watches and people who live in crappy areas as there is with helicopter suburban parents. I also don’t see phones and smart watches as safety devices, at least for kids under 14 or so (that’s when they go out on their own more).
The manufacturers of these devices lean hard into FUD targeted mostly at mostly at those who with means, as in lower middle class and up. That same group is plagued with depression and suicide, and I think the proliferation of these devices is a big part of the problem. If you don’t have the latest gadget or aren’t on the popular SM app 24/7, you’re “left out.” But itf you are, there’s a good chance you’ll be cyber-bullied or even targeted by criminals.
So that’s why I reject the premise. In the majority of cases, smart phones and watches don’t make you safer, they arguably increase risk, and they’re expensive to boot.
Instead of opening my kids up to that, I prefer to be the “bad guy” and say no until my kids earn that privilege. And they earn it by showing that they’ll come to us with problems, because that’ll be necessary when they run into problems on these devices. If they haven’t earned my trust, they can borrow a loaner phone when they need it.
The safety thing is just an excuse. The vast majority of people could move if they needed to, just look at first generation immigrants living on nothing just to afford rent in a good school district so their kids can have a better future than them. Those were my friends growing up.
I get that but most people can’t just move to a better neighborhood.
There is a fake moral panic about kidnapping or whatever, but some schools really are not as safe as others unfortunately, or are in more dangerous areas. People aren’t usually targeting kids but they might get caught in the crossfire :/
Sure, I absolutely get that. I just don’t think there’s as big of an intersection between people who give their kids smartphones and smart watches and people who live in crappy areas as there is with helicopter suburban parents. I also don’t see phones and smart watches as safety devices, at least for kids under 14 or so (that’s when they go out on their own more).
The manufacturers of these devices lean hard into FUD targeted mostly at mostly at those who with means, as in lower middle class and up. That same group is plagued with depression and suicide, and I think the proliferation of these devices is a big part of the problem. If you don’t have the latest gadget or aren’t on the popular SM app 24/7, you’re “left out.” But itf you are, there’s a good chance you’ll be cyber-bullied or even targeted by criminals.
So that’s why I reject the premise. In the majority of cases, smart phones and watches don’t make you safer, they arguably increase risk, and they’re expensive to boot.
Instead of opening my kids up to that, I prefer to be the “bad guy” and say no until my kids earn that privilege. And they earn it by showing that they’ll come to us with problems, because that’ll be necessary when they run into problems on these devices. If they haven’t earned my trust, they can borrow a loaner phone when they need it.
The safety thing is just an excuse. The vast majority of people could move if they needed to, just look at first generation immigrants living on nothing just to afford rent in a good school district so their kids can have a better future than them. Those were my friends growing up.