Skip Navigation
Technology @beehaw.org
tardigrada @beehaw.org

Carmen Osorio, expert in technology addiction: ‘It’s not a good idea to give children a smartphone; in any case, you let them borrow yours’

69 comments

  • Q. Let’s make a distinction between cell phone and smartphone. Which one do you think is more appropriate?

    A. A non-smartphone, that is, a cell phone like the ones that today’s parents had when we were young and with which we made calls and sent text messages, was enough for us, and it did not cause addiction.

    Text messaging was absolutely addicting, and had the distinction of being one of the very first forms of always-on, instant-access bullying. Osorio seems blind to the detrimental implications of her own experience.

  • I am not in agreement with the notion that we should not give children smartphones. I am of the opinion that there comes a time, usually during early adolescence, that a smartphone becomes a safety feature of parenting — namely, the tools it provides for location tracking, and very quick two-way communication. The moment the child is starting to become more autonomous and is going to events with friends, staying at their friends’ houses for sleepovers, going on multi-day field trips, and so forth, is the moment a smartphone becomes an increasingly necessary safety measure.

    The first step in dealing with addiction is understanding it and identifying it. The problem is that parents often don’t speak to their children about the dangers, and what it could mean, with concrete examples. And this can be expanded as a general parenting issue across more than just addiction. Open and honest communication is how kids can learn without always resorting to the fuck-around-and-find-out method.

    • I don't really have a formed opinion on this subject. (Though I have some experience with certain things where holding back in childhood has lead to potentially much bigger addictions)

      But I can tell you that my uncle bought smartwatches to his children. The watches are only allowed to call family members & have GPS tracking on them, have no games, no Youtube no distractions. They are exactly what you are describing, a safety feature. (though the kids regularly dualwear them to cover for each other, so .... :D )

      • Point taken. I agree that specific product would solve the safety feature aspect while avoiding the addiction possibility. I suppose it then comes down to when a parent feels their child is ready and cognizant of the dangers of addiction.

      • I'm not really in favor of the GPS tracking thing. It feels to protective and a bit overbearing to me.

        I mean I wouldn't think of location tracking my significant other and I would hate it if someone was location tracking me. So why do that to your children?

    • Unfortunately, it's not like that. The current state of internet services and social media is inherently addictive and problematic, and that's especially true in formative years.

      While education is extremely important, it won't be enough.

      • My opinion and anecdotal experience is that, yes, it is like that. It’s the same argument concerning sex education. It’s the same argument for almost all child rearing topics. It starts with open and honest communication as early as possible and not sheltering the children from reality. Preparing the child is all we can do as parents. Hiding them from the realities of their surroundings by denying them aspects of it simply makes them want more and they will go to lengths to get it — even so far as to steal, or lie. While I’m not saying give a 3 year old their own device, I am saying that there comes a time in the maturation of the child where it can be a useful tool for both the parents and the child. You teach a child to use a knife, and the dangers of mishandling it, before you let them have one. I’m also not saying all my examples are apples to apples, but the education of using potentially dangerous things is a concept that pervades all child rearing and it’s unrealistic, and I would say possibly does more harm, to keep them from it during their whole childhood.

        But I’m not here to convince you or anyone. I simply voiced my viewpoint.

        Thanks for coming to my TED talk :)

        Happy New Year!!

      • Use parental controls.

        It's not that hard to give them the access you need them to have while completely removing anything you don't want them to have.

    • The first step in dealing with addiction is understanding it and identifying it. The problem is that parents often don’t speak to their children about the dangers, and what it could mean, with concrete examples.

      The issue of addiction to technology is deeply rooted in the way our brains are structured. This is particularly concerning for children and teenagers, as their brains are not fully developed until around the age of 21. Simply having conversations about the dangers of addiction is not a sufficient solution, especially considering that many adults are also addicted to technology. After all, here we are, possibly spending time online arguing with strangers instead of engaging in more productive activities.

      To address this issue, it's crucial to move away from a black-and-white mindset. Extremes are rarely beneficial. It may be necessary for children to have smartphones for safety and communication purposes, but these devices should come with certain restrictions. For instance, limiting the ability of children to install any app they want or restricting excessive screen time could be effective measures. By implementing these controlled measures, we can provide the necessary safety net while also safeguarding the mental and emotional well-being of younger users.

      However, real-world actions should be informed by scientific evidence. Any approach we adopt needs to be backed by data (and not opinions) proving its effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes.

      • After all, here we are, possibly spending time online arguing with strangers instead of engaging in more productive activities.

        This feels like a false equivalency. Just because I decided to engage in this post has no bearing on any addiction patterns of mine or the validity of such an activity.

        but these devices should come with certain restrictions. For instance, limiting the ability of children to install any app they want or restricting excessive screen time could be effective measures. By implementing these controlled measures, we can provide the necessary safety net while also safeguarding the mental and emotional well-being of younger users.

        They do. I used exactly those features on my child’s. If parents choose not to employ them and become educated on the capabilities of the devices, not much else can be done. But this is a broad issue that extends well beyond smartphones.

        However, real-world actions should be informed by scientific evidence. Any approach we adopt needs to be backed by data (and not opinions) proving its effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes.

        I agree completely. But ultimately the parents have to know what they are doing and how their knowledge and actions will affect their children. It seems just as disingenuous to blanket smartphones as the problem when it really boils down to parents, education, and understanding the maturity level of their own child.

        Thanks for your thoughts.

    • Agreed. We bought my son a phone when he was traveling between states and flying as an unaccompanied minor a bunch because of split parenting. He was about nine. We had strict rules about when he was allowed to use it and when he ABSOLUTELY was not allowed to NOT have it. We also didn't turn on the data (and made him use Wifi) until he was 12.

      We absolutely NEEDED him to have it, given those conditions.

  • As someone who has built a career in building and maintaining digital services, a lot of what Carmen talks about rings very true to me, especially this part:

    "The platforms make money based on the time we spend on them, and they don’t hesitate to use unethical, addictive resources, so how are you going to ask a 10-year-old or a 13-year-old to stop, if it’s even hard for us adults?"

    I've struggled with social media and technology addiction myself, so in my mind, allowing a child a smartphone is akin to teaching them how to smoke - that is how toxic and generally "bad-for-your-health" modern internet is, I think.

    At the same time, I am not (yet) a parent, so I really don't know how am I going to be making such a decision when the time comes.

    • The modern internet is weird. It's a space where you can link up a Skinner machine feeding you pure hate and vitriol directly to your brain, but it's also a space where you can teach yourself literally anything.

      I feel like the trick is using it more for the latter and less for the former. Even using Beehaw too much, it quickly becomes obvious that I need to shift my focus. Endless streams of news and opinion aren't, like, great.

    • I think there are ways to impose child safety locks, as it were, on a phone's access to the internet? Like a curfew or "max hours in a day" limit. I feel like that would make more sense than not giving a kid a phone.

      And there are also tricks one can apply to circunvent some of that attention-grabby design, like putting the phone in grayscale mode.

      Also, unlike cigarettes, smartphones serve many purposes, and 99.999% of people (in countries where they are ubiquitous) will need to own one at some point. I think it may be better to actively teach a child how to handle the information-overload, attention grabbing tricks, misinformation, and so on of the internet, rather than leaving them to just figure it out for themselves later on.

      My concerns with denying children a smartphone altogether include:

      • Phones are an essential safety device, and smartphones are better at this than dumb phones because of things like GPS and maps navigation (especially for kids who get lost easily), clear emergency alerts (e.g. "expect a tsubami in 3 minutes", or "there is an active shooter currently around the grocery store at x and y street"), the ability to store easily accessible information for first responders in the phone (which can sometimes also be auto-shared when you make a 911 call), and the ability to easily and silently text 911 if they find themselves in a situation where calling is dangerous.
      • Phones and social media are now an integral part of most kids' social lives. If a kid doesn't have a smartphone and can't join in on real time group chats, with the ability to see the things their peers share in that chat, or if they don't have video chat access, they'll be cut off from a lot of other kids and their social life will suffer for it.

      And access to social media is especially important for kids who need to find support they can't find easily irl, like for queer or neurodivergent kids who benefit from talking to others like them on the internet - even if they're lucky and their parents are supportive, it's not the same as finding a peer support group. For similar reasons, access to digital library collections can be a big deal. Granted, some of this would be covered if they have access to the internet on a laptop or desktop, but at that point they'd have internet access anyway so they might as well have the phone too.

      • Phones are more and more often required for basic utilitarian access, too. Sometimes taking the city bus requires a phone because you can't pay cash anymore. Sometimes the laundry machine doesn't take coins, only app or internet payment. Sometimes the menu at a restaurant is just a QR code that tells you to look at their website. It sucks but it's only getting more this way.

      I'm not advocating for giving smartphones to literal toddlers, but beyond a certain (fairly low) age I think at this point the risks of giving a kid a smartphone are outweighed by the risks of them not having one.

  • It's not a good idea to let children go wherever part of the city they want to go. Specially for no-go zones in the city.

    Internet should be treated like streets. If you trust a teenager to go outside with certain restrictions of time and places, same should apply for internet.

    But a minor who barely reads shouldn't be alone in the streets all day. The same for the Internet. Similar dangers may be involved.

69 comments