It’s surprising to me that any school system in the US allows phones in classrooms! It seems really clear that it would strain students’ focus, and to put the onus of prohibition onto teachers seems untenable. Neither of my kids’ schools allow them and I can’t imagine how challenging it would be for them if they did. Agree with the rest of the ideas as well!
I like a combination of the two. Classroom rules by state (or even district, but probably state). The other items in the plan make sense at the federal level. App stores may also be able to require those restrictions to be available on their platforms.
My editor-in-chief, frustrated that I couldn't review emails or do research and writing while on the road, generously offered to buy me an iPhone to replace my flip-phone. I said "No thanks." And I said, "Out of my cold, dead hand."
If it's hard for adults, it's way harder for kids, whose worst nightmare is being left out.
Good interview Chris. Without knowing her opponents, Mallory seems to have the life experience and connection to her state voters to have a big shot at winning. More important she is a young mom who understands social media can be as dangerous as any drug addiction (she mentioned drinking, smoking or gambling). The SPECIFIC PROBLEM is that Section 230 passed in 2016 prevents social media companies from being sued for the harm they do -- so of course they don't monitor their platforms to protect anyone from going down a harmful black hole based on an algorithm that helps bullying, promotes low self-esteem, isolation, OR much worse! You should look at the work and proposed bill of Congressman Jake Auchincloss, who has been formulating it based on the scientific studies of algorithmic dopamine. It includes taxing some advertising of the Big 3 and directing that into education. Interesting when you realize that Drinking, Smoking, Drugs, and Gambling addictions which Mallory mentioned, were all helped by the needed cautionary education -- but today they are totally immune from the harm they are doing to the youth of America. If Mallory reads this, she should reach out to Majority Democrats (Jake is the Chairman) -- she seems to fit the profile of many of their members and their proposed affordability plans (Mikie, Abagail, Elissa and many local politicians including mayors). Believe the future of recovering from the damaging division and wreckage of Trumpism needs these type of grounded in reality young politicians.
Just like a Democrat to want to regulate everything. It would be a great idea for the single childless 30-40 something women to have a couple of children so they could get their noses out of other people’s children’s lives. To paraphrase Chuck: this individual would want to prevent parents from giving their kids a carton of cigarettes for their 16th birthday, and would be up in arms for them having a birthday party with. 3.2 beer. 😆😆😆😆
Chris, Sorry I did not hear that part of the interview as my reception was iffy as I was traveling. Although I was really just being factious and stretching a stereo type.
Great comeback. Just like a republican to immediately make it a political issue either avoiding or misunderstanding it’s an issue about protecting children and not politics.
I, too, am opposed to allowing children to drink alcohol and smoke pot or cigarettes until a certain age. Those are the laws in all states, Democratic or Republican. Constitutionally this sort of thing should be handled at the state level - same as booze, pot and whatnot.
It is not exactly accurate to say these are state laws. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is a federal law that requires states to set the minimum drinking age at 21 or they risk losing federal funding. The whole point of federal laws is so that there isn’t uneven interpretation/ enforcement in different states. Which is exactly what the senator is suggesting we need.
True that, but there are hundreds of counties and cities in the various states that prohibit alcohol use altogether. To me this seems like one of those contentious issues best left to the discretion of each state. Look at how the OP reacted to the idea.
Agree to disagree, I guess. Like the "Tobacco 21" federal law that made 21 the minimum age to buy cigarettes, I think there are some things that federal legislation is well-suited for. If we believe that people can be harmed by smoking and drinking alcohol (or social media) at too young an age, why not allow our elected federal officials to legislate these protections so they're uniform nationwide? Why let kids in, say, Missouri be exposed to hazards at a younger age while kids in other states are protected until they're older and can make better decisions on their own? FWIW, this is why many people feel that the protections of Roe v. Wade were so important--we're now seeing the consequences of it being overturned in the hodgepodge of state laws that threaten women's lives in one state while protecting them in others.
The problem is that who believes what in this large and diverse nation of ours can vary widely from place to place, particularly with respect to social issues. And social media is almost by definition a social issue. At this point at least, the science is iffy at best (as the saying goes, correlation is not causation) and the media itself is evolving rapidly. Leave it to the states to sort out.
Again, agree to disagree. There are some things that as a nation, we can decide are foundational regardless of what state you’re in. The science isn’t particularly “iffy” on the harms of social media to underdeveloped brains, or the amount of distraction a cell phone can cause, but regardless, we’re not talking about a ban; we’re talking about basic privacy and functionality protections for kids. That’s a pretty low bar we’re clearing.
It’s surprising to me that any school system in the US allows phones in classrooms! It seems really clear that it would strain students’ focus, and to put the onus of prohibition onto teachers seems untenable. Neither of my kids’ schools allow them and I can’t imagine how challenging it would be for them if they did. Agree with the rest of the ideas as well!
Agreed 10,000%.
There are days when I'm ready to smoke my phone.
Not sure it should be at the federal level but at state levels.
I like a combination of the two. Classroom rules by state (or even district, but probably state). The other items in the plan make sense at the federal level. App stores may also be able to require those restrictions to be available on their platforms.
.... uniparty--let's take the truth proudly -let's prove the movie line by Jack Nicholson is bulls..t!
My editor-in-chief, frustrated that I couldn't review emails or do research and writing while on the road, generously offered to buy me an iPhone to replace my flip-phone. I said "No thanks." And I said, "Out of my cold, dead hand."
If it's hard for adults, it's way harder for kids, whose worst nightmare is being left out.
Good interview Chris. Without knowing her opponents, Mallory seems to have the life experience and connection to her state voters to have a big shot at winning. More important she is a young mom who understands social media can be as dangerous as any drug addiction (she mentioned drinking, smoking or gambling). The SPECIFIC PROBLEM is that Section 230 passed in 2016 prevents social media companies from being sued for the harm they do -- so of course they don't monitor their platforms to protect anyone from going down a harmful black hole based on an algorithm that helps bullying, promotes low self-esteem, isolation, OR much worse! You should look at the work and proposed bill of Congressman Jake Auchincloss, who has been formulating it based on the scientific studies of algorithmic dopamine. It includes taxing some advertising of the Big 3 and directing that into education. Interesting when you realize that Drinking, Smoking, Drugs, and Gambling addictions which Mallory mentioned, were all helped by the needed cautionary education -- but today they are totally immune from the harm they are doing to the youth of America. If Mallory reads this, she should reach out to Majority Democrats (Jake is the Chairman) -- she seems to fit the profile of many of their members and their proposed affordability plans (Mikie, Abagail, Elissa and many local politicians including mayors). Believe the future of recovering from the damaging division and wreckage of Trumpism needs these type of grounded in reality young politicians.
Just like a Democrat to want to regulate everything. It would be a great idea for the single childless 30-40 something women to have a couple of children so they could get their noses out of other people’s children’s lives. To paraphrase Chuck: this individual would want to prevent parents from giving their kids a carton of cigarettes for their 16th birthday, and would be up in arms for them having a birthday party with. 3.2 beer. 😆😆😆😆
But she had a kid? She talked about it in the interview. She has a five year old girl.
Chris, Sorry I did not hear that part of the interview as my reception was iffy as I was traveling. Although I was really just being factious and stretching a stereo type.
"Just like a Democrat to want to regulate everything"? Let's see what the Republicans have tried (and often succeeded) in regulating:
1) Reproductive rights--women and the doctors can no longer decide what's best for their healthcare.
2) Gender-affirming care--parents and their doctors can no longer decide what's best for their children.
3) Education and speech--schools and businesses cannot teach or discuss DEI or CRT without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration.
4) Criminalization of the Right of Assembly--now, protestors are "agitators" instead of people exercising their First Amendment rights.
5) Freedom from religion--Rs try to insert Christianity into everything they possibly can, despite the unconstitutionality of doing so.
I could go on, but I think it's obvious that when it comes to Republicans, every accusation is a confession.
Great comeback. Just like a republican to immediately make it a political issue either avoiding or misunderstanding it’s an issue about protecting children and not politics.
I, too, am opposed to allowing children to drink alcohol and smoke pot or cigarettes until a certain age. Those are the laws in all states, Democratic or Republican. Constitutionally this sort of thing should be handled at the state level - same as booze, pot and whatnot.
It is not exactly accurate to say these are state laws. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is a federal law that requires states to set the minimum drinking age at 21 or they risk losing federal funding. The whole point of federal laws is so that there isn’t uneven interpretation/ enforcement in different states. Which is exactly what the senator is suggesting we need.
True that, but there are hundreds of counties and cities in the various states that prohibit alcohol use altogether. To me this seems like one of those contentious issues best left to the discretion of each state. Look at how the OP reacted to the idea.
Agree to disagree, I guess. Like the "Tobacco 21" federal law that made 21 the minimum age to buy cigarettes, I think there are some things that federal legislation is well-suited for. If we believe that people can be harmed by smoking and drinking alcohol (or social media) at too young an age, why not allow our elected federal officials to legislate these protections so they're uniform nationwide? Why let kids in, say, Missouri be exposed to hazards at a younger age while kids in other states are protected until they're older and can make better decisions on their own? FWIW, this is why many people feel that the protections of Roe v. Wade were so important--we're now seeing the consequences of it being overturned in the hodgepodge of state laws that threaten women's lives in one state while protecting them in others.
The problem is that who believes what in this large and diverse nation of ours can vary widely from place to place, particularly with respect to social issues. And social media is almost by definition a social issue. At this point at least, the science is iffy at best (as the saying goes, correlation is not causation) and the media itself is evolving rapidly. Leave it to the states to sort out.
Again, agree to disagree. There are some things that as a nation, we can decide are foundational regardless of what state you’re in. The science isn’t particularly “iffy” on the harms of social media to underdeveloped brains, or the amount of distraction a cell phone can cause, but regardless, we’re not talking about a ban; we’re talking about basic privacy and functionality protections for kids. That’s a pretty low bar we’re clearing.
P.S. Regardless of the moral merits, Roe v. Wade was lousy law and should've been overturned.