As part of the last generation to grow up without phones in (early) school, this.

The endless rationalizing of why kids need to have phones at every moment rings hollow...

Because grade school kids actually did just fine without them.

Things functioned, people got where they needed to get, emergencies were handled, etc.

Especially with pre- and post-school access, we're balancing a minimum of in-school utility against a massive danger to learning and development.

We should just accept we built addiction boxes and therefore restrict them appropriately.

I also grew up without phones in schools but in my opinion the problem is phones (and laptops, frankly) in class. If a student isn't in class, I don't see why they can't use their phone to talk to people or browse websites or whatever.

If they're in class, then 99% chance it's distracting them from learning. If they're not, I think personal autonomy is a good rule.

My argument against any phones from school start to end is that socialization and interpersonal skills are also learned in school.

Having a distraction box at hand slows that process.

Grade school kids aren't tiny adults: they're actively building the pieces that make them into adults (self control, emotional regulation, empathy, cooperation, etc).

I don't trust Google or Apple to sacrifice profits, at scale, to support those goals.

I agree with you. Also grew up through the full 90. To me, school is school, all of it. Not school, not school, but all time at school is: school. and imo personal devices in school is really bad news: period.

> The endless rationalizing of why kids need to have phones

Once again, for the people not paying attention. It's not about _need_. It's about quality of life. It's about easier, faster, better, safer.

Are there negatives to having cell phones? Sure. That's true for adults, too. And the benefits of having a cell phone need to be weighed against those negatives.

But saying "you don't _need_ a cell phone" is a straw man argument. Because nobody (that I see) says it's needed; they said it's worth it.

> Because nobody (that I see) says it's needed; they said it's worth it.

Oh, "need" is definitely the first-reach in these discussions. You should see Florida school parents go apeshit at the prospect of not being tethered to their little angels 24x7.

Granted, on HN, it does trend towards worth.

But imho that's looking at smartphones with rose-colored glasses. As people in the industry, you think we'd have more realpolitik perspectives about what modern smartphones are designed to do -- grab, hold, and monetize attention.

Its basically shitty parenting disguised with 'we care' and similar arguments as mentioned. Lets not forget about pedophile scare, that should convert the last remaining parents and make sure opposition is silent.

We raise kids mostly without screens (just some short old school cartoons on TV before bed if they behave well). Its harder, but kids behave much better compared to most peers (which can have 1000s of reasons and some out of our control, I know). We also limit sweet stuff, eat tons of veggies (so they do too and ie love broccoli, not sure where the proverbial hate comes from... maybe lack of basic cooking skills?). But the key is we eat same stuff, healthy food can be very tasty easily. We lay them down to sleep pretty early too.

Simply restrict highly addictive stuff, be it in food or behavioral like screens. It has no place when growing up, no matter how folks wrap it as a need. It forms neural pathways that are extremely hard to shed for rest of their lives, no need to fuck them up properly for life before they have a chance to forge their own path and make their own choices.

Here around public phones are gone since long, even inside schools. However, mobile phones that just do calls and SMS are still a thing. And anyway, the Finnish law is not preventing any of the use cases you mentioned as far as I understand it.

No they cannot. My school had multiple doors that could not see each other - more than once my parents were waiting for me at a different door from the one I was standing at waiting for them. We did find each other, but only after a lot of searching - sometimes we even passed each other as we both switched doors to wait at.

Okay, it did work out, but not nearly as well as a simple cell phone. Smart phones add additional functionality. (I can see on google maps where each kid's phone is)

So you had to wait a little extra for the benefit of a society where children aren't always on a screen?

Seems like a good trade to me.

To me it seems such a dystopian thing to inflict upon ones kids. All day long being monitored by a spyware spreading company, just for some small convenience and probable impacting their ability to clearly communicate where they are or will be waiting. Maybe this kind of thing is the reason why so many people are unable to make an appointment and stick to the terms agreed upon when making the appointment.

You are describing a minor inconvenience right?

The world is still better with smart phones and not having that inconvenience.

Now there are other downsides of smartphones. We do need to mitigate them. However lets not throw out the good just because of the bad.

I don't think you're taking seriously the opposite position that the world is not better with smartphones. I mean that seriously.

I do take your point though, this is probably the most reasonable, sane position:

> We do need to mitigate them. However lets not throw out the good just because of the bad.

So you could not agree with your patent to meet at a default pick up point? Have we become this short attention focussed that any pre-planning is outside of our mental scope?