Jennifer Powers is a former Number 10 Special Adviser on Energy, Business, and Regulation and a lead at Smartphone Free Childhood in South-West LondonÂ
My child is one of only three students in their year without a smartphone. This is not unusual. Ninety-seven per cent of 12-year-olds in Britain have a smartphone. Half of all nine-year-olds in the UK have a smartphone.
Smartphones are essential for modern life. Why should this be any different for children? Are they not more helpful than harmful?
That is an increasingly difficult argument to make. Apple unveiled the iPhone in 2007. By 2012 smartphones were ubiquitous in Britain, including for children and young people. The last 12 years have been a massive experiment on British children. The results are in.
Children are lonelier, more anxious, more depressed, and at higher risk of online grooming, self-harm, and suicide. There is incessant cyberbullying and wider access to pornography; 51 per cent of 11 to 13-year-olds say they have seen pornography online.
The Online Safety Act is a meaningful step forward in child protection. But it does not go far enough. When the law comes into force technology platforms must enforce their terms and conditions on age of access. Only last week Meta dropped the minimum age requirement for WhatsApp from 16 to 13 years old. On most platforms, having an account is not necessary to view (often very violent or pornographic) content.
Even harmless content is not harmless. Time spent on a device is time not spent with friends. When online, children are not playing. They are not active. They are not outside. They are addicted to the scrolling, the dings, and the artificial validation.
But surely this is down to parental choice? There is nothing stopping parents from resisting smartphones until their children are grown. Theoretically, this is true. Some parents do wait. But most reluctantly give in. No one wants their child to be isolated, ostracised, or bullied for being different. Because (almost) everyone has one, everyone must have one. How do we break the cycle?
It is a classic collective action problem. Everyone – save the tech companies – would be better off if children did not have smartphones. Parents are overwhelmingly in favour. In a recent survey by Parentkind, 58 per cent of parents supported a ban for under 16s. This rose to 77 per cent for parents of primary school children.
We do not let people drive until they are 17 years old. Not just for their safety, but for everyone else’s. There are far more restrictions on alcohol – you cannot drink alcohol in a pub until you are 18 – than there are currently on smartphones. There are far worse dangers online than intoxicated teenagers.
The tech industry argues that restricting children from using smartphones is not technically possible. Oh really? The brightest minds in Silicon Valley can make beautiful, awe-inspiring – and incredibly additive – technology. But they cannot make an attractive, functional, and safe phone for children.
Yes, to texting, calls, music, maps, and payment apps. No to social media and general internet access. In the meantime, brick phones are fine. Stick on a GPS tracker or air tag and your child is good to go.
Parental controls are fine but children are often better at technology than their parents. They also fail to address the collective action problem. How would you ever get everyone to agree and implement the same controls? Instead, we must cut off unsupervised access to the internet at source. The smartphones must go.
There are rumours that Michelle Donelan, the Science and Technology Secretary, is set to make a policy announcement. If true, the Government deserves praise for listening to parents’ concerns, interrogating the evidence, and recognising the negative impact on children. This is political leadership at its best, driving social change for the public good.
Conservatives value freedom; freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of choice. Conservatives also believe in limits. We believe in borders, the rule of law and strong institutions, most importantly the family. Freedom is best experienced within clear boundaries. People can realise their dream of owning a house because property rights are respected. You cannot get a mortgage in a warzone. Children do best in schools with good behaviour. You cannot learn if you struggle to hear the teacher.
Libertarians and free-market ideologies will no doubt oppose restricting children from smartphones. It should be up to parents, they will argue. Permissive progressives will shrug, let the children do what they want, and watch what they want. Most people, however, accept smartphones are a malign influence and support the Government stepping in. We will soon marvel that we ever allowed children to have the internet in their pockets.
Keeping childhood free of smartphones is not exclusively a conservative endeavour. The Smartphone Free Childhood movement, started by mums Daisy Greenwell and Clare Fernyhough in February, has gained over 60,000 supporters in only eight weeks. Hundreds of school groups have sprung up across the country. These parents and teachers represent all political parties and none.
But few things are as reflective of conservative values as protecting children from harm and preserving the very essence of childhood. Freedom flourishes within clear boundaries.
What freedom is more precious than the freedom to be a child?
The post Jennifer Powers: Restricting smartphone access for children should be a moral necessity for Conservatives appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Jennifer Powers
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.