Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
They haven't "won" until Meta has to pay damages. And even then, that win is hollow because not only will Meta try this again if the penalty isn't high enough, but they'll use the advantages of our weak leadership to further avoid any serious repercussions.
This article assumes Tik Tok wants to sell or that they are going to sell to a company that's basically a direct competitor. I don't understand this assumption.
They have 2 good points though (even if I generally agree with you that this is a first world problem). The first is that this will likely show up for parents who have lost a child or potential parents having fertility issues and that does suck.
The second is that it's just good UI to add a little box that says "never show this message again". It wouldn't take but the smallest iota of extra effort to do that. Annoying popups are honestly a first world problem. But they absolutely also show that these companies do not care, while these companies are trying to show they care.
Additionally, as others have said in the thread, programmers learn the skills required for debugging at least partially from writing code. So there goes a big part of the learning curve, turning into a bell curve.
It technically counts. It's a cipher that uses the same key for encryption and decryption.
They already had to "hide the phones". Literally France already passed a law stating that phones aren't allowed in elementary and middle schools for students. Those phones previously had to be kept in a backpack or pocket and weren't allowed to be used on the premises.
This new law does one singular thing, so far as I can tell (which isn't made clear in either of the articles I read). It actually actively makes students surrender phones at the beginning of the school day and locks those phones away in a centralized location the students don't have access to.
The problem with that is what I have been saying in subsequent comments. There are protocols in place for what happens when a student breaks the rules. But A. They mention nothing at all about how they will know a student is carrying around a phone in their pocket or using it in the bathroom. And B. they mention nothing about the repercussions for skirting such rules and regulations.
Additionally, if this is about student mental health (as they claimed), it does absolutely nothing to teach them about the dangers of cell phones, nor does it even remotely teach them to moderate cell phone use.
Don't know any delinquent teenagers do you? And don't even start with the "must be American BS" because I'd be happy to Google some news stories for you.
I can tell you didn't read either.
Permanently Deleted
IP Laws that Enable Enshitifcation.
Man. I read the article. You all seem to be taking what I said as "I think students should have cell phones in schools". In actuality I don't think there's any reason for students to have cell phones in schools.
So my argument isn't that I think the ban is bad. My argument is that this is a piss poor way of going about it that doesn't really add any benefits (especially when you consider that the law preventing students from using cell phones in schools has been on the books since 2018).
So this is not an argument about what researchers found as far as differences in the mental health of students allowed to have phones (which is a big jump because at best the phones are tolerated in students pockets or bags not allowed to use them in school during lessons), vs those that aren't. That part of what has been said up and down this comment section is irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with my original comment.
I don't care what governments recognize about a correlation between student mental health or well being and cell phone use. That's not got anything at all to do with what I said.
If you're disappointed it's literally because you didn't read.
The article gives little to no detail about the law or what's changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn't access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn't say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don't have access to for the school day). It doesn't state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.
It doesn't explain what the "separation of student from phone" looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).
It gives literally no details, and doesn't even link to the law in question.
A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children's health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not fundamentally solve this problem in any way.
It doesn't say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn't follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.
Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven't been answered. That's literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.
This is wasteful. It is short sighted. It does not fix or mitigate the problem and makes the problem worse for a lot of reasons that I can detail if you would like (but I doubt that will matter to you at all because you seem to be misunderstanding everything I've said).
This can be enforced. It will be detrimental to the school system as a whole. It is not a fix for any of the problems detailed. It doesn't change anything as far as I can tell and literally nobody has been able to come up with anything to validate what it would change, how it would change it for the better, or why the current rule structure and protocols in schools would benefit from it in any way.
So I'm saying it's shortsighted and either needs to be reworked, or criminalizing parents allowing their children to bring such materials into schools should be implemented instead.
They trialed 180 schools, forcing the student to hand over or otherwise stow these devices in a place they couldn't access for the duration of the school day. And they have "evidence" that it helps with the "child well-being, and focus".
So now they are making it mandatory for all schools? How? What protocols are they putting in place? I'm really curious. The article says nothing. It's basically a really poorly worded press release.
Are the schools providing a place to house these devices? That would be a liability.
Are the schools banning the devices in the premises? If so, what are they doing with the ones that are going to be confiscated?
Is this law going to hold the parents accountable in any meaningful way (besides the potential inconvenience of having to pick up the phone at the school in person)? If so, that would be the only potentially beneficial part of a law like this.
What does the school do with such contraband? Can they turn it over to an authority like the police? This could also potentially be a beneficial part of making such policy into law. Depends entirely on how it's implemented.
Why do people always assume criticism is " we should just do nothing? " What is wrong with looking at something and seeing that it might be flawed and speaking up?
So when one of these phones start a fire because it's been improperly kept and the battery has a thermal runaway event?
If the phone is always returned then literally the law does nothing. The phone is being given back to the student? That's a failure in the implementation of protocol or policy. You can't use that to claim my argument is invalid because it literally does not make sense in this context.
Flip that argument around for me and tell me what that argument is. Because what it seems like it boils down to is a version of favoritism which will still exist and be taken advantage of under the law. What does this law fix exactly? How does this law prevent favoritism?
I compared it to previous tech because that tech was also considered a distraction and labeled with a similar brush and handled in a similar way to the way phones are likely handled today and it's important to understand and take into account what schools are likely already doing in order to facilitate learning and prevent such "distractions". This isn't about unsupervised access. This was never about unsupervised access. This is about the distraction that phones and other materials play in a child's ability to learn. And as that it stands to reason that A. Schools already have implemented protocols to deal with this situation when it arises. And B. That this law doesn't really do much to fix the problem, but does add additional liability because now regardless of whether or not the phone is being a distraction it must be confiscated and then held for a parent to pick up. Meaning that A. It must in essence remain in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated (and it won't because it would have to be charged at regular intervals and with new phones logged into occasionally to prevent media on the phone from being wiped). So this adds liability for the school. What protections does the school and school administration have under this law?
The effect of giving children smart phones is not going to be in any way mitigated by this law. This is not a ban on cell phones for children under the age of 18 full stop. It's a ban on children being allowed to bring cell phones to school.
So, what (in France I know!) are you getting for said taxes that you were not getting before?
Because that's exactly what I'm getting at. It is the schools responsibility to enforce the rules. The point is, it's not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time), it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren't ringing such distracting material to school. And this means there are already likely protocols in place for distracting material. So what are you getting out of this ban?
Schools likely already have a policy about bringing valuables items to schools which applies here. They also likely have policies about objects that are distractions in class or not suitable for school environments with protocols in place to enforce and or deal with said objects. So tell me. Why is this different? I know the article is talking about France.
So, explain to me why this law is necessary? What does it achieve? What does it do that wasn't already being implemented?
Are they going to allocate money to every school to employ technologies to prevent cell phone usage on the premises? Unlikely because, as I said, this law is to prohibit students from having cell phones, not teachers or administration.
So what happens when a school now has to confiscate and hold $1000 phones en masse? It makes them a target for theft. It makes them a target for lawsuit in the event that any of those phones are misplaced, stolen, damaged etc.
Teachers and admins didn't used to have cell phones in schools either. What are they doing on a phone that they can't use a landline and a computer for? Why is a cell phone so important for yard duty? Why is it a requirement? What does the cell phone do that a landline can't do?
That's true. But that doesn't mean they don't get to choose a better option than Facebook or Google or Amazon. Amazon at the very least isn't a main competitor of theirs because Amazon doesn't have a short form video product that's mainstream. And they can afford to buy Tik Tok. So there's that at least.