I don't think going phoneless would be a great idea because emergencies happen and people need to communicate but society would probably be better if kids weren't glued to smartphone apps and social media from a young age. The smart watch or dumb phone idea makes sense to me though.

Those watches with tracking built in are certainly popular in my area, but I absolutely refuse to use it. Kidnapping just isn't a thing (the majority of kidnappings is by a trusted family member/friend), and I don't think kids should get accustomed to someone constantly looking over their shoulder. I've gotten my kids "smart" watches (fun Minecraft watches with built-in games and whatnot), and there's no tracking or internet access whatsoever.

If kids need to call, they can ask a trusted adult to borrow a phone. If I trust my kid, they can borrow my spare. Kids don't need a phone of their own until they can at least get around on their own (e.g. driver's license or parental permission to leave the neighborhood on their own), and for me, that's like 14yo. I have a 10yo, and there's no way I'm giving them a phone now or in the next year. They're really responsible, but they don't need it at all.

Don't they require smart phones to work though? All the ones I have had are all just BT devices which require a phone to do anything beyond tell the time

Anyone have a recommendation for a decent kids smartwatch with cell service? I got my son a Garmin Bounce and the text and the service sucked so we returned it.

EE (formerly Everything Everywhere) is a British mobile network operator, internet service provider and a brand of BT Consumer, a division of BT Group. Supposedly the #1 network in the UK similar to Verizon in the US.

A telecom company with the hubris and arrogance to call themselves "Everything Everywhere".

Electronics Enonymous.

Electrical Engineers.

I strongly believe that a large part of the reason China is so strict with underage phone and game restrictions is because the parents are at work for too long to do any real parenting. Ideally parents should be the ones making those choices and actually monitoring their kids, but since I don't have kids I can't really say for myself.

The problem here is that the systems you have to monitor usage aren't great, and kids are known for lying or omitting details to their parents.

Giving kids open-ended access to technology doesn't have to involve giving them access to the Internet without constant guidance. I would rather my kid have less digital access than their peers, than get sexually exploited because they were a child publicly online.

More and more I am seeing that the places kids go online are places I don't fully understand, but a cursory review reveals is also a hotspot for sexual predators. This seems like the perfect place for a predator to stalk my child. I don't know enough to stop them, and my kid doesn't know enough not to get exploited. By the time I find out about it, it'll probably be too late.

Giving a child an internet-connected camera and screen can become such a horrific nightmare, I think that good parenting actually has to involve being realistic and telling your kids "just because your friends have TikTok and Instagram doesn't mean you won't get grounded for it in this house", and letting kids use technology when I am in the room with them. I have seen what kids are posting online, and it's easy to assume that their parents don't care, but it's a lot more realistic to accept that kids are good at keeping secrets, and their parents don't know what they're up to.

If they want to learn about computers on their own, I'll buy them what they need to learn about all sorts of stuff that doesn't expose them directly to capitalist or sexual exploitation online. When they are old enough to defend themselves, then they can be given the trust in accessing the Internet on their own, but until then they need to explore under my watchful eye.

Giving a smartphone to a <10 year old child, and trusting that the limited monitoring tools available, and your child's honesty is enough to keep them safe from vicious exploitation is delusional and irresponsible.

When I went to price it out at the store, the line for a dumb phone was going to cost $30/mo more than a smart phone. It was dumb.

If the new dumb phones also came with Google Family Link for tracking then it would be a win. But they don't. As a parent, having the ability to track my kids when I know they're heading to or from somewhere is a big deal. And no, it's not an issue of trust.

There is a growing tide of data suggesting the fight is worth it, but understand it is a serious struggle.

Much like trying to get kids to eat healthy when they are surrounded by so much awful food in the US.

When they need one. And no, that's not when they say they need one, but when you decide they need one.

I'm planning on having a loaner phone when my kids are teenagers that they can share. It'll stay home unless they leave the house, and they'll be limited to how much time they can spend on it. If they earn my trust, maybe they'll get their own (again, subject to limitations). I don't see a reason why they'd need one before they can drive, but I'll play it by ear.

That said, I refuse to do any sort of tracking on their devices. If I trust them with a phone, I'll respect their privacy with it. If they violate my trust, they lose the phone. If they don't like it, they're free to get their own once they're 18, and not a day before.

As a 17 year old who has 3 phones (somewhat strange story behind it), giving a child a phone should be either when they need it, such as when they go out more often or other events where they need a specific use, but if not, I believe 18 to 20 is not a bad age to receive one, since young adults are more likely to need to travel to schooling such as UNI more often and generally need more info about travel routes and to be able to message parents/siblings/etc.

As for my 3 phones, one is a galaxy S4 my dad gave me as a hand-me-down, pretty much used to text my parents exclusively, then I received an oppo Reno z from a friend who didn't need it, which I currently use as a games and social media phone, then the third is one is a galaxy a20 my dad brought home and said I could take if I wanted, since there were a few of those unused at his workplace, so I now just use that as a flashlight.

I haven't had a problem.

iPhone with Screen time and communication limits means I can control how much time they spend in the device and in which apps and I control who they can contact.

Don't approve any apps that allow social features.

Talk to them about the realities of the internet and the wider world.

All of this has to happen at some point. If you just hand off a phone to an 11 year old or even a 14 year old workout doing any of the above, you're still going to have issues.

Much of what is being said about tech is the same as was said about tv and video games. The only studies you're going to hear about this are the ones that confirm the societal biases.

If you don't seek counter opinions of this topic you're playing into the same fear mongering every generation of parents has had about the new thing.

Dancing, rock and roll, tv, video games, and now phones. Every time, everyone thinks this time is different and every time it hasn't been.

They are probably smart enough to find a phone if they want one...

The thing I tell people is that as a parent, you are going to put maybe a few hours into blocking them from getting to stuff. They are then going to spend as much time as they want trying to get through it. You can dig through concrete with a spoon if you're patient enough.

Educate them, and give them access when they're responsible enough

Because all of our current laws work so well at preventing access to addictive things. /s

Is that a step further though? I feel like not giving kids access to VR Chat comes way before not giving them a smartphone in terms of restrictiveness or severity. It's a far more reasonable suggestion.