150
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
150 points (95.7% liked)
News
23320 readers
3288 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No smartphones in the street, or parks or shops, whatever, it's their town.
This, however-
is ludicrous.
Screw that. A town shouldn't have the authority to take away basic freedoms like that, even if literally every citizen directly votes in favor of doing so.
I disagree with the part about "if every single person votes for it ", if absolutely every single person votes for it, then that is the town they want. Why shouldn't they be able to have the town they want? Who are we to tell them they can't have the town they want? In my opinion even a super majority would suffice. By super majority I mean 70%-75%.
If it were just the city council voting on it then I'd have to look a lot closer at it, but again if the majority of the public wants it then why not?
Edit : as for the part about no smart phones in the bedroom or home, it also says if the parents agree to it, then the kids would get a free flip phone. It doesn’t say they can’t have it at all.
Because it's not valid to vote to take away basic human rights, like the freedom to use simple, necessary modern tools.
If every single person wants it wouldn't they all already be doing it? It would make no sense to make a law for something everyone is already doing.
Fair, but I also have the super majority listed because you will basically never hit 100% of people wanting something.
Eh. Towns have all sorts of stupid ordinances like that and have for a very long time.
I mean, if you argue against 'no phones' ordinances because they take away basic freedoms, would you say the same about, for example, noise ordinances? Or public nudity laws?
This is similar to laws in small towns in America around the 1900s. Like "no chewing gum with your mouth open".
And today we absolutely laugh at those idiots.
The difference with those examples is that they affect other people and therefore need to be enforced. Limiting screen time in the home, however, affects no one but the occupants.
This would be like a municipality mandating that all home cooked meals must be made below a certain caloric threshold because they care about public health.
Sorry, I misread this when I replied originally. I agree with the in the home part. That's what I was saying initially.
I also misread the direction of the conversation, that's on me.
The at home part is something that's encouraged, not mandatory, with compliance being rewarded.
I've walked into others and others have walked into me without a phone. Should we ban kids from being in public because they're more likely to run into people? Plus the law doesn't ban the use of phones only when walking, nor does it ban one from looking at other distractions while walking such as books or magazines, so that's clearly not the motivation behind it.
Alternatively, if smartphone bans can be justified why draw the line there and not go further? Should we restrict gay couples from making public displays of affection? Or restrict what clothes women can wear? These things can distract/upset some people, and they may not want their kids to see it either.
There's obviously a certain balance between freedom and safety/order that we need to achieve for a functioning society, but banning phones is not on that balance.
It's not an enforceable ordinance. The article literally says the police can't stop or fine anyone for it.
Emphasis on in the home. I guess I was mainly responding to the idea that kids shouldn't have access to screens at home.
Tradition is never a valid defense for anything. If there are good reasons, use those instead. What-about-ism also doesn't address the topic at hand.
Defend banning smartphones.
Oh for fuck's sake, they aren't banning smartphones.
They can't ban smartphones.
It is not an enforceable ordinance.
Read the article.
"voted yes in a referendum to restrict smartphone use in public, banning adults and children from scrolling on their devices while walking down the street, while sitting with others on a park bench, while in shops, cafes or eating in restaurants and while parents wait for their children in front of the school gates."
unless i misread what is wrote in that paragraph, they basically said banning adults and children from scrolling on their devices in basically any public area. it even goes on to say if someone is lost and normally would use the mapping software to find their way they are told basically to ask someone else. at the end of the day it's basically banning their usage in public. i mean if they are claiming to only "restrict smarphone use in public" but then turn around and basically say that anything that a normal person would use them for is banned, then it basically is banned in public.
as you said "it is not an enforceable ordinance" but to me there is little difference.. it's basically just splitting hairs. the people in the area are basically saying don't use the phone in public. what is the realistic end result if i went to that town and used my phone in public. what is the honest reaction of the public towards me going to be? friendly? .. no not likely.
most likely it would be quite unfriendly.
which basically would make me put my phone away.
end result? effectively i have a choice get treated poorly (but get to use my phone in public) or not use my phone and then have a more pleasant stay. realistically the phone is basically banned in public.
on a side note: it should be mentioned, i have no problem on the public having a vote and deciding how they want their town to be run. if they want to pass that sort of thing and it is in a large enough majority then go for it. i'm not objecting to their actions. it's their town.
The public in the town didn't want people using their phones in public to begin with, which is why they voted for it. Do you think they would be more friendly if there was no ordinance? All this does is put something they already didn't want on the books but it can never be enforced. You would be treated in an unfriendly manner either way.
I mean do you really think people in this town were okay with public phone use and then someone said, "hey, let's put an unenforceable ban in place!" and the town said, "this will solve the problem! Now we can be rude to people who use phones in public!"
Just FYI, there are plenty of places in this world where people will be unfriendly to you if you use your phone in public. The difference here is you'll have a warning about it.
I guess you'd prefer to not have that warning?
If your end conclusion is that "I'd prefer to not have a warning " then I think you missed my point. I'm not opposed to the vote they took. I honestly don't care how they voted. Even if they somehow made it an actual law I still really wouldn't care either way. It's their town. I was only disagreeing with your statement that they weren't banning anything.
Personally I think a lot more things should be decided by purely popular vote. I honestly should make a post about a constitutional amendment I would like put through in the US. Just no idea of where to post it. (And actually have anyone see it.)
Being rude to people if they use a phone is not banning it. A ban has legal backing. They cannot legally confiscate your phone no matter how long you stand right in the center of town staring down at it.
And if someone took the phone out of your hand, they would be in legal trouble for stealing.
This is simply not a ban.
Read the article? Well, that's against my human rights of building half assed opinions based on misleading article titles and clickbait.
Noise actually materially affects other people.
Having a smart phone doesn't. Even allowing a rule like this to get to a vote should get their government disbanded and forced to re-form from scratch or fall under another municipality's jurisdiction.
As I said to the other person- I've had people looking down at smartphones plow into me on the sidewalk. I've seen people looking down at their smartphones and crossing the street almost get run over. It does affect other people. Including making noise since there are plenty of people who think the world wants to hear whatever they want to hear on their phone.
This is absurd. People run into each other occasionally, with or without cell phones.
This isn't a minor violation. It's completely, unforgivably, obscene. There's no possible scenario where it could possibly be justified or forgiven, and no possible scenario where a government could possibly be excused in having that authority.
I think you're being a little hyperbolic here. They aren't rounding up people and arresting them for pulling their phones out of their pockets. The article literally says-
And the majority of the town voted for it.
So I'm really not seeing the issue here.
I'm not. I'm dead serious.
Having the law on the books, without enforcement, should get their charter revoked. It is not acceptable.
If you are dead serious, and a non-enforceable ordinance that a majority of the voted in favor of in a democratic election is "completely, unforgivably, obscene," I guess you're more a fan of dictatorships.
It doesn't matter if every single person in the town voted to put a rule on the books taking away a basic freedom.
Opposing aggressively authoritarian violations of basic human autonomy is not supporting dictatorship. There are some things a government unconditionally should not have the capacity to restrict. Being a modern human using basic modern tools is one of them.
Again- no one's freedom is being taken away. You can stand in the middle of town and spend hours looking straight at your phone and not a single person can do a thing to stop you.
I agree that there are some things a government shouldn't have the capacity to restrict. Nothing is being restricted here.
The fact that the law is on the books is a restriction completely independent of any enforcement.
It cannot possibly be acceptable.
I'm sorry, you're getting worked up over a nothingburger and acting like a small town in France is akin to North Korea or something.
That used to happen with people reading newspapers. It was a movie cliche for someone to bump into a love interest because they were walking while reading.
Sure, and if there were an unenforceable 'no walking down the sidewalk while reading a newspaper ordinance," I'd be just as unconcerned about this.
But it's not, "No walking while reading." It is, "No reading in public."
From the summary at the top of this post:
"while sitting with others on a park bench, while in shops, cafes or eating in restaurants and while parents wait for their children in front of the school gates. Those who might check their phone’s map when lost are instead being encouraged to ask for directions."
Okay, but either way it's not enforceable. So why do you care?
I was only addressing your claim that phones present a new danger that makes sense to regulate. Then you claimed the law was only about reading and walking.
I was responding to this:
Having a smartphone can affect other people. And I don't care about unenforceable ordinances.
I didn't quote your noise argument because I agree.
I quoted and responded to this:
"I’ve seen people looking down at their smartphones and crossing the street almost get run over."
Okay? How is that untrue? I never said that was a reason for regulation.
In the modern world where internet is necessary for a lot of things, what better way to equip future generations for the world outside of their village than to almost force computer illiteracy on them by 'banning' all computers (along with the bad grades they're likely to get for IT in schools as a result of that, putting off some future employers), so forward thinking
Once again- they aren't banned. This is an unenforceable ordinance.
I wish people would read the article... or at least read any other comments.
I got the impression that this part is a voluntary guidline
It's all voluntary. I just think the last part is especially ludicrous.