this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
356 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

72471 readers
3104 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 points 12 hours ago

With nothing else but the blank walls and the cruel clock now students have nowhere else to turn to to pass the time but listening to teacher blab his time-filling spiel. If they're very lucky, the students might learn a single thing that matters before days end, but of course that remains exceedingly unlikely.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

So they're saying removing distractions improves focus? Woah dude, spoiler warning!

[–] ter_maxima@jlai.lu 12 points 1 day ago

As a 1998 French Zoomer, they were never allowed in class, and only allowed at recess in high school.

[–] oh_@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I am shocked they allowed them in school tbh. They were not allowed at school for millennials. Granted phones were new but all the flip phones and such were not allowed at schools.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 2 points 20 hours ago

They where in NL though, you just wheren't allowed to have them in class. But a lot of people here cycle to school and sometimes though roads that aren't that safe so in that case it was handy to have a mobile phone to call with.

[–] FallenGrove@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

I was super shocked when I saw kids using their phones and laptops in class. When I was in school, the moment your phone went off it was confiscated and you had to pay to get it back at the end of the day. It created this culture amongst the kids that no matter who you were, if your phone went off, people will have coughing fits and make noise to cover it up. Super funny every time it happened too.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Born on Europe on 1985. We never had a ban on phones (later "feature phones"). We couldn't use them in class, same as the game boy, a comic or a Walkman.

Now schools force Chromebooks/ewaste with laughable restrictions.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm absolutely in favor of schools disallowing use of phones in class, but I'm against them being banned. If kids want to use them between classes, that's fine, as long as they don't use them in class.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Yeah, my state just enacted a “bell-to-bell” ban on cell phones in schools for my kids. I absolutely support a ban on phones in class (so long as the school is providing necessary tech to educate with) but banning between class just ignores that phones are an important part of how kids socialize and ripping it away cold-turkey can’t be healthy.

Edit: also, I gave my kids phones primarily so they could contact me in an emergency, and I am very much not ok with the state telling me they can’t have the phone in their backpack.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

Agree with this, but I don't supply my kids with phones at all, despite their friends having them. If there's an emergency, they can go to the office or ask their teacher. If that's not possible, the school will likely call instead (e.g. when there was a bomb threat a couple of years ago).

I have chosen to not give my kids phones, but I also think other parents should be allowed to choose differently. Everyone's circumstances are different, and I don't want the government stepping in to make parenting decisions for me, even if my decisions would be the same. That's overreach and I will absolutely oppose it.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

And what if they get into trouble on their way home? Or the way to the bus, supermarket or whatnot?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

What trouble? Adults don't want to mess with kids (most child abuse happens with close aquaintances, not random crazies on the street), so their biggest threat is going to be bullies around their age, and a parent stepping in will just make that problem worse, so they'll need to learn to deal with that on their own anyway.

I personally have never had an issue going to/from school, other than the typical bullying on the bus. The most likely problem they'd run into is getting hit by a car, in which case they need paramedics and police, not me, and those emergency services will call me once they identify them (and I trust random strangers to call emergency services if a kid gets hit).

The only time I expect my kid to need to call is if they're at a party or something outside of school and need to be picked up because they don't feel comfortable. When they get to an age where that's a thing, we'll have a loaner phone for them to use.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Falling off your bike and cracking your head open or breaking something or whatever. I used to bike through somewhere where not a lot of people would pass by.

Or even worse, get hit by a tractor who didn't see you and not be found until later, which can cause permanent damage. Happened to somebody I know sadly, she is disabled for life now. Yes, the person in the tractor should have been more careful and have seen her, but you can hit somebody with one of those and not notice it.

I also never said they should use the phone to call the parents, you can also call 112 with those.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Right, but if you're in a situation where you need emergency services, chances are you won't be in a situation to call. For the vanishingly low chance of that being necessary (esp. in my case where I take them to/from school since there's no bus service), I trust strangers to call since my area is sufficiently densely populated for someone to see what happened.

If you live in an area where such things are more likely, I absolutely agree that you should be able to make that choice. I firmly oppose any school-wide ban on phones for that reason, I just happen to agree that, generally speaking, kids don't need and shouldn't have phones.

And if you really feel the need for your kid to contact you or emergency services, there are devices like Gabb watches that have only the functions you need. So please, consider those before considering a smartphone.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Kids shouldn’t have smartphones no, but it can he handy for a group of kinds to have at least some kind of phone. Heck even a phone without a sim can be used to call 112.

Sure. If you live in an area where kids may need to reach out, sure, give them a loaner phone or something, or one of those watches that can only contact a fixed set of numbers (you and trusted emergency contacts).

[–] natecox@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t think there is a good answer here. I didn’t really want my kids to have phones either but all you’re doing by denying them the primary social tool of their generation is ostracizing them from their peers.

Being a parent sometimes feels like a series of un-winnable choices.

What peers? They mostly play with neighborhood kids, and we have contact info for a few that live further away and arrange things that way. Our kids aren't teenagers yet, but my sister's are and they seem to do fine without phones as well. My friends growing up mostly had phones, and I worked around that as well.

I think people are making a much bigger deal about it than it really is. Maybe it's a larger issue in other areas, but honestly, my kids mostly want one to play games, not contact friends.

We certainly reevaluate regularly, but I'll need a pretty good reason to give my kids their own phones. I'm much more likely to have a loaner they can share, and only for a fixed amount of time.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The fact that you used the term we usually use to describe quitting alcohol and cigarettes is probably a good sign that they should be banned.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago

Wat? It’s called a colloquialism. It’s a way to describe something I know you know without needing to spell it out.

You’re basically asserting that anything described using an analogy must inherit all the traits of anything else that analogy is used for, which is just silly. It’s a classic composition/division fallacy.

[–] zapzap 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The "study" is that they asked teachers, "Hey, how's it been going?" and the teachers answered, "I feel like my students are paying attention more now."

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Polling professionals and experts on their opinions is perfectly reasonable to publish as a preliminary study on a subject

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Sure, but it is not a study general public, like us on lemmy, should care about. It needs a follow up before making decisions.

Yet you can already see people calling for phone bans...

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It is absolutely relevant enough to be published publicly.

Yet you can already see people calling for phone bans...

Yes, because they should've been banned 10 years ago

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Based on what data?

[–] zapzap 1 points 1 day ago

It's a sensible first step.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Who better to poll than teachers for this type of study? They are the ones in the trenches and can gauge the results.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world -1 points 19 hours ago

Teachers can't guage worth a damn

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You shouldn't poll anyone, instead look at test results. If there is better focus, it'll improve learning outcomes like test scores, graduation rates, and reduces instances of cheating. IMO, if we poll anyone, it should be parents about how much assistance they give their kids (i.e. are they filling in the gaps in their education less?).

It's nice that teachers think kids are paying more attention, but that only matters if kids are learning more.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's another type of study that is also worthwhile. But the effects of distracted students on teachers and the classroom as a whole is also relevant.

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but there's a huge degree of bias whenever you ask people anything. Obviously teachers are going to think phones are detrimental to class focus, and thus they're more likely to say their ban helped with that same focus

Same thing If you asked students, but reversed

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago

Both great metrics to have, true.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, I just don't trust results from subjective studies, unless it's tracking trends over time. So maybe if they had opinion polls like this before smartphones were a thing in classrooms, while smartphones were a thing, and after they were banned I'd trust the results somewhat. But if we're just tracking an after-the-fact poll, it just feels like confirmation bias. I believe teachers have an incentive to overstate the impact of policies that give them more control, because they want to encourage more such policies, even if they aren't effective at achieving tangible results.

So yeah, I distrust this type of study. I don't think it's necessarily worthless, I just don't think many conclusions can be taken from it.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You can conclude that teachers experience a better classroom environment. There was also 1/3 that did observe academic improvement.

E: Also, a teachers subjective experience is still an objective result if you are considering the qol aspect of the policy.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I mostly care about longer term impacts. The ban has only been in place for a year and a half, so it's really not much to go on.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Short term and long term impacts are both worthy of study, surely.

Sure, but short term impacts are generally unreliable, since there are a lot of cases of coincidence, like a good policy having no immediate impact or a bad policy having the desired impact. Longer term studies account for that randomness.

[–] zapzap 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, like, if you're just gonna ask someone, they'd be the ones to ask.

[–] ClusterBomb@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, except science does not work like that. 😐

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, it does. A subjective response can absolutely be an objective result.

[–] ClusterBomb@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This is not a demonstration and this does not qualify as a scientific proof. 🤷

They polled teachers. It ir like I polled religious and conclude that God exists because God speaks to most of the people I polled. This is not science, sorry not sorry.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago

Good example! That poll would be a relevant result for a percent of the population the believes in god.

[–] romantired@shibanu.app 5 points 1 day ago

Wow, no way, I never would have thought )

[–] RobotZap10000@feddit.nl 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

At my middle school, we also banned smartphones throughout the whole building. You were meant to either leave yours at home or put it in your locker when you got there. It's a lot easier to chat with people during the breaks when they're not face-down in their phone screen.

[–] romantired@shibanu.app 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Have the iPads and laptops not been collected?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Glasgow@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago (6 children)

How were they ever allowed?

I was in school from the transition from no mobiles at all to smart phones. If you got caught with one it was whipped off you.

At my school, they only cared if you used it, and you'd be forced to put it away if caught. A lot of my friends had phones, but they weren't allowed to use them in class, and it was treated like any other gadget like a gameboy.

I don't believe in bans (kids can use them between classes), but I also believe kids shouldn't use any devices in class.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›