> so by that logic we shouldn't let anyone have them

It's pretty normal to treat kids differently to adults in specific areas.

> I still don't understand why someone with no kids should have their access gated based on what opinions other people have on parenting

This argument goes both ways - currently there are no safety rails for kids, and that is imposed on people who want safety rails.

> That doesn't make it reasonable to have a policy that requires literally the exact people who aren't the ones that are ostensibly supposed to be protected by the system tracked by it

And there are definitely situations where adults' experiences are degraded because a place has to accommodate children. I agree that I hate tracking and so forth, but I wouldn't pretend that children using smartphones isn't a pretty well-understood bad idea either.

▲

saghm a day ago | parent [-]

> This argument goes both ways - currently there are no safety rails for kids, and that is imposed on people who want safety rails.

No, it's imposed on every adult regardless of if they want safety rails, and in a way that literally only affects the people who aren't actually the ones the rails are ostensibly supposed to be protecting.

> I wouldn't pretend that children using smartphones isn't a pretty well-understood bad idea either.

You literally just said that it's "incredibly recent", and now you're claiming that it's well understood. I'd argue that those things are inherently at odds; we literally don't know what a young child who used a smartphone looks like at 30 years old right now because they haven't been around long enough. On top of all of that, there's literally nothing about invading someone's privacy that's needed to stop a child from using a smartphone: just don't give them the smartphone! That's always been an option, and nothing about this policy that will have any effect on whether parents give their kids access to their smartphones.

	▲	philipallstar a day ago \| parent [-]
		> No, it's imposed on every adult regardless of if they want safety rails I don't understand. We're talking about something that hasn't happened yet. The safety rails do not exist, even for those who want them. > You literally just said that it's "incredibly recent", and now you're claiming that it's well understood Yes - incredibly recent in the grand scheme of history, but still we have a lot of evidence of the negative aspects of onlineness and phone use over the last 15 years at least. And, as another example, it's far more recent that girls turn 18 and celebrate that on OnlyFans. I would argue that while I haven't waited 30 years to see how they turn out at 50, that it's a bad idea. > On top of all of that, there's literally nothing about invading someone's privacy that's needed to stop a child from using a smartphone: just don't give them the smartphone! That's always been an option, and nothing about this policy that will have any effect on whether parents give their kids access to their smartphones. I agree - I think this is a parenting issue, but at least on the left, which the EU tends to, parents should offload their responsibility where possible to the state. But that's my answer to this overall. I'm just arguing specifics.