Is it time to ban smartphones?

Kaitlin Dryburgh

Our smartphones are ingrained in our way of life; often, it feels like we are being cornered into a life where it’s absolutely  necessary to have a smartphone on your person at all times. There’s an app for just about everything, and they often feel essential in order to socialise and work. The owners of smartphones have been getting younger, until it is now not uncommon to see a primary school-aged child in possession of a smartphone.

Well, the calls are getting stronger for a ban on smartphones for children. Some are calling for a ban for those aged under 14, some under 16, and some purely at schools. The discourse surrounding this topic grows with every new piece of data, or study, and legislation, such as Australia banning social media for anyone under the age of 16.

But often, when we discuss the drawbacks of modern technology, we focus on the drawbacks of social media alone. Even a smartphone without access to social media can be an addictive and potentially dangerous item. So, with experts, tech companies, politicians, parents, and children all having their say, is it time that we start to seriously consider a ban?
If we could ban smartphones for under-14s or 16s, wouldn’t that just be great? In a way, this would solve so many problems, but is it really as simple as that? Like many things in life, when the cat’s out of the bag, it’s difficult to put it back in.

I think most of us agree that smartphones have changed the lives of children, with many believing for the worse. Addiction is a word that can be thrown around rather frivolously, but many argue that addiction to smartphones and the apps on them is ruining our attention spans, our socialising skills, the way we process information and emotions, and even altering our brains. The problem is not all academics agree that this is happening, and as such, it’s becoming a bit muddled. Now, at the beginning of all stories concerning an addictive item—cigarettes, alcohol, hard drugs—was a group of experts saying ‘no they are completely safe.’ Therefore, we saw cigarettes handed out in hospitals, pregnant women drinking, and Oxycontin marketed as non-addictive. We can’t say for sure that this is history repeating itself, but I think it’s good to keep this in mind.

But some experts agree that smartphone addiction in children is not only altering their behaviour, but it is actually one of the causes of the mental health crisis we see in children/young adults. Although data surrounding this subject is still in its infancy, there are indications that when smartphones are removed from children for a prolonged period, symptoms of anxiety and stress decrease in those who were experiencing them.

A smartphone doesn’t just mean access to social media, but it’s a key to almost all the information and media in the world. As an adult, that’s a daunting prospect, but adults have the ability to process information better, have more life experiences, and have the ability to know right from wrong, and what the consequences are (at least the majority do). A child hasn't fully developed this part. So, when a report found that 27% of 11-year-olds had viewed porn, and shockingly, 10% of those aged nine had seen porn, we need to take notice. The majority of children will not view porn via a website dedicated to this content, but via social media, messaging with friends, and other innocent outlets. Smartphones are currently the main avenue that children are viewing content they not only can’t understand but content that can cause lasting damage into adolescent or adult life.

Parents and teachers also find themselves competing with smartphones at times. The disruption that smartphones cause in schools also can’t be overlooked. Technology has brought many benefits to the classroom, but I think many teachers will argue the smartphone can often feel like a hindrance.

A ban on children under a certain age owning one could be the way to go. There is no need for children to have access to so much information, especially when barriers to protect children on social media, etc., continuously fail.

Yet, some experts argue this could just be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to moral panic. Almost every new technology that came on the scene, from TVs to microwaves, induced scepticism and calls for a reduction in usage.

It is funny; decades ago, we worried about children watching too much TV, now parents often report annoyance that their children won’t watch the TV without picking up their phone or tablet.

There are experts who believe a ban on smartphones wouldn’t be practical at all, and even though it may seem like a quick fix, it would be much harder to police in reality. It’s easy to see where they are coming from, especially when we live a life that literally pushes us into using a phone at every turn. A ban could, in reality, make a smartphone even more desirable. Furthermore, whether we like it or not, a lot of adolescent socialising takes place on apps such as WhatsApp, etc., so could that leave some feeling isolated?

Is it just too simple to blame everything on social media and smartphones? Even before the dawn of the smartphone, the teenage years were always a rough ride and a little stressful. You could make the argument that if we had the awareness around mental health that we have today, say twenty years ago there would have also been high levels of anxiety reported. Children also have worse diets than they used to, and have had to contend with large events such as Covid-19 and lockdowns. Life is rarely neat enough to blame one thing.

Perhaps the one thing that many do believe is taking away the ability of tech giants to self-regulate. We have little legislation in place, it’s extremely weak, and it still places too much responsibility on tech companies to protect children without major repercussions if they don’t.

It would be like putting Smirnoff in charge of ensuring children aren’t drinking in the park. We put legislation in place to protect children for their own good, and we make sure that retailers aren’t selling alcohol to minors. In fact, a quick Google search will show many instances of retailers and shop assistants facing the consequences of selling alcohol to someone underage. Has there been any fines for social media companies that allowed suicide idolisation material on their sites, which subsequently led to the deaths of Molly Russell and other teenagers? No.

The Online Safety Act is now over a year old and is teeming with loopholes. Campaigners have long said it isn’t strong enough; it still allows social media companies to self-regulate. Although not all of it has come into force, we will see the last of its implementation this year, but will it make the UK the safest place in the world to access the internet? The problem is the Online Safety Act has seen five Prime Ministers, and even since it was passed in Parliament, so much has changed. Just think of the advancements in AI; the legislation is not keeping up with the technology.

Tougher regulations are needed, and perhaps even a global approach is required when tackling this issue. That, however, seems quite out of reach at this moment.
I personally believe there is an argument to be made for the restriction of smartphones, especially in schools. Even the likes of Eton have confiscated smartphones from the lower years and handed them a so-called ‘dumb phone’ (a phone that is used for text messages and phone calls only). Also, I doubt parents enjoy the pressure of having to buy an £800 phone for their child so they can fit in with their peers.

Either way, whatever which way you think on the topic, I do believe it’s time Scotland starts to have the discussion