Republican lawmakers are proposing blocking kids from accessing social media in schools that receive federal broadband subsidies.
TBH, I’m not generally opposed to this idea. Social media consumption has a lot of negative consequences, and we could all do with a little less in our lives. However, given the source, I don’t trust Republicans to be making these demands in good faith.
What’s going to be funny, though, is the number of tech-saavy kids who know how VPNs work. 🍿
The question is whether they will be blocked on school WiFi, or via software on the students’ take home laptops that some schools do. If it’s blocked on the WiFi, the tech savvy kids won’t even need a VPN to get around it. If they have a phone, they can tether it and use their phone’s internet plan instead of the school WiFi. Most android phones have this as a feature.
They all have phones. Which is how most people use social media. There is no need for any of this shit because they will just use their phones with their data plans.
Bingo. I like the idea, but it’s coming out of a Republicans mouth so there’s something insidious we’re not noticing.
Wouldn’t using DuckDuckGo bypass this?
DDG isn’t a vpn
Y’all know about 5G, right?
We already block social media at a lot of schools. Doesn’t do shit when all you need to do is disconnect from the schools wifi to see what you want…
In before they address this and propose tracking each student’s phone to see if they are in a school zone (and of course to see much more).
School would have to provide the phones, not even close to within our budget
Plus plenty of students just wouldnt accept them an if forced to take them would just toss em into a drawer and forget about them.
Not unless we had a large cohort of people doing everything in their power to undermine our freedom and privacy.
No, that’s how public education works.
You can’t require people have things, you have to provide them. Thats how that works.
We are discussing law makers just so you know, not saying it will happen but that some would love it it.
That would be impossible to do without impacting the ability of neighboring homes to access the internet as well. It’s not like the signals magically stop at the school parking lot.
Exactly what I’m getting at
Kids are suspended if caught with a cellphone on school property in our district.
I’m sure glad that isn’t true in mine. My daughter called me today to tell me she was really sick and the nurse wasn’t going to send her home. I knew my wife has been really sick and so I knew she needed to go to the doctor. I wouldn’t have even heard about it until after she got home from school if she didn’t have a phone.
This varies greatly from district to district. I know of plenty of schools that do the same. But I also know school districts (and luckily live in one) where this would never fly. They tried doing this during my daughter’s sophomore year of high school, and the parents all said “Oh, fucking no. If I want to be able to get in touch with my kid, I’ll make that decision, not you.”
I also know of districts that tried this and just abandoned the idea because it was nigh-on impossible to enforce without suspending like 90% of the kids.
I also know of districts that tried this and just abandoned the idea because it was nigh-on impossible to enforce without suspending like 90% of the kids.
That is what is happening. They suspended the Senior class president who was caught with a phone because they were waiting on a college scholarship call.
I graduated about ten years ago so cellphones were popular, but not the same culture we have now. I got suspended because my mom called my phone which I had forgotten to turn off while it was in my locker before school started. Turns out I had forgotten a project so not only did I get suspended, I failed an assignment. Schools are great
Easy enough to setup a wifi hotspot in the bathroom and keep it in your pocket.
How did they get the ok for that? Kids with cell phones can help in active shooter situations so to remove a tool that potentially could save a lot of lives seems crazy
MAGA invaded the school board. They also banned a ton of books.
Honestly, I’m generally okay with this. As long as they don’t push some other agenda along with it.
Social media is, generally, toxic. There are areas that are not but the algos most commercial social media outlets use for engagement are just bad for everyone.
Cutting kids off from social media is all about cutting them off from outside information and support. We desperately need a bill of rights for kids, it’s tragic how many people are fine with treating them like property.
Many abusive parents already control all of their kids’ time outside of school, and for some, the only place to find understanding & support is in forums like r/raisedbynarcissists or LGBT spaces.
Like adults, kids are informed by social media, and if we want to improve their mental health we need to actually address the problems they learn about there, instead of simply preventing them from learning about the real world.
Things like our unwavering march toward an unlivable climate, the malign growth of oppressive, theocratic, authoritarian movements in many governments around the world, the crushing inequitable grind of capitalist culture, or just the ignorant / abusive / bigoted mindset of many fellow citizens are all bad for anyone’s mental health, but they need to be understood accurately to be addressed.
It is pretty much technically impossible. Using the phone data plan alone will negate it. I am not against it either in theory but not possible in practice.
Social Media is little overused. Email is social media in reality.
Social media has legitimate research potential. This doesn’t stop any kid from doing what they’re already doing: using social media on their cell phone with cellular data.
I worry that a bill like this will have riders attached that would change scope drastically. I honestly think in this case it should be up to the school district to self regulate and let the local communities decide what is right in their districts.
Anytime a Republican does something I always believe it is for the worse intentions.
(kicks rocks) I’m gonna have to agree with the Republicans.
I guess a broken clock is right twice a day
S’ok with me. Kids need to pay attention in class so they don’t end up MAGA
I know my kids have legitimately used social media at school:
– for group projects, where the online classroom stuff is useless
— for current events in various social studies, history, and law and government classes
As a perfect example, my kid is taking a “virtual high school” class for something his school doesn’t normally offer. They had to use social media to coordinate a group project they just completed . Before someone says the school should provide something, in this case they couldn’t because each member school has their own distinct online classroom stuff that can’t coordinate
Ultra right wingers in my kids district have banned all cellphones in schools. It’s made life hard on parents to communicate with kids.
I would think they would actively WANT them on social media, where they often control narratives by being louder. Surprised.
i actually agree; didnt think about it like that.
I think Republicans have decided to use this awkward moment as a false coming to terms with reality. They’re going to pretend to want to clean up their shit but only because they know that they need to for public perception, they’ll find devious new ways to supplant alternative information I’m sure
This was actually the default across the country in the 90s. Anything electronic, no matter if it was a cell phone, pager, or Walkman, was banned. As an older person who hasn’t been in school for 23 years, I’m surprised that schools nowadays are so lenient with it.
Do they actually let you use the cellphones in class during instruction or assignments (in the districts that haven’t banned them)?
As an older person who hasn’t been in school for 23 years, I’m surprised that schools nowadays are so lenient with it.
Graduated over 30 years ago. Rules, on paper, were the same for me back then. However, the rules were really only enforced when the student was using the device in class or was otherwise being disruptive with it. They didn’t try to enforce it on every kid with a set of headphones on because they’d have to suspend 3/4 of the school.
My guess is that over time, the same thing happened everywhere: More kids had more and more electronic devices, and as the years went on, support for rules banning them dropped more and more to the point where at least some districts have attempted to stop trying.
Having access to research resources in your pocket can be a good thing for in class assignments. I haven’t been in school for 10 years, but given the right curriculum and teachers, cell phone use in classrooms can be beneficial. My history classes were less about memorizing dates and more about understanding how historical events impacted the world and led to other events, like the direct line that can be drawn between WWII, the cold War, and modern conflicts.
But you need proper oversight and instruction to ensure it’s relevant use.
At last year’s school, my kids were not allowed to use phones in class (except legitimate uses), nor to have notifications/ringers on audible, but if course the kids carried them.
This year: new school so I don’t know. However the combination of really crappy Chromebook from the school (don’t ask me how they managed to have a new Chromebook worse than the five year old one I bought previously), and more online research from more advanced classes makes phones necessary
I don’t have kids, but when I was a kid I talked to my parents in the morning while getting ready, and called them when I got home. How much more communication do parents need these days?
The whole world has moved away from planned lives to more interrupt-driven, including kids
– “grandma is sick: Stacy’s Mom is picking you up”
– “Dad, I want to hang out with my friends after school. Is that ok and can you pick me up later?”
– “ Dad, I missed the bus. Help”
— “Dad, I need money for this field trip where I never brought home the form, and it’s today”
—“Dad, soccer practice is at a different field today, can you please pick me up there instead?”
they only want to block social media to censor lgbtq content and help
This seems like a rare Republican W. Social Media’s influence on people, especially young people is utterly toxic.
They only want to remove children from social media because they’re sick and tired of being clowned on by toddlers that are smarter than the Republicans.
So you want them on their cell phones more at school? You can’t control those geniuses.
I’m fine with teenagers having cellphones in school, largely because they will have it in college and in their careers. It’s a tool.
You’re a tool.
So sorry couldn’t help myself! I think you’re right. The point is if they have it in their pocket who are you restricting? The one poor kid who can’t afford one?
You’re also restricting the less technically savvy, and those without sufficient social skills to have friends tell them the workaround
can’t have students live blogging a school shooting while ducking for cover. That would make their benefactors look bad.
They gonna have a hard time blocking lemmy
This is the best summary I could come up with:
), Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the bill would require that schools prohibit youths from using social media on their networks to be eligible to for the E-Rate program, which provides lower prices for internet access.
While the program is broadly supported by Democrats on Capitol Hill and at the Federal Communications Commission and some prominent Republicans, top GOP congressional leaders including Cruz and conservative activists have lashed out against it as a form of wasteful government spending.
Under the existing program, schools and libraries are ineligible to receive its benefits unless they certify that they have an “Internet safety policy,” including protections against child pornography or other obscene or harmful material.
“Addictive and distracting social media apps are inviting every evil force on the planet into kids’ classrooms, homes, and minds by giving those who want to abuse or harm children direct access to communicate with them online,” Cruz said in a statement.
The campaign has gained steam amid building bipartisan concern over the potential negative mental health impact social media platforms can have on younger users.
The shift is poised to unlock the agency’s Democratic agenda, including efforts to broaden internet affordability programs and to restore broadband regulations such as the Obama-era net neutrality protections.
The original article contains 698 words, the summary contains 210 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What a great solution: take a legitimate problem and make a big deal about banning an otherwise useful technology, where that will be ineffective and wouldn’t solve the problem anyway
