Do not underestimate the warriors of smartphones

At the trial of a US Senate in February, Mark Zuckerberg (direct or indirect) apologized to parents who caused a clear message the damage caused by their children on social media. This message was not only in his apology, which seems to be “for what everyone went through” instead of providing a specific excuse for the effects of “Facebook”, but also in his defense, which looked unconvincing. Zuckerberg emphasized the ‘big investments’ made by the company and ‘the ongoing efforts of leadership in this area to ensure that no one is exposed to what your families have suffered.’ However, Zuckerberg realizes well that these safety investments remain secondary compared to growth in the absence of effective control. Therefore, it is not possible to trust on social media businesses to monitor themselves alone. Hence the need for new legislation and decisive and continuous popular initiatives to direct the road to a safer and more positive future. For example, it lasted only a few days until the movements recently exploded in the UK, arranged by a group of parents on the ‘WhatsApp’, who do not want to give phones soon that will enroll in high school. Claire Vernho, a resident of Husebashire, created this group with her friend Desi Greenwell because she was concerned about the increasing social pressure to buy a 9 -year -old smartphone. In light of the addictive nature and the documented damage to social media platforms, it does not appear to be a single and convincing reason to buy a phone; Besides all other children doing this. The movements of the people, Verneho said: “We created a group on (WhatsApp) whose members felt the same, that the people did not empty the phones to their children without wondering for the reasons for this.” When a friend published this meeting on “Instagram”, the group spread at a tremendous velocity. About 2000 people joined in the first two days and reached the maximum allowed participants in the “WhatsApp” group. Then the families divided all participants into 50 regional groups, such as Oxfordshire, Cambridgers and Hampsheer groups, and within a week, the number of participants increased to 10 thousand members, as many of them were divided into ‘WhatsApp’ groups at the level of each school. There are now about seventy three parents in a group founded for the daughter of Vernho Elementary School, which represents about a quarter of the students there. Verneho notes that a large number of parents have expressed satisfaction with the presence of other fathers who want to postpone the purchase of phones until their children grow up, for example, 14 years old. Vernho intends to persuade 30% of parents in every elementary school in the country with the same dedication, creating a greater sense of choice between them and their children. “If the percentage of parents who postpone the purchase of smartphones for their children is one in three, you are not entirely alone in this decision,” says Vernho. Schools’ obligations lead schools similar popular activities in America as they found that the distribution of these devices in the classroom impedes the learning and social relationships between students. Perhaps these efforts have gained momentum and extensive importance after the US public surgeon warned in 2023 that social media pose a ‘deep danger to children’. Almost at the same time, the state of Florida has issued a law that forced public schools to ban smartphones in times of lessons, prohibiting schools on telephones at the country level or imposing under the law in the United Kingdom, Italy and China. Activists such as Emma Limbeki, a university student who started the ‘login’ movement to help young people establish healthy relationships with social media, to constantly push politicians and to raise awareness in adolescents to stop the use of smartphones, or to use them without social media applications. Of course, the dedication of schools, parents and students to postpone the use of phones can exceed these limits. But this technology is designed in a way that drives people to addiction. Therefore, it is encouraging to see that more lawmakers deal with the roots of the problem by introducing ambitious rules to regulate its use. Governments have moved the Canadian government on Monday (last) a law that will force social media businesses to better monitor, organize and remove harmful content. This is known as the “online damage” law because it will make platforms such as “Tik Talk” and “Instagram” responsible for reducing children’s exposure to leaflets that sexually bully or hurt children, or lure extremism, violence or hatred. This law is similar to the groundbreaking “internet safety legislation” in the United Kingdom, which gives technology companies “the duty of care” to prevent users damage, inspired by the health and safety right to prevent the violation of freedom of expression. The proposed online children’s safety bill was designed by the two parties in America according to similar principles. (Although there are more than 60 supporters in the Senate, he still stands before a state of doubt and ambiguity in the House of Representatives). All of these steps are signs of progress, not a new ethical panic, as some claim. Despite the fact that the 18th century saw complaints related to novels that push young people to devastating behavior, or modern concerns about video games, rap songs and comic drawings, the instruments of this time are fundamentally different. The percentage of access to smartphones is also unmatched in history, as it offers almost unlimited content. Applications are often used psychological tactics, such as moving the screen to different infinity and benefits to encourage compulsive behavior. No wonder the Americans inspect their phones on average about 144 times a day. It may take a few more years for social norms to turn into a more healthy state and new laws come into effect, but decisive efforts have recently been used in all areas, so that the future looks more optimistic than before.