Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sarah's avatar

I agree with much of what you say here, except for this comment: "Almost the only way kids can communicate with one another away from adult ears now is with their smartphones. And now some people want to take those away from kids!"

For the purposes of communicating with peers, a dumb phone is all they need: one that can make calls and send messages (not WhatsApp.)

I know there is hyperbole and exaggeration, but social media harm is real, and smartphone addiction is real. It's telling that tech bosses themselves don't allow their own children to use the very technology they've created (CEOs of TikTok and Meta, for starters.) Adolescence is hard enough without having to worry about how many likes you get on your post, or worry that the dumb things kids inevitably say can become memes shared with an entire peer group in seconds. If it's difficult for an adult to understand that a highly polished influencer on YouTube is a business, not a representation of someone's real life, how much harder is that for a young kid?

As a personal example, a friend of mine reluctantly let her 13 year daughter download Snapchat because "all of her friends had it." Within 3 days, she had taken over 300 selfies (her mom only investigated because she was surreptitiously posing for a selfie during a family movie.)

I think that children should have a very free off-line life, and a highly restricted on-line life. Unfortunately, most parents allow precisely the opposite.

Expand full comment
Lila Krishna's avatar

Great post. Perhaps this is a good time to bring this up - How much of the lowered crime rate is just people not going out as much anymore? Because I see everyone bring this up, that crime is down but kids aren't outside. But NO ONE is outside, so are there enough eyes out there to keep my kids safe if they are roaming the streets by themselves? And maybe no one being outside means creeps don't hang out waiting to grab kids anymore?

We can't deny that there was a lot of serial killing in the 70s, and police departments couldn't solve crimes as easily. Women might have been the primary target of your average serial killer, but that was good enough reason to try keeping kids safe. We know native american women now go missing a lot and are never found, so it's not like crimes of opportunity have gone away. It feels more likely that opportunities for stranger crimes have decreased. With lowered crime rate, the sense of safety hasn't come back though. People aren't quite leaving their doors unlocked like the days of yore. And in most cities, property crime rates are increasing. Even in the wealthy safe cities of the bay area, cars get broken into regularly if it looks remotely like a laptop is left in the car. Why would any parent feel like their kids will be safe out there when they can't protect their car and their laptop left alone?

Going back to what Jane Jacobs said half a century ago about about city design, it seems like the issue in the US pertaining to safety is just the lack of sidewalk life, which makes it hard to trust that kids will be safe when they are allowed to go out by themselves. I strongly doubt it's just media fear or parents helicoptering out of their own anxiety that's the root cause. American towns and cities are not designed to give their citizens a sense of safety and community.

Another thing about kids' safety - a lot of millennials experienced sexual harassment and abuse at the hand of supposedly trusted adults as well as strangers. They didn't have the same culture as now when it is safe for children to share what happened. I feel like that's a bigger motivation for Gen Xers and Millennials to helicopter their kids more, because they don't want what happened to them to happen to their kids. When Larry Nassar could abuse girls right in their parents' presence without them realizing what was happening, what chance does the average kid stand? When these crimes weren't reported, can we really say that "crime is down", especially crimes against children? Also there's a very high rate of sexual abuse in schools. I've come across statistics that say the rate of sexual abuse of kids in public school is higher than in the catholic church. If that's the case, can we with a good conscience say crime is down?

My thesis here is that one big motivation for parents to restrict the free movement of their children is to keep them safe from predators, and predators seem everywhere. Now restricting internet usage is also from the same motivation - to prevent creeps from getting to kids. I guess it's a good question to ask if the rates of CSA and child abusers have gone up or down in these generations. It might seem like alarmism to connect the restricted movement of kids to CSA, but it is at the back of every parent's mind more than traffic accidents or physical injuries at the playground or not getting into college.

Expand full comment
52 more comments...

No posts