Mobile phones and the limits of prohibitions

Do I agree with not giving mobile phones to children until they are 16? Generally speaking, yes, although biological age isn't necessarily the most important factor in assessing the negative impact of using these devices. Furthermore, social media has many other entry points. The policy of providing computers to all students makes access to inappropriate content widespread. And, above all, addictive practices extend to other screens available at home, such as tablets.

The reader will have noticed that my agreement was with "not giving mobile phones" and not with "banning mobile phones." For me, this is a relevant distinction. My reservation about "banning" isn't universal. I was late to the "it's forbidden to forbid" generation, and I believe there are things that need to be prohibited. But now I'm talking about that specific prohibition. And if I have doubts about the merits of Spanish President Pedro Sánchez's recent proposal, it's not because it responds to some hypothetical tactical political value, as if the announcement were cleverly made to shift the political conversation away from adverse circumstances and onto socially sensitive ground that might be favorable to him. I'm not getting involved.

My reservation about the announcement has a particularly strong reason, in my opinion: is it the government that should educate our children on a matter that is the responsibility of the family? Now, coincidentally, the future ban aligns with my fears about mobile phone use among young children. The average age of access to a mobile phone is 11, but there are 8-year-olds who already have them. And more than 9 out of 10 teenagers in the first and second years of secondary school do too. Shouldn't we be talking about a true technological pandemic?

But now we suppose that government intervention in parental responsibilities, to withdraw or supervise them, is contrary to the principles by which we want to raise our children. This, incidentally, already happens frequently in certain highly questionable school systems, generally laden with a confusing ideology and full of prejudices. Parents accept it resignedly to avoid confrontation, or because they lack a clear opinion, or simply out of ignorance of what is being done. The question, then, is: what happens if government regulatory intervention in matters affecting responsibilities that clearly belong to parents—in fact, they are the ones who buy and pay for the phones, and who should be controlling their use—goes against their educational criteria? Do we know if the ban enjoys widespread consensus?

Furthermore, if a government intervenes in an area that falls under the family's jurisdiction, isn't it highly likely to lead to an even greater abdication of responsibility for their educational role? Or worse, what will happen if parents end up becoming complicit in breaking the rules? I remember a teacher telling me years ago that, despite the school's ban on bringing cell phones to the summer camps they organized for elementary school students, some parents hid them at the bottom of their backpacks to ensure they could secretly maintain contact with their children. What will many parents do at home when faced with the pressure of teenagers deprived of a tool that, until now, has allowed them to assert an identity—perhaps one surrogated by social media, but experienced as their own? Whose side will they take, the government's or their child's? And the suspicion is not unfounded: has anyone bothered to find out if the ban on bringing mobile phones into the classroom, within a more controllable framework, is being enforced, or have more than a few teachers thrown in the towel, tired of playing policeman?

In this regard, I don't know if Pedro Sánchez's advisors—we hope this wasn't just a personal whim—have properly assessed the real possibilities of implementing the ban. Will it be possible for the control to be exercised not over the user but over the entire company? Will access to certain content be restricted, or will general use be limited, or will sales to minors even be prohibited, as with tobacco or alcohol? We know that mobile phone misuse stems from access to pornography and hate speech. But it also stems from the addictive use of morally acceptable content. Five, six, or eight hours a day—the usual amount—seriously affects concentration, sleep, hearing, and eyesight... Not to mention the inequalities created by the high prices of these devices and the burden they place on less affluent households.

I don't dispute the seriousness of the problem. But I'm not convinced by a law that tries to shield parents from their inaction or failure to fulfill their educational responsibilities. I would be more convinced by a law that promotes parental responsibility and, if necessary, penalizes negligence. In short: I'm not sure how effective the ban will be, and above all, I fear the unintended consequences that might result.