By S Gopalakrishnan

Introduction:

In just two decades, smartphones have quickly entered our professional and personal lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven not just the effectiveness of smartphones but also these being a part of our lives. However, from psychologists to parents, there have been concerns about the excessive use of these on youngsters, such as declining mental health as a result of peer pressure. European governments attempted to reduce screen time by banning smartphones in schools and making these an age-restrictive technology. This article explores these reforms. 

The French Privacy:

The French Template has strict laws that govern the individual’s public and private life, promoting physical and social welfare. In 2018, France passed a law that banned the use of smartphones and other ‘internet-connected devices’, meaning computers, for schoolchildren from three to fifteen years of age. This law was implemented to mitigate the ‘phenomenon of screen addiction’ and encourage students to engage in classrooms, physical activities, and face-to-face communications. It allows exceptions for specially abled students in case of extracurricular activities and for ‘pedagogical use’. The law was one of the promises in President Emmanuel Macron’s manifesto. It passed with sixty-two votes against one. According to the former Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer, the law allows the ‘fundamental role of education’ which is to protect children and adolescents. Smartphones can be a significant distraction in educational institutions, requiring youngsters to be overly dependent on them. By limiting smartphone access in nursery, primary, and lower secondary schools, the former French government hoped to foster better academic credentials and physical and mental well-being for students. In January 2024, French President Emmanuel Macron commissioned ten experts on addiction, education, neurology, law, psychology, epidemiology, and digital technology to prepare a report assessing the existing mechanisms of curbing smartphone use and need for further reforms. The report specified that screens do not cause neuro-developmental disorders yet cautioned against vigilance. They advised no exposure to screens for children under three years, and a ‘highly limited’ access between three to six years of age. On the use of phones, they recommended the use of phones from the age of eleven – phones with no access to the internet – while smartphones will enter their lives at the age of thirteen – without access to social media. Social media apps such as Instagram were recommended only once children crossed the age of eighteen. All in all, the experts endorsed efforts to curb the ‘predatory practices’ of tech industries such as infinite scrolling. The government also took other steps such as installing default parental controls in internet-enabled devices, and a ‘social media privacy law’ that considers children’s right to privacy on the internet before they are of legal age and requires parents to protect ‘image rights’ of these children. 

The British Doomscrolling:

Since 2021, there have been calls in the United Kingdom (UK) to ban the use of smartphones in schools. Yet, there is not much popularity over the idea of a ‘blanket ban’. Professionals like Mica-May Smith, from an education training company, instead advocate for a ‘collaborative approach with rules in place’ such as approved times and areas for smartphone use. Students must be encouraged to use their phones constructively. The structure and discipline of schools can be hoped to aid students in gaining control of their screen time. Most of the schools earlier had policies where they did not allow its use at breaks or lunchtime either. They tried to mitigate the screen time during school hours. These policies are less strict than the French laws that completely ban smartphones in educational institutions, but they are ‘inconsistently applied’. Former Education Secretary Gillian Keegan noted that there was a ‘mixed picture on policy’ because there are some schools that allow smartphone use for a limited time and some that have placed a complete ban on it. The government pushed for a complete ban and issued guidance three years later because, according to its statement, that guidance can offer ‘consistency’ to ‘reset the social norm’ that phone use has no place in schools. Recently, Josh MacAlister, a Labor Member of Parliament (MP) for Whitehaven and Workington, has proposed a bill called ‘Safer Phones Bill’. This bill aimed at making schools ‘mobile-free zones’, and the age restriction for tech companies to get consent for data from children without parents’ involvement is to be raised from thirteen to sixteen years of age. The fate of the bill is yet to be decided, but the UK is clear to take a similar but kinder ground than France when it comes to regulating the screen time of youngsters.

The Spanish Warning:

In Spain, smartphone addiction has been labeled as a public health concern. Nearly a quarter of children at the age of ten and almost half of the children at the age of eleven own mobile phones. Hence, in accordance with the designation, a fifty-member committee of experts was formed under the direction of the Spanish government, which called for two crucial ideas. Firstly, the experts recommended that doctors be trained in identifying those struggling with phone addiction. Doctors are expected to ask about screen time and ‘problematic behaviors’ from their minor patients during checkups. Secondly, they called for children under the age of three to have none and children till the age of six to have limited exposure to digital technologies until they are thirteen years of age. Children between six and twelve years of age are encouraged to carry ‘dumb phones’ – phones with no internet – for communication purposes. An interesting suggestion from the report is that it requested the government to add a health warning to all the digital technologies sold in Spain. The warning informs the consumers about the possible health risks related to the use and the nature of content on social media. Apart from being added to the phones, similar warnings must also be made as a pop-up when certain apps or websites are accessed by the user. These warnings would also put forth the maximum usage time for that app or website. The government intends to propose legislation on the issue of smartphone use in which it advocates for mandatory parental controls, a national campaign to educate children about the health risks of technology and raising the minimum age for social media accounts from fourteen to sixteen years of age. A ‘digital restraining order’ which is an order that bans certain people from contacting others online is also on the table. The draft law also deals with family training programs in which parents learn ways of managing their children’s ‘tech habits’. Teachers will also be trained to identify signs of online addiction. 

The German Federalism:

In Germany, the issue is still in debate. However, there have been some regional policies that have a varying degree of intensity regarding banning mobile devices. In the German state of Lower Saxony, for example, schools have been left at their discretion, a sort of ‘individual school autonomy’, to decide about the nature of the ban. On the other hand, states like Bavaria have imposed strict bans since 2006, with exceptions for educational reasons. The diverse range of policies can be attributed to two reasons: the federal structure of Germany, and the diverse opinions of the public. According to the laws, each German state has its independence in establishing its educational policies, resulting in different legislations over the same subject. Secondly, people have different opinions on the ban on smartphones because of their contrasting perceptions about the utility of these products. Those supporting the ban view them as distracting and inhibiting academic progress. Seventy-six percent of German parents prefer banning smartphones in educational institutions. However, the remaining twenty-four percent view smartphones as educational tools promoting ‘digital literacy’. They view an outright ban as impractical and instead advocate a moderate collaborative approach, like the one proposed by the British scholars, that prioritizes ‘parental responsibility’. Such an approach can encourage ‘student autonomy’, ensuring that youngsters make careful decisions about their digital attitudes. They also advocate a combination of the best of both worlds in a classroom. Technological integration in classrooms can bring about a new way to perform educational activities, engaging students and helping them think creatively. However, the level of such an integration requires regular moderation, so that students are not distracted by the screen. It seems only after the snap elections in the country can this debate find a conclusion. The verdict is expected to be based on evidence and research rather than a popular move. 

The Australian Trend:

Despite not being a European country, Australia’s approach to smartphone regulation is worth a visit because it is the first country in the world that ban children under sixteen years of age from using social media. While this move was politically popular, gaining support from sixty-one percent of Australians, scholars argue that such a step could backfire because it could push children to ‘unsafe internet areas’ or feel isolated. A complete social media ban would be ‘an utter disregard for evidence-based policy’ because of two flaws, according to Daniel Argus, director of the digital media research center at the Queensland University of Technology. Firstly, the ban can exclude youngsters from ‘meaningful, healthy participation in the digital world’ and secondly, lets the tech giants ‘off the hook’ in shouldering a social responsibility in introducing some limits to the quality of content on their platforms. Questions were also raised about the implementation of the age-verification system, whether the infrastructure for it is good enough, and whether it overrides concerns about data privacy. In answer to these questions, the Australian government passed the Digital ID Bill 2024, which aimed at creating a ‘national identity verification system’. This is an online voluntary system where citizens can verify their identities. It was launched on December 1, 2024. 

Conclusion:

Is it possible for India to develop such a regulation? While the use of smartphones is banned from Indian schools, there is a need for an age verification system to insulate minors from social media and protect them from falling prey to inappropriate content on social media platforms. India ranks second in the world in several smartphone users and with sixty percent of the population living in rural environments, there seems a need for a national campaign to educate not just the students but people of all age groups about the risks of the digital world. It may be possible for the Lok Sabha to follow in the footsteps of the German legislation where a balance can be struck between technological integration and technological restraint. 

Author’s Bio: 

S Gopalakrishnan is a second-year student, pursuing B.A. (Hons.) Global Affairs at the Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Jindal University. His research interests lie in Foreign Policy and Strategy, public policies of different countries, and political philosophy.

Image Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-17/new-york-schools-that-banned-mobile-phones-see-student-grades-rise