In a live Zoom event in conjunction with the American Museum of Tort Law, we welcome back Claire Nader, author of “You Are Your Own Best Teacher” and Susan Linn, author of “Who’s Raising the Kids?” for a lively panel discussion moderated by child advocacy legal expert, Robert Fellmeth, on the ongoing corporatization of childhood. We also hear from audience members but not just old people talking about “kids today.” A thoughtful seventh grader gives us a young person’s perspective.
It seems to me that many of the proposed privacy rights laws discussed here should protect everyone, not just children!
This will mix the topic brought up by David in the Wrap Up part of the show about news sources and the topic mentioned by the guests on the show about children. I read several foreign news sources because I like to know how other countries attempt to deal with various matters. The Tweede Kamer of the Netherlands, the parliamentary body of most significance in the country, recently discussed a proposal from a House member from the Christian Democratic Appeal party, a center-right party, which would ban smartphones from school classrooms. A smaller country like the Netherlands could more easily ban things at the national level than the US could, but it is interesting to look at whether phones should be in the classroom. Anyway, the proposal did not get very far, but it is an interesting thing to consider from a policy perspective. Link to the Netherlands story in English: https://nltimes.nl/2022/11/24/cabinet-shoots-cda-proposal-ban-smartphones-school-classrooms
One thing that I find interesting is that is the point that smartphones have pedagogical benefits. If so, shouldn’t all students be able to benefit equally by having access to the same technology? What if a parent does not give their child a phone to take to school? What if the phone is out of date for apps or intentionally limited by the parents? Will those children be left behind? Also, what steps are the teachers taking to ensure that the apps and websites used for lessons are respecting privacy? Is there a vetting process for this?
It seems to me that perhaps the best solution is that if students need certain technology in the classroom, it should be provided by the schools. The technology should be designed so that it respects student privacy and it should not be technology which promotes pro-corporate ideology/dependence. I also know that it’ll be difficult for schools, especially the decentralized schools we have in the US, to issue any kind of broad ban on smartphones, but perhaps ideally, schools could issue students basic phones that can be used to communicate with parents and select others while banning smartphones which might prove distracting for the students and their peers. I’m sure most of us adults have been in meetings with a cyberloafer who distracted the group as a whole. I reckon children might have the same problem.
I don’t know if Dr. Linn has any experience with this aspect of tech in the classroom, but perhaps this would be an interesting topic to discuss with her, or some other expert on the topic, on a future RNRH episode. Furthermore, perhaps some expert has information about the political viability of technology reforms in the classroom in the various states. The proposal from the Netherlands came from a right-wing party. Perhaps there is some potential for broad appeal for reforms in the US if people are willing to work with people usually viewed as political opponents. It might actually be soft leftists who are the biggest hurdle to regulation as it seems to me that many corporate-inclined soft leftists rather blindly conflate technology progression with social progression. With this, they don’t give the likes of Google and Amazon the same scrutiny that they would give to the likes of Shell Oil, Walmart, and Raytheon. Military contractors are, after all, technology companies and companies like Google and Microsoft are eager to sign defense contracts. Does a company like Apple not deserve scrutiny just because the CEO wears/wore a turtleneck instead of a suit and tie?
On the topic of public media funding discussed in the Wrap Up, there is really no excuse for the nonsensical public media system we have in the US. The ability to fund proper public media is not a problem at all for the US federal government and it will not require ‘taxpayer money’ (Steve, just curious, have you done any research on this topic yet?). The same is true for the educational reforms mentioned above, but perhaps only if funding for ‘safe’ classroom technology came from federal grants. That’s a trickier point, but funding for US public media is not a problem at all.
To bring an international perspective on things, Australia has a fairly good public broadcaster with the ABC Australia. I read their news reports fairly regularly on their website. At one time many years ago, the ABC Australia was funded via a rather cockamamie TV license fee like what Britain has now with the BBC. This is to say that TV owners have to pay an annual license fee to ‘fund’ public broadcasting even though national government spending in countries with sovereign currency is not funded from taxes such as a TV license. In Britain, those who do not pay the TV license are often accused with ramifications, sometimes wrongly if they don’t own a TV, to be evading the tax. It is a nonsensical system.
The Whitlam government of Australia during the 1970s realized that their TV license system didn’t make sense. I can’t say the reform was based on economic sanity, but probably rather acceptance that public broadcasting had near-universal appeal/benefit and thus should be funded via the national government like anything else of near-universal benefit. Nonetheless, the reform is economically sound even if that wasn’t the intention. The Australian government doesn’t struggle to fund the ABC Australia. If/when budget cuts are made, it is purely for political reasons and not economic ones even if neoliberal/corporate politicians argue otherwise. In reality, the same thing can be said about public broadcasting in the US.
While the ABC Australia shames our pitiful public broadcasters, especially NPR, they aren’t perfect and neither are the other public broadcasters I follow such as Deutsche Welle or the BBC. Like PBS and the BBC, they have somewhat commercialized toys made in conjunction with children’s programming. Just like the US commercial media, they automatically default to binary partisan political talking points in their narratives even if it is not always so obvious such as PBS blarney like the ‘The McLaughlin Group’. When discussing things such as economics, they tend to only ask corporate bankers for quotes instead of asking a more diverse group of economists such as labor economists. So, yes, solidifying public broadcasting won’t solve all of our media woes, but it is a good start. Our public broadcasting is quite embarrassing outside of some things such as PBS’ children’s programming. Even then, I’m not sure how much credit I should give modern PBS management for older quality programming such as that from Fred Rogers.
On a final note, the topic of cookies was brought up by the seventh grade student whose question was aired on the show. I recommend using private/incognito browsing in web browsers to easily limit the storage of cookies. Furthermore, I recommend using the Firefox browser with the browser privacy settings set to ‘Strict’ as this will block tracking ads and such from the likes of Google. A side benefit of this is that many web ads will not show up that would have shown up before even without using an ad blocker.
It seems to me that many of the proposed privacy rights laws discussed here should protect everyone, not just children!
This will mix the topic brought up by David in the Wrap Up part of the show about news sources and the topic mentioned by the guests on the show about children. I read several foreign news sources because I like to know how other countries attempt to deal with various matters. The Tweede Kamer of the Netherlands, the parliamentary body of most significance in the country, recently discussed a proposal from a House member from the Christian Democratic Appeal party, a center-right party, which would ban smartphones from school classrooms. A smaller country like the Netherlands could more easily ban things at the national level than the US could, but it is interesting to look at whether phones should be in the classroom. Anyway, the proposal did not get very far, but it is an interesting thing to consider from a policy perspective. Link to the Netherlands story in English: https://nltimes.nl/2022/11/24/cabinet-shoots-cda-proposal-ban-smartphones-school-classrooms
One thing that I find interesting is that is the point that smartphones have pedagogical benefits. If so, shouldn’t all students be able to benefit equally by having access to the same technology? What if a parent does not give their child a phone to take to school? What if the phone is out of date for apps or intentionally limited by the parents? Will those children be left behind? Also, what steps are the teachers taking to ensure that the apps and websites used for lessons are respecting privacy? Is there a vetting process for this?
It seems to me that perhaps the best solution is that if students need certain technology in the classroom, it should be provided by the schools. The technology should be designed so that it respects student privacy and it should not be technology which promotes pro-corporate ideology/dependence. I also know that it’ll be difficult for schools, especially the decentralized schools we have in the US, to issue any kind of broad ban on smartphones, but perhaps ideally, schools could issue students basic phones that can be used to communicate with parents and select others while banning smartphones which might prove distracting for the students and their peers. I’m sure most of us adults have been in meetings with a cyberloafer who distracted the group as a whole. I reckon children might have the same problem.
I don’t know if Dr. Linn has any experience with this aspect of tech in the classroom, but perhaps this would be an interesting topic to discuss with her, or some other expert on the topic, on a future RNRH episode. Furthermore, perhaps some expert has information about the political viability of technology reforms in the classroom in the various states. The proposal from the Netherlands came from a right-wing party. Perhaps there is some potential for broad appeal for reforms in the US if people are willing to work with people usually viewed as political opponents. It might actually be soft leftists who are the biggest hurdle to regulation as it seems to me that many corporate-inclined soft leftists rather blindly conflate technology progression with social progression. With this, they don’t give the likes of Google and Amazon the same scrutiny that they would give to the likes of Shell Oil, Walmart, and Raytheon. Military contractors are, after all, technology companies and companies like Google and Microsoft are eager to sign defense contracts. Does a company like Apple not deserve scrutiny just because the CEO wears/wore a turtleneck instead of a suit and tie?
On the topic of public media funding discussed in the Wrap Up, there is really no excuse for the nonsensical public media system we have in the US. The ability to fund proper public media is not a problem at all for the US federal government and it will not require ‘taxpayer money’ (Steve, just curious, have you done any research on this topic yet?). The same is true for the educational reforms mentioned above, but perhaps only if funding for ‘safe’ classroom technology came from federal grants. That’s a trickier point, but funding for US public media is not a problem at all.
To bring an international perspective on things, Australia has a fairly good public broadcaster with the ABC Australia. I read their news reports fairly regularly on their website. At one time many years ago, the ABC Australia was funded via a rather cockamamie TV license fee like what Britain has now with the BBC. This is to say that TV owners have to pay an annual license fee to ‘fund’ public broadcasting even though national government spending in countries with sovereign currency is not funded from taxes such as a TV license. In Britain, those who do not pay the TV license are often accused with ramifications, sometimes wrongly if they don’t own a TV, to be evading the tax. It is a nonsensical system.
The Whitlam government of Australia during the 1970s realized that their TV license system didn’t make sense. I can’t say the reform was based on economic sanity, but probably rather acceptance that public broadcasting had near-universal appeal/benefit and thus should be funded via the national government like anything else of near-universal benefit. Nonetheless, the reform is economically sound even if that wasn’t the intention. The Australian government doesn’t struggle to fund the ABC Australia. If/when budget cuts are made, it is purely for political reasons and not economic ones even if neoliberal/corporate politicians argue otherwise. In reality, the same thing can be said about public broadcasting in the US.
While the ABC Australia shames our pitiful public broadcasters, especially NPR, they aren’t perfect and neither are the other public broadcasters I follow such as Deutsche Welle or the BBC. Like PBS and the BBC, they have somewhat commercialized toys made in conjunction with children’s programming. Just like the US commercial media, they automatically default to binary partisan political talking points in their narratives even if it is not always so obvious such as PBS blarney like the ‘The McLaughlin Group’. When discussing things such as economics, they tend to only ask corporate bankers for quotes instead of asking a more diverse group of economists such as labor economists. So, yes, solidifying public broadcasting won’t solve all of our media woes, but it is a good start. Our public broadcasting is quite embarrassing outside of some things such as PBS’ children’s programming. Even then, I’m not sure how much credit I should give modern PBS management for older quality programming such as that from Fred Rogers.
On a final note, the topic of cookies was brought up by the seventh grade student whose question was aired on the show. I recommend using private/incognito browsing in web browsers to easily limit the storage of cookies. Furthermore, I recommend using the Firefox browser with the browser privacy settings set to ‘Strict’ as this will block tracking ads and such from the likes of Google. A side benefit of this is that many web ads will not show up that would have shown up before even without using an ad blocker.