How about for the rest of us? I see so many adult women on their phones all the time. (also, me.)

Eh, I don't think those things help. Discussions from parents and medical professionals, that helps. I can't tell you the number of times I have shaken my head at all the CA warning labeling (there's a link here). I've gotten to where I ignore it. It's just so ubiquitous, like someone crying wolf. I also know the risks of the things I consume. Without a label directing me.

ETA: wait a second, they already have parental controls on phones. Use that people.

Parents are addicted to their phones and other devices, so trying to control their children's usage while they have their own noses stuck to a screen seems like it would be a hard sell. I often think, when I see parents hand off a phone or ipad to a kid, then they get on their own phones that it takes the pressure off of actually parenting and interacting with their kids, when scrolling is so much easier. One more generation of this might be what the real zombie apocalypse is.

I'm not sure it'll help, but I'm in favor of it after reading The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt.

oly, might I counter? My child and I use the devices to connect. If we're in person, we'll show each other things we've found online, as a visual aid, when discussing things. When we're not in person, we'll stream things together, wearing headphones with mics. It's not the same as hugs, but it can be almost as much fun as in person. My point? Depends on how the tool is used

People had no problem "connecting" before the creation and spread of digital devices.

Some warning notices, such as those highlighting potential dangers of product contents or chemical exposures, are highly effective.

California has led the way in requiring more disclosures and thoughtful practices aimed at protecting the environment and human health. The rest of the nation follows on with most of them and thus everyone has benefitted from the state's leadership.

Laws can protect the public from avoidable dangers but as far as legislating common sense, considerate conduct and responsible parenting, that's well past what's possible.

Having children involves a moral committment to providing adequate parenting and guidance to help them become happy and successful adults. Finding external blame for problems or failures is what irresponsible and inept people do.

To think there's any positive effect of putting warning labels on smartphones makes me chuckle.

Pretty sure the warnings asked for would be on Social Media sites, not on the device used to access the sites.

Proposition 65 came about in 1986, and only one other state has adopted something similar. It hasn't influenced countries doing business with California. Sorry, but nobody's really adopting it. It's been long enough that lots of other states would have adopted it by now. If they just were a little more narrow in their view or more judicious about how they use it, it probably could be very helpful. As it is they just slap the label on every single thing, and not everything we use is dangerous.

I wouldn't object to social media sites posting a generic thing that's just a label, much like what is on a pack of cigarettes.

" The surgeon general wants a warning on cell phones "

No, he wants a warning on social media apps, not the phones. Is it going to help? No.......Addicts aren't going to be stopped by a warning, especially teens.

The phone is a tool, and there are good and bad uses for it, just like there are good and bad amounts of time to spend on it. A tool kind of like a hammer, which can be used to kill someone, or to build a house for a family. According to my phone, I've been on it 3.75 hours today, mostly listening to podcasts and audiobooks. I rely heavily on my phone, and try to remember to take it literally everywhere with me, even to the bathroom or when I mow the lawn.

Rob, I suspect most of us here (and probably everywhere) use their phones for what you described. I'm thinking more of going out in public and seeing a parent with their nose in their phone and ignoring their child/ren. Or a family at a table in a restaurant with 2 adults and 2 kids all on devices with no conversation or interaction,. Or gamers who plop down with a controller and zone out instead of playing with their kid...or in front of the TV for many hours a day. People who live like that are not going to be limiting their kids' time on devices, I suspect.

I highly recommend the film on Netflix called The Social Dilemma. I am not sure the parents are fully aware what they are up against. I found it very interesting that the creators of some of the social media will not let their own children use it.

I do think there's a difference between an adult/young adult 'child' and an actual young child. Brains are still developing up until young adulthood, and overuse of screens does disrupt that development.

And has anyone else seen the reporting about vision issues in kids on the rise due to overuse of small screens?

Oly, I hope those people connect with their kids, in the manner the kid want. Actually had a little bit of a giggle today because of that. I was texting my adult child on their platform, and they actually realized how cumbersome text was for our conversation?! Offered to talk with me on the phone? I like that they tried to do it my way, and saw that there was value in that. I'd like to believe they met me halfway. First time. But yay!

Just like there are so many ways that we can communicate with each other at work, and over social media. We can post, we can message, we can email, and I love it there are so many ways to connect. I am happy to adapt to whatever it is the other person wants. I wish everyone would try to adapt to what the other person wanted. At least one time.

You know what I mean 😉

" Proposition 65 came about in 1986, and only one other state has adopted something similar. It hasn't influenced countries doing business with California. Sorry, but nobody's really adopting it. "

but you also said

" I can't tell you the number of times I have shaken my head at all the CA warning labeling (there's a link here). I've gotten to where I ignore it. It's just so ubiquitous, "

Are CA inspired warnings rare or ubiquitous? Can't be both. What rare comments are you ignoring constantly?

Also, just to fill in the gaps of your info about the California proposition, Wiki says " Its goals are to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that cause cancer or birth defects and to reduce or eliminate exposures to those chemicals generally, such as in consumer products, by requiring warnings in advance of those exposures, "

So no other states care about reducing exposures to cancer and birth defect causing toxic substances in drinking water and consumer products?

Adoption is rare.

Labels are ubiquitous.

Crying wolf does not help anything.

It's easy. I don't understand what you don't understand. It wasn't adopted, even though Californians still try to push it as important.

Starting next school year, Alberta has banned the use of cell phones in classrooms from grade one to grade twelve. We’ll see how that goes. 🤔

”Government says personal devices must be turned off and stored out of sight during class time. School internet networks will also have to limit access to social media.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-classroom-cell-phones-1.7237567#:~:text=Government%20says%20personal%20devices%20must,limit%20access%20to%20social%20media.

" Labels are ubiquitous. "

That's what I thought and what I was referring to. Leadership.

Your comment is very very obscure. What leadership?

(focus on this part, maybe we might get there)

FWIW, I'd rather have full information than not. Pretty hard to make good decisions if one does not have sufficient info to do so.

And I also agree that many people seem to ignore signs and/or warning labels.

There are sooo many studies that absolutely prove how bad for the mental health of kids social media is! "Connecting" via the airwaves has created people who cannot connect face to face. Who have phobias talking on the phone let alone having a meal with someone. It's been bad for years then COVID clinched it. Kids as young as 10 became addicted to their apps. And to answer the question NO it won't help. When a poster says "I hope parents try and connect with their kids the way the kids want" you know there is an issue. CHILDREN who do not yet have fully functioning brains should not be driving the adult/child relationship. Parents don't have the back bone to have their angel be different than their peers, to say no that's not how our family behaves, no you are not old enough! It is ILLEGAL in my state for a person under 18 to get a tattoo. Parental permission does not play a part. The state determined too many parents can't say NO so they took it from the parents. We have middle school kids whose parents are letting Uncle Sal give them tats!! Until the fine parents for allowing teens to have social media accounts parents won't curtail their use.

I am all for limiting the use of cellular phones in k-2; the problem with that, if a person is diabetic, the cell phone may be the only monitoring device a youth has to keep tabs on the blood sugar ... low/very high blood sugar is not a good thing. There needs to be common sense here.

'Johnny, go see the school nurse, you seem to be having issues.'

Our school board was in favor of an all-out ban, no exceptions. They couldn't respond to 'medical concerns' because one exception [for them] was too many. They dropped the ban proposal. Instead it was tucked away in the student manual as a suggestion to turn devices off during the school day unless it could be demonstrated that it was a necessary tool.

i recently pulled up next to a car at a stop light. man driving, woman passenger. the entire time sitting there, they were both buried in their phones. when the light turned green, i watched in my rearview mirror, it took them a full 5 seconds to start driving. there was much honking behind them. 🙄

I think we can all agree that more information is better. Sure. But how should that be disseminated is probably where we disagree. Not on phones. We use them for everything. We don't need another thing to bog it down.

If not on phones, then where else is guaranteed to reach the most people?

Not on the top level of the phone (like Amber alerts) - within the app. Yes?

All these whiny exceptions is what kills adult common sense everytime. Students have survived for GENERATIONS a few hours out of mom's sight. I am ok with nope if you are diabetic then you wear what ever ON YOU as the monitor...Active shooter scenario nope police really do not need more people in the way... Adults need to do the 'hard thing' sometimes and make a blanket decision exceptions be damned. There's ALWAYS another way. Star/Tribune had an opinion piece from a young gal today. Graduated high school in 2021. Again it's really not the phone it's the access to the internet that's the issue. Flip phones for all until 18 is the only way to go. Dial back the technology--keep the contact with parents if that's where people's fear drives them. It's really rather sad what we are allowing our fears to create. We claim to care about the mental/emotional/social health development of our youngest but we are PAYING for them to have the biggest threat to it!! STUPID doesn't begin to describe the phenom!!! Bans don't work. Adults at schools don't want to be the bad guy either. If you pretend you are confining phones to lockers kids just take HOURLY bathroom breaks to check the social media. When you find three girls in one stall in the bathroom making Tik toc videos they immediately claim they are 'texting mom'. It's a zoo trying to enforce what is an impossbile ask--my phone is just a few feet from me so I'm goign to just leave it there untouched!! This is a FULL BLOWN ADDICTION people. Think about it. How many alcoholics successfully keep beer in their fridge? We are asking TOO MUCH. Then you layer kids have internet access via lap tops for learning during some point of most of their classes. That FEEDS the NEED to be on social media. It is RARE you don't find a student many tabs open, actually doing their assignment, one being a game, one being a document a group is chatting on because their usual way of texting is cut off, one being whatever social media site that has yet to be blocked by the IT people....Oh ya and then there's the school work tab they are pretending to read.....

" Your comment is very very obscure. What leadership?

(focus on this part, maybe we might get there)"

California requires certain product disclosures/labels to prominently highlight potential risks so that people can be aware and make choices based on preferences or their own health circumstances. Such disclosures can only be helpful.

California's leadership results in residents of other states benefitting from requirements intended only for California residents, because companies don't make "California only" labeling.

And here's a wrinkle that occurs to me - if a company discloses in California "Our product contains kryptonite" and doesn't disclose that in West Virginia, then it can be held seriously liable for a death in West Virginia of someone with a krypton problem like Superman has. In West Virginia, it was a known problem of the product, disclosure of which was withheld from the public. So, a disclosure in one place likely leads to the same disclosure everywhere.

California's history over many decades of tightening vehicle emission requirements, often well beyond federal standards, has had a massive positive impact on air pollution and health nationwide.

Examples of leadership - make changes to do the right things and others (for whatever reason) follow.

Is 24/7 cell phone internet access a real need for anyone in the general population? Couldn't children be allowed phones without internet access?

For some families, the only internet access they can get is through a mobile provider, and this became apparent during the pandemic lockdowns, when teaching went online. Not sure how much it's improved, and I know our current administration is trying to address the problem, however cable/internet providers just won't build out into some areas - for whatever reason, and in some states, local governments have been prevented from making their own networks, which has been shown to be successful for others.

I know some people who only have internet access through their cell phone.

elmer, do you just mean California is the leader? You are so wrong you can't even understand how wrong you are. The East Coast also does things that are more progressive. if I remember correctly Massachusetts was the one with the first unisex health insurance premiums, just as an example

If California is supposed to be the leader (what?!), that doesn't mean everybody follows them. I know I don't. And I lived in California for many years. Even after I left California, and did things in a more open way.

You must know that proposition 65 is an extreme example of what might be right, but is implemented very very very poorly.

Just because something has lead in it, or radon, or whatever else is in our atmosphere, or in our earth, does not make it inherently dangerous? Surely you must know that it takes a certain level for it to become dangerous?

So labeling something with "lead in it" as dangerous because it has ANY lead (even though 99.0000000 1% of it is NOT lead), is outrageously wrong. Surely.

" And I lived in California for many years "

You were a child in a military family at/near Monterey, not sure if on a base, I think you said? How old were you when you left?

No answer?

*You must know that proposition 65 is an extreme example of what might be right, but is implemented very very very poorly.

Just because something has lead in it, or radon, or whatever else is in our atmosphere, or in our earth, does not make it inherently dangerous? Surely you must know that it takes a certain level for it to become dangerous?

So labeling something with "lead in it" as dangerous because it has ANY lead (even though 99.0000000 1% of it is NOT lead), is outrageously wrong. Surely."

I guess the answer is surely not

" If not on phones, then where else is guaranteed to reach the most people? "

It's not about reaching the most people, it's about reaching social media users specifically - about people using specific apps and platforms.. His comments were not about using a phone to play Pangram, listen to a podcast, or taking and editing photos -- those aren't the dangerous activities, or the things that most teens use. In fact, they weren't about how much someone is using their phone at all.