So bizarre and embarrassing the peanut gallery here views this as anything other than a backslide. We've been having this non-argument since I was in middle school: moratorium was a ridiculous non-sequitur then and it's a ridiculous non-sequitur now. If civic institutions can't find a constructive path to integrating socially ubiquitous prosthetic tech, it ought to be disqualifying. That's quite nakedly the task of governance.
Imagine having to teach a whole class, keep track of each kids engagement, where they're at, if they need more help, and on top of that, having eyes on the back walls of the classroom to see if kids have their phones hidden in their pencil case or something, watching youtube or cheating, or msging each other, or are wearing buds under their hair and are just jamming and not listening in class... Imagine each kid has a gaming console in their hand and are already addicted to all their devices and on top of trying to teach them a full curriculum, you also have to be their addiction counselor and police.
At most, if kids phones were registered as "student" phones and registered to a school so that between certain hours, the phones allowed policies from the school to be applied to a phone while the phone is on the premises. Teachers could just disable them during class or allow for exceptions like if such and such kid was waiting for a critical call from a parent or something.. Classrooms could have beacons telling the phones they're in a classroom so if they go in the halls the phones could work... Or not.. Either way, there should be tech solutions to tech problems and teachers have enough to deal with, they shouldn't be further strained by having to police students always trying to find ways to sneak on to their devices.
Soon teachers might be a thing of the past and kids will just interact with an AI teacher anyway... The AI will be responsible for keeping them engaged and make sure they understand the material. At that point the AI can just shock them into submission if they whip out their phones... Muahahhaa... jk jk.
Fisher didn't land anywhere near here in his appraisal of the emergent (online/millennial) left and your inability to think past 2011's "anti-capitalism" means you're squarely, exclusively the target of whatever "critique" this is supposed to be. You guys are mortifying.
That would be a bit surprising. Any statistics to back this up?
The TFA doesn't mention which gender it affects the most, but similar issues in Japan (taijin kyofusho / hikikomori) are more widespread among men. Also the quote from TFA
> "Parents give everything to their children to ensure them opportunities, and they also expect a lot from their children," she says. "They believe their children must inherit the wealth and social status that they have achieved."
Clearly applies to men first. In South Korea the culture is still very patriarchal and pressure on young men to deliver success/money/legacy is high while women traditionally are not seen in that role (and as a result are really discriminated in pay etc.)
