Parents urged not to give their children smartphones
Dumbphones, also known as 'feature phones', have no internet access, no social media apps, and no endless scrolling.
They're seeing a comeback too, with the total global market projected to bring in £8.5 billion in revenue this year. Yet despite the risks, Ofcom figures show 97% of children own a smartphone by the age of 12, and nearly a quarter of children as young as five to seven already have one.
Juliet, who is director of TelephoneSystems.Cloud, says: 'Smartphones are designed to be addictive and they give children access to the entire world. We don't let children smoke or drink for good reason, yet we give them smartphones which have severe consequences and can be just as addictive.
'There's no need for children so young to own a smartphone. Endless scrolling feeds content addiction by triggering dopamine hits and with children's brains still developing, excessive smartphone use can wire addictive behaviours into young minds permanently.'
Juliet is also warning that parental controls may not be as reliable as many hope. With smartphone companies profiting from increased screen time , there's little incentive for them to make these controls as strict or effective as they truly need to be.
'Controls can help but they're not strict enough," she says. "These phone companies want us to be glued to our phones because it benefits them. The best thing you can do for your child is not give them a smartphone until they are at least 13.
'Children need to be outside and dumbphones give them the freedom to do this while allowing parents to stay in touch with them through calls and text messages. This keeps them away from harmful group chats and social media.'
Juliet plans to get her own daughter a dumbphone for her next birthday so she can keep in touch when she's out with her friends, but stay free from the dangers of smartphones.
'I want her to be able to play outside and do physical activities rather than be stuck in her room scrolling through content all night,' she says.
Recommended reading:
Over 90% of schools in England have banned mobile phones, with academic research suggesting they not only affect pupils' educational attainment, but contribute to problems such as bullying.
Dumbphones help tackle these issues by removing access to messaging apps and features like Emojis, which have been used for covert bullying - a problem highlighted in this year's Netflix show Adolescence.
Campaign groups like Smartphone Free Childhood - now with over 150,000 members - also advise that a child's first phone should only allow calls and texts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
31 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's online safety law is putting free speech at risk, X says
LONDON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Britain's online safety law risks suppressing free speech due to its heavy-handed enforcement, social media site X said on Friday, adding that significant changes were needed. The Online Safety Act, which is being rolled out this year, sets tough new requirements on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X, as well as sites hosting pornography, to protect children and remove illegal content. But it has attracted criticism from politicians, free-speech campaigners and content creators, who have complained that the rules had been implemented too broadly, resulting in the censorship of legal content. Users have complained about age checks that require personal data to be uploaded to access sites that show pornography, and more than 468,000 people have signed an online petition calling for the act to be repealed. The government said on Monday it had no plans to do so and it was working with regulator Ofcom to implement the act as quickly as possible. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday that those who wanted to overturn it were "on the side of predators". Elon Musk's X, which has implemented age verification, said the law's laudable intentions were at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. "When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety'," it said in a statement. "It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made." X said the timetable for meeting mandatory measures had been unnecessarily tight, and despite being in compliance, platforms still faced threats of enforcement and fines, encouraging over-censorship. It said a balanced approach was the only way to protect liberty, encourage innovation and safeguard children. "It's safe to say that significant changes must take place to achieve these objectives in the UK," it said. A UK government spokesperson said it is "demonstrably false" that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. "As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression," the spokesperson said. Ofcom said on Thursday it had launched investigations into the compliance of four companies, which collectively run 34 pornography sites.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Online Safety Act threatens free speech, says Elon Musk's X
Elon Musk's X platform has claimed the Online Safety Act, the 'heavy-handed' regulator Ofcom, and a planned police monitoring unit are harming free speech in the UK. The company published a post on X titled 'What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach' criticising what it saw was a triple-pronged attack on free expression. The post said the 'act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer.' Ofcom was taking an 'aggressive approach' to enforcement, X said, at the same time as publishing plans to force companies to take down hate speech proactively, which it called a 'double compliance' burden. A national police unit proposed by the Home Office to monitor social media for signs of unrest 'has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterise it as excessive and potentially restrictive', the company claimed. A political row has broken out over the act, which introduced measures to protect children last week. A video of a speech in parliament by the shadow Home Office minister, Katie Lam, about sexual crimes committed by grooming gangs was restricted on X after being flagged as 'harmful content'. Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party have painted it as 'dystopian' legislation and vowed to repeal the laws. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, said that Farage was siding with predators like Jimmy Savile. Kyle and Ofcom have also come under pressure from US Republicans this week, who have been in the UK to express their concerns about the act's impact on free speech. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has called the act 'the UK online censorship law'. He also published communications from the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to social media platforms during the Southport riots last year that expressed concerns about the use of the expression 'two-tier policing'. X said that the act 'is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression' and parliament 'made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of online safety'. It claimed the act's measures 'prevent adults from encountering illegal content and steps to ensure age verification that limit adults' anonymity online'. Ofcom denies this. In the wake of the Southport riots, Ofcom proposed measures that would require social media platforms to remove hate speech from feeds. Platforms that are at high or medium risk of carrying hate speech would take it out of algorithmic feeds if it is potentially illegal. X called this a 'double compliance' burden on top of the act. Ofcom admitted the proposal 'has the potential to interfere with users' rights to freedom of expression and association.' Diana Johnson, the Home Office minister, last week proposed a national police unit that would monitor social media for signs of anti-migrant disorder. PATRICK PLEUL/REUTERS X said: 'While positioned as a safety measure, it clearly goes far beyond that intent.' The company said 'a balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children'. While the X post was not attributed to Musk, he retweeted an answer from his Grok chatbot that said: 'Evidence shows Labour has suppressed aspects of free speech via the Online Safety Act's content monitoring.' Ofcom said: 'The new rules require tech firms to tackle criminal content and prevent children from seeing defined types of material that's harmful to them. There is no requirement on them to restrict legal content for adult users. In fact, they must carefully consider how they protect users' rights to freedom of expression while keeping people safe.' Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, said: 'The Online Safety Act is a necessary step toward protecting our children in the digital world. Years of work have gone into crafting a law that addresses the real dangers kids face in online spaces, including exploitation, suicide promotion and self-harm. Those who propose to scrap this vital law must explain why they think these heinous online activities are tolerable.' A government spokesman said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.'
Rhyl Journal
a day ago
- Rhyl Journal
Ofcom investigates 34 pornography sites under new age-check rules
Ofcom said it had opened formal investigations into whether 8579 LLC, AVS Group Ltd, Kick Online Entertainment SA and Trendio Ltd had 'highly effective' age checks in place to protect children from encountering pornography across 34 websites. The regulator said it prioritised the companies based on the risk of harm posed by the services they operated and their user numbers. Collectively, the websites had over nine million unique monthly UK visitors, Ofcom said. The new cases add to Ofcom's 11 investigations already in progress into 4chan, an online suicide forum, seven file-sharing services, First Time Videos LLC and Itai Tech Ltd. Ofcom said it expected to make further enforcement announcements in the coming months. New online safety protections for children came into force on July 25. Since that date, so-called 'risky' sites and apps have been expected to use what the regulator has described as highly effective age checks to identify which users are children and subsequently prevent them from accessing pornography, as well as other harmful content including self-harm, suicide, eating disorders and extreme violence. In a statement, Ofcom said: 'Where we identify compliance failures, we can require platforms to take specific steps to come into compliance. 🚩 We are investigating four companies, who collectively run 34 porn sites, on whether they have put in place age checks to protect children. These new cases add to the 11 online safety investigations already in progress. ➡️Find out more: — Ofcom (@Ofcom) July 31, 2025 'We can also impose fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. 'Where appropriate, in the most serious cases, we can seek a court order for business disruption measures, such as requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw their services from a platform, or requiring internet service providers to block access to a site in the UK.' Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said: 'I strongly welcome this speedy and decisive action from Ofcom. This enforcement goes to the very heart of what the Online Safety Act is here to do – protecting children from pornographic material. 'No-one in their right mind would think it appropriate for a child to walk into a shop and freely buy a top shelf magazine – so why should we allow them to freely wander on to a website offering the same, if not more disturbing, age-inappropriate content? 'These laws have nothing to do with censorship or policing adults seeking to access legal content. Those who suggest otherwise are playing politics with child safety and have no practical alternatives for protecting our children from content they should never see – content that can cause lasting, even fatal, damage.'
