> Computers as a tool for educational purposes is different than a TikTok stream.
But nobody is banning TikTok. All schools that do anything about smartphones are always banning smartphones as such. Nobody is showing the kids how to use computers properly nor is anyone expecting them to use them for anything but games and social. Schools are just giving up on the subject and closing themselves in 19th century world. The same TikTok justification would be used against school computers until they are locked down so much they cannot be considered universal computers anymore.
> Corporations locking down work terminals is legally permissible and morally correct.
And a reliable way to get rid of the best employees by optimizing the whole organization for the worst ones. This is schools we are talking about. Pulling everyone down to the lowest standard of behavior is clearly against schools' mission. Schools should be instead optimized for the best students and push everyone to be their best selves.
> It isn't totalitarian, I disagree completely with the use of that term and with the implication that teenagers should have franchise at any level above local.
This is a bit OT, but aren't teenagers smarter that pensioners in every way you can measure except vocabulary? Aren't teenagers emotionally, cognitively, and physically clearly closer to 18+ adults than prepubescent children? If so, what makes you think they aren't effectively adults? Anyways, prepubescent children don't get to vote for practical reasons, specifically because they don't care and because they are under strong influence of their parents. Neither reason applies to teenagers.
To the first point: If we assumed this is a dichotomy, which would you prefer? The government banning social media from all minors' devices? Some MDM that disabled it by force during certain hours, requiring intrusive software?
Or, that we remove the problem by removing the tool entirely and without inspecting the devices contents?
You talk about using computers properly, which is a noble goal, but the banning of phones in classrooms has multiple reasons behind it. One of which is the belief that social media and smartphone games are addictive. Should we teach kids how to smoke cigarettes responsibly during their lunch break?
Children can be taught how to use computers in diverse and interesting ways since early age. I know, because I did it with my kid. And I did not exhaust the possibilities, so it can be certainly done much better if educational professionals invest themselves in the topic. As most parents aren't up to the task, schools are supposed to do it since kindergarten, but instead of offering positive and enjoyable examples, they choose to spread the sort of fear-inducing negative technophobic propaganda many people are repeating here.
As for what I mean by technophobic propaganda, just listen to yourself: "the belief that social media and smartphone games are addictive". People aren't stupid. Psychological trickery can get games and media only so far. People crave a variety of experiences. It's not that hard to keep students' attention either by offering an interesting subject, by listening and being honest (for a change), or just by being there as a parent or teacher.
But nobody is banning TikTok. All schools that do anything about smartphones are always banning smartphones as such. Nobody is showing the kids how to use computers properly nor is anyone expecting them to use them for anything but games and social. Schools are just giving up on the subject and closing themselves in 19th century world. The same TikTok justification would be used against school computers until they are locked down so much they cannot be considered universal computers anymore.
> Corporations locking down work terminals is legally permissible and morally correct.
And a reliable way to get rid of the best employees by optimizing the whole organization for the worst ones. This is schools we are talking about. Pulling everyone down to the lowest standard of behavior is clearly against schools' mission. Schools should be instead optimized for the best students and push everyone to be their best selves.
> It isn't totalitarian, I disagree completely with the use of that term and with the implication that teenagers should have franchise at any level above local.
This is a bit OT, but aren't teenagers smarter that pensioners in every way you can measure except vocabulary? Aren't teenagers emotionally, cognitively, and physically clearly closer to 18+ adults than prepubescent children? If so, what makes you think they aren't effectively adults? Anyways, prepubescent children don't get to vote for practical reasons, specifically because they don't care and because they are under strong influence of their parents. Neither reason applies to teenagers.