undefined

points

[-]

Specifically designed to be less capable is the same as being restricted. It's purpose is explicitly to restrict the user communication to some predefined setting by a third party (the parent and company behind it) and the user is well aware of that, as this e-waste cost as much as a cheap or second hand smartphone.

by nkrisc8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's not "restricted", it's designed to serve a different purpose. A bicycle is not a "restricted" car.

by ForHackernews11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

The jukebox I got for my basement is not a restricted Spotify-enabled smart speaker. It's a different device that does something different.

by choo-t10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

First, you got it for yourself, so you chose to use a jukebox (or in other words : restrict your listening to specific titles on physical media) instead to impose it to other, which make a big difference in what people see as a restrictions(instead of a choice, which is self inflicted).

Chosing a Tin Can is obviously to restrict your kid usage of communication, it's the nature of the purchase of the device.

by goku129 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

First of all, comparing a locked-down smartphone with a fully capable smartphone is different from comparing a smartphone with a 'landline phone'. That's like apples to apples compared to apples to oranges.

Secondly as far as I understand, you need the same type of phone at both ends to communicate with each other. Looks like the tin-can and other similar devices are designed to talk only to each other. While that is a restriction, it eliminates the avenue for a comparison. The friends are all on equal ground.

Thirdly, you're talking as if parental controls, especially unequal parental controls are a bad thing. Parental controls aren't like government or corporate restrictions. There is a necessary assumption that parents act in the best interests of the kids, unlike the other two.

Some parents are irresponsible and may allow their kids to consume alcohol or drugs. Will you allow your kids to do it too, because it may end up in comparisons? You have to talk to your kids about why that is a bad idea. It's wrong to assume that kids won't listen at all. Don't most kids refrain from drinking, smoking and driving till they come of age?

If this sort of control seems unfair or unethical to you, you're basically exposing your kids to serious dangers. And brain rot is a very serious problem that HN doesn't talk enough about. It ruins even the seniors. But for kids, it wreaks havoc with their IQ and personality.

by ForHackernews9 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Choosing a Tin Can for a child that doesn't have a phone isn't restricting them, it's empowering them with a new form of communication to chat to their friends. Getting my 10 year old a bicycle instead of a car isn't a restriction.

by M95D4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's no use having an argument with thig guy. He simply has a more modern* definition of what "restricted" means.

*I don't know what to call it. It's like those people that buy a car with heated seats locked down by subscription and calling it "a feature" because some cars don't have them at all.

by apetresc8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Compared to getting them nothing, yes. But the OP's point is that this doesn't prevent the child from mentally comparing themselves to peers that have a smartphone, and viewing their Tin Can as a "restriction" imposed by their parents.

Which it is. I don't understand the need to wink-wink-nudge-nudge pretend it's anything else by the others in this thread. Just own it, restrictions aren't bad by default.