Fighting the smartphone ‘invasion’: the French village that voted to ban scrolling in public
Seine-Port is introducing restrictions on phone use in streets, shops and parks – but young people say there’s little else to do Angelique Chrisafis Angelique Chrisafis in Seine-Port @achrisafis Sat 10 Feb 2024 05.00 GMT
A picture of a smartphone with a red line through it serves as a warning in the window of a hairdresser’s shop in a French village that has voted to ban people scrolling on their phones in public. “Everyone is struggling with too much screen time,” said Ludivine, a cardiology nurse, as she had her hair cut into a bob, leaving her phone out of sight in her bag. “I voted in favour, this could be a solution.”
Seine-Port, in the Seine-et-Marne area south of Paris, with a population of fewer than 2,000 people, last weekend voted yes in a referendum to restrict smartphone use in public, banning adults and children from scrolling on their devices while walking down the street, while sitting with others on a park bench, while in shops, cafes or eating in restaurants and while parents wait for their children in front of the school gates. Those who might check their phone’s map when lost are instead being encouraged to ask for directions.
If you ban scrolling in public, only criminals will scroll in public. Remember, the only way to stop a bad guy scrolling in public is a good guy scrolling in public.
Scrolls, not trolls!
This message sponsored by the Association of Wizardry and Fantastical Racism
Are they also going to ban reading newspapers or books in public or are they hypocritical boomers?
I believe I know what you are getting at, but still, that’s not exactly an equal comparison:
https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.1a13
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563214001149
So you’re suggesting people are only allowed to use the optimal method for everything?
Personally I’m not attempting to deeply study Lemmy in the three minutes I’m sitting in a reception area but YMMV.
No they don’t. They say there is a difference between Smartphones and newspapers or books.
No, I was not suggesting that, but you already knew that - if not, feel free to rejoin this conversation once you have left that reception area and increased your attention span beyond the 3 minute of waiting you’re trying to kill.
Also, just to be clear: the French proposal is bullshit, although at its core, there probably is some merit. I do not agree with the execution. In the end, it’s a minorty of people helplessly clawing at something they don’t understand. That doesn’t mean your argument of “tHeY ShOuLd aLsO BaN BoOkS” is any more meaningful.
Smartphone addiction exists, and we are currently exploring the correlation of screen time, social media consumption etc. and depression, anxiety and ADHD in both teenagers and adults.
All I wanted to point out was that reading books and spending time in front of a screen are not equal.
I just employed the same tactic you did. It seems you didn’t appreciate that. Perhaps your original tack wasn’t the right one to make your point?
f not, feel free to rejoin this conversation once you have left that reception area and increased your attention span beyond the 3 minute of waiting you’re trying to kill.
woooow where did that come from??
Yeah it’s a major problem. But I see it more as a cultural problem not one that can’t be solved with legislation.
Well except maybe make using your phone in a theater punishable by prison time. I’d support that because WTF people?
But besides in places where it will disturb others, then there isn’t much that can be done at a regulatory level.
"Everyone is struggling with too much screen time,” said Ludivine, a cardiology nurse, as she had her hair cut into a bob, leaving her phone out of sight in her bag. “I voted in favour, this could be a solution.”
I find it always funny, that you can read the narcissism & projection so clearly. “I have a phone addiction and I have recognised it. Now I am expecting everyone around me to restrain themself, to compensate for my lack of selfcontrol”
And it’s always ‘the children’. If you don’t want your child to have access to a screen, don’t give it one. Society isn’t responsible to manage the screen time of your toddler. You are.
Boomer village
A 2000 people town, current trends indicate that the place is probably devoid of young people anyway. No matter what, that policy will not make young people want to live there, what a way to kill off your own town’s already dwindling population
That sounds like a bonus for them
deleted by creator
Scrolling on your phone is truly the exact same thing as doing heroin, thank you for this flawless comparison.
Banning smoking in public would get the old folks riled up, but would also be a good thing, your point being?
Bro just casually saying that using a smartphone is tantamount to taking heroin.
This is you, stop it, it’s annoying.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
She said: “Recently in a waiting room, I brought books and dolls for my daughter to play with and everyone congratulated me that she wasn’t on a screen.”
…and then everyone stood up and clapped.
Fuck this, sounds like parenting and policing all slammed into the same policy. Just let people fucking be.
Getting real “Socrates on the Invention of Writing”-vibes from this.
“For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. […]”
Absurd policy. Good luck enforcing it.
First off, the way this is discribed is an intrusion on a way of life/ peoples behaviour, and I personally feel it crosses a line.
banning adults and children from scrolling on their devices while walking down the street, while sitting with others on a park bench, while in shops, cafes or eating in restaurants and while parents wait for their children in front of the school gates. Those who might check their phone’s map when lost are instead being encouraged to ask for directions.
What should drive a discussion about digital media are the following questions:
- Why are young people and children especially drawn to digital devices?
- How does peer pressure affect parents’ choices when buying a mobile device for their kids? (e.g.: children being bullied in schools for not owning a smartphone)
- Why are people becoming addicted to digital technology?
- Which design choices are developers making to make software addicting? How can we stop that from happening?
- How can an addicted person be supported? … and probably many more that I can’t think of right now
The policy doesn’t address any of these. Worst case scenario it communitcates to addicted people that their behaviour is unacceptable, creating an unneccessary additional burden.
- Instant gratification
- Not cool enough for the hot new drug that is instant gratification
- Instant gratification
- Give as much instant gratification as possible
- I don’t know, I am not an expert.
Hoo boy. Nobody tell them about that new Apple computer you strap to your face and walk around in
Is that something like Google Glasses? I doubt they would care because in an augmented reality you’re still looking up at people and making eye contact, no? In which case this region will likely sell a lot of those.
I am sorry friend but no. It is a gigantic enormous metal and glass curved monster that you strap to your face. Then, you proceed to wave your hands around in the air all the time, while looking around furtively. If these backwards fucks don’t like people looking at their phones, who knows what they will think when they see somebody walking around apparently fully aware of their surroundings while wearing ski goggles and gesturing wildly in the air.
Important context:
It is not enforceable by police – officers could not stop or fine people scrolling in the street because there is no national law against smartphones
Municipalities can’t have their own ordinances? Police only enforce national law?
Perfect example of “road to hell is paved with good intentions”
The reasons here are pure but the methods are not. Luckily this only has a symbolic meaning and is not enforced by police. That would turn dystopian quite quick.
So people who use their phone to communicate like deaf, blind, and/or nonverbal people or those who don’t speak the language and use it to translate, as well as those who need it to help ease anxiety or as a barrier between themselves and an overwhelming world (in other words - disabled and other marginalised people), can go fuck themselves, can they?
Oh wait, don’t tell me, “if there arises a need an exception will be made”, which is basically saying disabled and other marginalised people can go fuck themselves, unless they are willing to be stopped, forced to disclose their personal and/or medical information to strangers and be scrutinised on the spot by people without any training with the potential of being punished if said laypeople decide that actually they don’t see good reason for the phone use…
Like, even without all of this the idea is a pathetic joke being enforced by power hungry control freaks, but the fact that they’re happy to so openly punish and exclude marginalised people (who might stay home rather than face a world where they can’t communicate, or where they might get constantly stopped and scrutinised for doing so) is just disgusting.
Fuck these people.
How does this work legally? The article mentions that it can’t be enforced by police. And I’m sure that it’s also not really in the power of local villages to ban checking a WhatsApp in a public park.
It doesn’t. It’s a right wing attempt to generate social friction and to get attention by focusing on rage bait topics for their prospective voters
Social pressure might be enough to enforce it.
Consider that it’s a legal obligation for Belgians to vote in elections, punishable by fines. Even though that would be easily enforceable, the Belgians are hardly enforcing it. Yet Belgium still has the highest voter turnout in the world (87%).
The reason: some cultures have a strong tendency to respect some laws regardless of the threat of enforcement as the law sets a standard for respectable behavior and civic duty.
A majority of people might obey this law a majority of the time simply because they would rather not be seen as a disrespectful pest.
