When mobile phone use exploded 20 years ago, it was hard to argue with the benefits. The ability to stay in touch with loved ones at little or no cost, was chief among them. For Irish people, with relatives around the world, we have been able to share in moments we’d otherwise only have heard recounted and possibly embellished. 

Mobile phone access has given us a ringside seat on baby’s first steps, engagements at sunset and even, particularly during covid-19, dying words.

As ever, though, there is a warning that comes with cheap access to electronic information where your data is what the companies want, even more than your money.

And that suspicion tends to be rooted in the effect on those who sign up for smartphones without understanding the implications, be they vulnerable members of society or those that need our protection the most — children.

The Growing up in Ireland survey has previously found that 54% of nine-year-olds now own a mobile phone. It’s an astonishing statistic, that provokes much furrowing of brows and shaking of heads.

It’s also why 2023 saw the first signs of a grassroots fightback against signing over our children to phone time instead of play time. In an interview with the 'Irish Examiner', Education Minister Norma Foley insists there isn’t a “campaign against phones” as children need to stay in contact with parents, for one thing.

“What we’re really talking about is the smartphone and... the content in terms of social media that can be made available to young people that is not appropriate to young people,” she said. 

It is why, as well as encouraging parents not to buy a phone for children, she wants a “rigorous verification of age” process for young people purchasing phones and accessing apps to help protect them from harmful content.

The Government cannot, nor should it, dictate who buys a phone for their child. But, unless global digital behemoths start being accountable for the harmful content served by their platforms, the education minister is right to try and take some form of action.

The Government cannot do it alone, however, so it is encouraging to see the initiative being led in Waterford this year to try and dissuade primary school parents from forking out for smartphones for kids across the county.

Any parent knows the worst pressure is peer pressure and that is why many parents accede to their child’s pleas, rather than allow them to be potentially ostracised. But there are other considerations at stake.

Portlaw National School principal Brian Barron led the Waterford charter, along with St Ursula’s Primary School principal Triona Daly three months ago. 

In addition to cyberbullying, Mr Barron said children are viewing violent and sexualised content and accessing troubling advice online through smartphones.

He said children in fifth and sixth class, are accessing videos and groups focused on self-harm and eating disorders, where they get advice on how to self-harm, how to eat less or how to hide the issue from their parents.

To hear then that signups to the charter had ranged from between 20% and 50% of parents in schools is heartwarming.

Given the difficulties faced by parents who choose to make a stand on smartphones, this is a successful result no matter which way you look at it.

“They didn’t have to make a change, we didn’t ask anyone to take a phone off their child. We just asked people not to buy one if they haven’t done so already,” he said, Mr Barron said.

Unsurprisingly, secondary schools have been contacting the organisers to ask for support among older pupils. Don’t be surprised to see this initiative spread and have many positive results outside of the classroom, too.

We entrust teachers with our children’s education. Listen to them when they say we need to protect them when it comes to their smartphones.

Back to the future 

It is the time of year for pause and reflection, an opportunity to look forward to the year ahead but also to the year just gone and even further back.

This week, we have been publishing century-old material from our archives, from a correspondent known as Periscope. 

Today’s instalment presents a time when vegetarianism was so unusual it needed inverted commas — though perhaps the writer was ahead of their time in promoting a meat-free diet and seeking a government information campaign about healthy eating (does that sound familiar?). 

Much can be learned from the views of the past. 

For instance, Periscope writes that “an average man doing a moderate amount of work will require about 3,000 to 3,500 calories per day” which is so far ahead of today’s recommendations it makes you wonder what the definition of “average man” and “moderate amount of work” were in 1923.

Next week we look at the Ireland of 1984, a year within the lifetime of many readers and yet possibly light years away: Apartheid, the Kerry Babies, Ann Lovett, Cork’s Ford factory closing. 

In some cases — particularly the attitudes to women, though as a society we can, should, and must always do better — they can be considered so far removed from the world of today that they are almost ancient relics. 

Will we be able to look on things like Gaza and say the same in 2063 or 2064? Will we be able to say we’ve come far, or will we be stuck in the past? Only time will tell.