4 ms·

Then you're excluded, simple as that. We're rapidly approching the point where you're: a) Expected to have, engage with and be active on a smartphone b) Be ac

Then you're excluded, simple as that. We're rapidly approching the point where you're: a) Expected to have, engage with and be active on a smartphone b) Be accessible via the mobile network (have an active phone number that can get SMS) c) Be "always online", frequently checking the bank in 'real time' to verify transactions, account balance etc d) Have battery life on your device. It's no good if you have just 5% and your phone turns off, your smartphone to person uptime needs to be very very good (your phone needs to be online quite often to be a very good citizen!). e) Be verifiable to you. The make, model and other information needs to be tied to you as a person. The SIM card needs to belong to you and you need to be traceable and trackable via your smartphone at all times, 24/7. If you do not meet those requirements you WILL be locked out of some functions in society. This is already the case today and will be the case in the future. No smartphone? No digital cash? Not for you. Our phones are becoming and will eventually be a part of "us", they will be a digital heartbeat and will need to output a "pulse", if your pulse stops, so will your societal inclusion (perhaps you can't go to a place without scanning a QR code, for example). The levels of exclusion will vary depending on criteria, for example, Covid passports will likely use an "app" as most things do otherwise you'll be denied access. Eventually, it'll be a law to ensure your digital pulse is active and working 24/7, every citizen will be issued a digital ID and a personal device that will need to be kept on your person at all times, it'll talk to various networks (telephony, GPS etc), and will act like a "tag". We're not there yet but the pathway to reach that point has been made obvious during the covid pandemic. "Health passports" are the next step, various smartwatches that record health data (Apple, Fitbit) are getting into that territory. Eventually you as a human will be constantly monitored and uploaded to a server 24/7

alexf95 6y ago
It does appear like that, I guess it just isn't very apparent to me yet how smartphone dependent we are. The change just kinda creeped up.
- ghaff 6y ago
  That's how most changes happen. For example, "we" didn't collectively decide one day we absolutely need to have credit cards. But if you don't have one now, there are a ton of things you can't really do.
program_whiz 6y ago
Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "voter disenfranchisement" and that disabled people should have special exceptions made for them. The claim "sorry you don't have a smart phone you can't buy food / clothes" has implications for people (children, the elderly, the disabled, the poor). Just replace "smartphone" with "stairs" (if you can't climb stairs sorry no food / clothes for you). Hey if its a problem, just order online, or get a friend to do it, why should we have to cater to people who aren't normal? Combine that with a culture where your phone can be disabled for many reasons (failure to pay, socially unacceptable views, employer owned) and you're creating a rather distopian picture. I'm all for a more streamlined version for people who are able, and that may well be the vast majority, but it makes sense to make provisions for those who aren't and not to say "sorry history has moved forward, if you don't have a car you can't have a job or go shopping." (as another example)
- aboringusername 6y ago
  Covid has already accelerated a cashless society, whereby you are incentivized to have a digital means of paying; GPay, Apple pay, Contactless card (and payment limits have increased as a result). You also have various testing and tracing schemes, perhaps using QR codes to scan as you enter a place, an "app" to monitor closeness to people who might have Covid. Those who cannot, do not or will not have a smartphone will become marginalized and excluded from society. The expectation and norm will be to obtain and fully use your digital extension (and there are many smartphones that are very cheap). Eventually, smartphoneless people will become a percentile point of the population that are easily discarded and hidden, and from my perspective that's becoming more and more obvious as time goes on. To me this is simply an observation, not a commentary as to whether it's good, bad, but it seems this is the direction society is accepting since I don't see any movements against smartphones or this type of future.
- johnday 6y ago
  > Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "voter disenfranchisement" and that disabled people should have special exceptions made for them. What makes you think that those are the same people? At first blush it seems like people in favour of easier access to vote and easier access for the disabled would be the same people that advocate for more inclusive access to shops.
ryukafalz 6y ago
> Expected to have, engage with and be active on a smartphone And not just any smartphone: a smartphone controlled by Apple or Google. Further cementing their influence over society.
- wil421 6y ago
  Would it have been any better if Nokia and Blackberry had dominated the market?
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    It would have been, at least to some degree, better if Nokia, Blackberry, Apple, and Google had dominated the market instead of Apple and Google.
  - ryukafalz 6y ago
    Not particularly, if that just means you're beholden to those companies instead. My issue is not that you need to be using Android in general for example (base Android is FOSS, so the user can in principle have full control over their device), but that often for these things you need to be using Android with Google services, with all the tracking and such that entails.
nivenkos 6y ago
While I agree this level of possible exclusion isn't great, what is the alternative? In Germany for example, that had resisted a lot of technological progress (online credit cards, Google Street View, etc.), I had to cancel my internet subscription by fax in 2015... It was hard enough to get a fax service, and then send personal details, etc. to prove my identity. I'd rather have a streamlined experience with apps and technology than have to deal with loads of bureaucracy.

alexf95 6y ago

It does appear like that, I guess it just isn't very apparent to me yet how smartphone dependent we are. The change just kinda creeped up.

ghaff 6y ago
That's how most changes happen. For example, "we" didn't collectively decide one day we absolutely need to have credit cards. But if you don't have one now, there are a ton of things you can't really do.

program_whiz 6y ago

Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "voter disenfranchisement" and that disabled people should have special exceptions made for them. The claim "sorry you don't have a smart phone you can't buy food / clothes" has implications for people (children, the elderly, the disabled, the poor). Just replace "smartphone" with "stairs" (if you can't climb stairs sorry no food / clothes for you). Hey if its a problem, just order online, or get a friend to do it, why should we have to cater to people who aren't normal? Combine that with a culture where your phone can be disabled for many reasons (failure to pay, socially unacceptable views, employer owned) and you're creating a rather distopian picture. I'm all for a more streamlined version for people who are able, and that may well be the vast majority, but it makes sense to make provisions for those who aren't and not to say "sorry history has moved forward, if you don't have a car you can't have a job or go shopping." (as another example)

aboringusername 6y ago
Covid has already accelerated a cashless society, whereby you are incentivized to have a digital means of paying; GPay, Apple pay, Contactless card (and payment limits have increased as a result). You also have various testing and tracing schemes, perhaps using QR codes to scan as you enter a place, an "app" to monitor closeness to people who might have Covid. Those who cannot, do not or will not have a smartphone will become marginalized and excluded from society. The expectation and norm will be to obtain and fully use your digital extension (and there are many smartphones that are very cheap). Eventually, smartphoneless people will become a percentile point of the population that are easily discarded and hidden, and from my perspective that's becoming more and more obvious as time goes on. To me this is simply an observation, not a commentary as to whether it's good, bad, but it seems this is the direction society is accepting since I don't see any movements against smartphones or this type of future.
johnday 6y ago
> Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "voter disenfranchisement" and that disabled people should have special exceptions made for them. What makes you think that those are the same people? At first blush it seems like people in favour of easier access to vote and easier access for the disabled would be the same people that advocate for more inclusive access to shops.

ryukafalz 6y ago

> Expected to have, engage with and be active on a smartphone And not just any smartphone: a smartphone controlled by Apple or Google. Further cementing their influence over society.

wil421 6y ago
Would it have been any better if Nokia and Blackberry had dominated the market?
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  It would have been, at least to some degree, better if Nokia, Blackberry, Apple, and Google had dominated the market instead of Apple and Google.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  Not particularly, if that just means you're beholden to those companies instead. My issue is not that you need to be using Android in general for example (base Android is FOSS, so the user can in principle have full control over their device), but that often for these things you need to be using Android with Google services, with all the tracking and such that entails.

nivenkos 6y ago

While I agree this level of possible exclusion isn't great, what is the alternative? In Germany for example, that had resisted a lot of technological progress (online credit cards, Google Street View, etc.), I had to cancel my internet subscription by fax in 2015... It was hard enough to get a fax service, and then send personal details, etc. to prove my identity. I'd rather have a streamlined experience with apps and technology than have to deal with loads of bureaucracy.