3 ms·
OP stated, verbatim, that smartphones are "becoming legally required". I understand the slippery slope argument, even if I think it's kind of alarmist, but...
by throwawaygh 5y ago
OP stated, verbatim, that smartphones are "becoming legally required".
I understand the slippery slope argument, even if I think it's kind of alarmist, but... I mean, come on. Present tense?!?! We are sooooo far off from a legal mandate to carry a smartphone that I'm not even sure how to politely react to this statement.
> it's not unreasonable to think we might end up in a situation like this.
This is perhaps a good use of the double negative, because it's certainly not reasonable either.
- vinyl7 5y agoIt doesn't have to be written law passed by a government for something to be "legally required". Just like the government doesn't have to pass laws or implement systems for surveillance when they can just rely on FANG to do all the data collection for them.
- throwawaygh 5y ago> It doesn't have to be written law passed by a government for something to be "legally required". People who believe that smartphones are "legally required" in the US certainly do have a firm grip on "reality". Am I doing this double quote thing right?