3 ms·

Here (Finland's 3rd biggest city) this happened on 29-Sep-2007, nearly 15 years ago. Just for comparison. Most Finn's are very proud of being digital leaders,

Here (Finland's 3rd biggest city) this happened on 29-Sep-2007, nearly 15 years ago. Just for comparison. Most Finn's are very proud of being digital leaders, but I don't say it's really a good thing. Children, tourists, homeless etc. should be able to use a phone. Everybody should be able to communicate without leaving digital tracks. Surveillance capitalism is a sick model.

tialaramex 4y ago
Everybody should have access to the Network. It's weird to prioritise a previous (and of course much less capable) iteration of the Network, in this case the Public Switched Telephone Network over the current one, the Internet. Ambient Network Access is to be encouraged, I am disappointed when I see friends endeavouring to keep their young children from accessing the Network out of a misplaced fear it will stunt their intellectual development somehow. To be sure children need to be given boundaries and supervision, but preventing access is no sort of way to achieve that. For tourists and the homeless there's even less excuse.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- usr1106 4y ago
  Well, then you would need to advocate public internet terminals that can be accessed at reasonable cost. Some countries have internet cafes, but Finland has never really had them to any extent because "too many" have internet at home (in the earlier days) or in their pocket (nowadays). Libraries do offer decent access, but sometimes you might have to wait 48 hours or more until it opens next time. And the density of libraries is of course nowhere close to what payphones once were. And you cannot have a confidential phone call in a library. So in some aspects what you call the current iteration of the network is not much more capable for everyone, quite the opposite. At least 10% of the population (mostly elder people) are completely locked out here. Many more in other countries, but there often more alternative channels still exist.

tialaramex 4y ago

Everybody should have access to the Network. It's weird to prioritise a previous (and of course much less capable) iteration of the Network, in this case the Public Switched Telephone Network over the current one, the Internet. Ambient Network Access is to be encouraged, I am disappointed when I see friends endeavouring to keep their young children from accessing the Network out of a misplaced fear it will stunt their intellectual development somehow. To be sure children need to be given boundaries and supervision, but preventing access is no sort of way to achieve that. For tourists and the homeless there's even less excuse.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
usr1106 4y ago
Well, then you would need to advocate public internet terminals that can be accessed at reasonable cost. Some countries have internet cafes, but Finland has never really had them to any extent because "too many" have internet at home (in the earlier days) or in their pocket (nowadays). Libraries do offer decent access, but sometimes you might have to wait 48 hours or more until it opens next time. And the density of libraries is of course nowhere close to what payphones once were. And you cannot have a confidential phone call in a library. So in some aspects what you call the current iteration of the network is not much more capable for everyone, quite the opposite. At least 10% of the population (mostly elder people) are completely locked out here. Many more in other countries, but there often more alternative channels still exist.