3 ms·
For other use cases, I'd probably agree with you. But you being startled and confused during an emergency because you didn't see the instructions on time can be
by isodev 4y ago
For other use cases, I'd probably agree with you. But you being startled and confused during an emergency because you didn't see the instructions on time can be very dangerous for everyone around you. It's not just on you.
- TreeRingCounter 4y agoThe marginal upside to everyone else is not even close to worth the marginal downside to me. It's my choice to make. If a government wants to force messages on me so badly, they can set up something like an air raid siren (and they typically do, for actual emergencies).
- brainchild-adam 4y agoFor people suffering from certain mental health issues, the alert itself can cause significant problems for them and others. If you suffer from panic attacks, for example, and these alerts trigger them, they do not help you, no matter how well intended. If you suffer from (C)PTSD, and these alerts trigger flooding, they actually make everything worse. If this were to happen while you are driving, you might even cause an accident. The world is sadly too complex for simple solutions that assume something to be always good or helpful. Which is why I believe it's important for the user to eventually control his device.
- t0bia_s 4y agoIf there is emergency, I'm sure you'll find out very soon that something is happening. We are usually not living in lone solitudies.
- em-bee 4y agothe same applies when the device is off, or i left it at home. unless there is a law that requires me to carry a functioning, powered device to receive emergency alerts at all times, there is no reason why a device should be required to receive alerts just because it is capable of receiving them. if i turn of alerts on my device, then it's no different from a device that doesn't have the capability to receive alerts.