I read the argument as more like, Alice has lost her pen that may have no ink in it. Alice has also lost her bank card. Alice has just spend hours searching fo

I read the argument as more like, Alice has lost her pen that may have no ink in it. Alice has also lost her bank card. Alice has just spend hours searching for her pen. What does this say about Alice? It says alice gets swept up in solving "problems" that arent even clearly problems (does she need a pen without ink?) all the while not even basically engaged in real problems. Here: do airtags make society less safe, or more safe? Does it, eg., supress theft? Does it enable more criminals who would go on to other commit crimes to be caught early? (And so on..) In other words what does our being hastily swept up in one downside of one piece of technology tell us? Now, if you think airtags are serious threats to social saftey, the above doenst apply. But I dont read the guns point as procrasting whataboutism -- rather I read it as a claim that airtags are pens-without-ink and this is obvious when contrasted with a more actually pressing matter. I read it as a claim that we're being sweptup in moralising about a non-moral problem