4 ms·
Your mention of police will derail the conversation. I guess you could say family or social worker and people wouldn't be so against it. I think internet usag
by gtirloni 3y ago
Your mention of police will derail the conversation.
I guess you could say family or social worker and people wouldn't be so against it.
I think internet usage is a good signal these days. A smartwatch could be as effective.
- JohnFen 3y ago> I guess you could say family or social worker and people wouldn't be so against it. I'd be just as much against it.
- gtirloni 3y agoIf I were 90yo with health issues, I wouldn't.
- JohnFen 3y agoI think this is an important point. As posed, the question was about whether or not everyone should be subject to a wellness check just because they didn't log into something one day. I think that idea is ludicrous and potentially dangerous. The way these things should work is individualized. Presumably, the people in a person's life know their circumstances and usual habits, and would have a reasonable notion of when that person is throwing off red flags that indicate intervention is required. Being absent from the internet could be one of those red flags, but that's about the particular person, their situation, and their habits more than the internet. For example, I routinely go days at a time without being on the internet (or even contactable via cell), so my absence would and should alarm nobody. To say that being absent from the internet is a serious enough red flag so as to require intervention for everyone is nonsensical.