4 ms·

It's not about telling people to live outside society but instead to be more mindful of how they engage with it. One can live in a city and not own a smart TV,

It's not about telling people to live outside society but instead to be more mindful of how they engage with it. One can live in a city and not own a smart TV, nor a smartphone, nor any IOT devices, etc., but that's not the point I'm making. One can also just choose different devices. Once someone gets to the point that they refuse to buy the privacy-disrespecting device it's not much of a stretch to start looking for a privacy-respecting device.

shadowgovt 2y ago
> One can live in a city and not own a smart TV, nor a smartphone I believe parent's point is: no, one cannot. One cannot live in a (modern Western urban) society and not have a smartphone. The people who do are now living in a different society, where, among other things: - they have to plan to stop at a bank to take out physical cash - they have to schedule their days in an entirely different method from their peers with smartphones - they are less connected to opportunities and access to government and private services because those services come via smart devices and assume smart device ownership Not to put too fine a point on it: there are restaurants that give you a QR code instead of a paper menu now. Are you and I living in the same society if I can order food there and you can't?
- ryandrake 2y ago
  You just enumerated some of the things people can do to live without a smartphone, demonstrating it is possible (albeit difficult). I think we need to stop calling things "not possible" just because they take effort and lifestyle changes to accomplish.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    I mean, one can live without a house too. Perhaps we are just quibbling on definitions if we're arguing about whether being homeless counts as living in the same society as those with a permanent address. The meta point is: government regulates housing because it's something "everybody" (modulo outliers) does: live in a house. If "everybody" (modulo outliers) owns a smartphone and smartphone ownership is assumed for full societal participation... We probably need to regulate it.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Also this take is not great because your privacy is also dictated by the people around you that have smartphones and are listening to you.
talldayo 2y ago
> but instead to be more mindful of how they engage with it. This is like the recycling debate all over again. Fundamentally we agree with you; littering is bad, the diminishing of privacy is bad, and none of us should feel hopeless about a situation we are capable of changing. But consider the average person, not me or you or the hackers. Someone who opts for convenience, not "mindful engagement" for the slightest of interactions with the world. They do not care. Fundamentally they cannot be made to care, even if we show them posters of the Earth burning or make them hear about the Snowden leaks. They consider themselves to be powerless, and will not consider an alternative unless it is as convenient as what they're addicted to now. They're not going to buy respectful TVs because they're not the cheap ones. They're not going to buy respectful phones because it doesn't have the little Apple logo on the back that their friends love so much. The average person literally cannot be made to care unless we make privacy-respecting software easier to use than spyware.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  And because of how markets work, that person who doesn't care is dictating what is available to us.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  > unless we make privacy-respecting software easier to use than spyware This point is key. I don't use an Android instead of a Pinephone because I don't care. I use an Android because Pinephone sucks right now, and I can't be hacking on the device I need to rely on to schedule my bank payments and call the emergency services if I fall in a ravine. That device has to be five-nines trustworthy. The solution is going to have to be make Pinephone suck less. That's the only way to mass adoption and actually changing the landscape. Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server. Huh? Music piracy is easier and better now than it ever has been. Every music label releases all their music, officially and for free, on YouTube. You can just download it directly from the official source. It's like Napster, if every music publisher had maintained an official account offering every song they owned, and paid commercial services to ensure that their Napster presence was up to date.

shadowgovt 2y ago

> One can live in a city and not own a smart TV, nor a smartphone I believe parent's point is: no, one cannot. One cannot live in a (modern Western urban) society and not have a smartphone. The people who do are now living in a different society, where, among other things: - they have to plan to stop at a bank to take out physical cash - they have to schedule their days in an entirely different method from their peers with smartphones - they are less connected to opportunities and access to government and private services because those services come via smart devices and assume smart device ownership Not to put too fine a point on it: there are restaurants that give you a QR code instead of a paper menu now. Are you and I living in the same society if I can order food there and you can't?

ryandrake 2y ago
You just enumerated some of the things people can do to live without a smartphone, demonstrating it is possible (albeit difficult). I think we need to stop calling things "not possible" just because they take effort and lifestyle changes to accomplish.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  I mean, one can live without a house too. Perhaps we are just quibbling on definitions if we're arguing about whether being homeless counts as living in the same society as those with a permanent address. The meta point is: government regulates housing because it's something "everybody" (modulo outliers) does: live in a house. If "everybody" (modulo outliers) owns a smartphone and smartphone ownership is assumed for full societal participation... We probably need to regulate it.
- pixl97 2y ago
  Also this take is not great because your privacy is also dictated by the people around you that have smartphones and are listening to you.

talldayo 2y ago

> but instead to be more mindful of how they engage with it. This is like the recycling debate all over again. Fundamentally we agree with you; littering is bad, the diminishing of privacy is bad, and none of us should feel hopeless about a situation we are capable of changing. But consider the average person, not me or you or the hackers. Someone who opts for convenience, not "mindful engagement" for the slightest of interactions with the world. They do not care. Fundamentally they cannot be made to care, even if we show them posters of the Earth burning or make them hear about the Snowden leaks. They consider themselves to be powerless, and will not consider an alternative unless it is as convenient as what they're addicted to now. They're not going to buy respectful TVs because they're not the cheap ones. They're not going to buy respectful phones because it doesn't have the little Apple logo on the back that their friends love so much. The average person literally cannot be made to care unless we make privacy-respecting software easier to use than spyware.

throwway120385 2y ago
And because of how markets work, that person who doesn't care is dictating what is available to us.
shadowgovt 2y ago
> unless we make privacy-respecting software easier to use than spyware This point is key. I don't use an Android instead of a Pinephone because I don't care. I use an Android because Pinephone sucks right now, and I can't be hacking on the device I need to rely on to schedule my bank payments and call the emergency services if I fall in a ravine. That device has to be five-nines trustworthy. The solution is going to have to be make Pinephone suck less. That's the only way to mass adoption and actually changing the landscape. Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server. Huh? Music piracy is easier and better now than it ever has been. Every music label releases all their music, officially and for free, on YouTube. You can just download it directly from the official source. It's like Napster, if every music publisher had maintained an official account offering every song they owned, and paid commercial services to ensure that their Napster presence was up to date.