6 ms·

By choice. Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid. Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank off

by Yeul 2y ago

By choice. Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid. Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?

mariusor 2y ago
I have a smartphone. However I choose to use a mobile OS that is neither Android nor iOS, why should I get penalized that banks don't invest in applications for my OS too?
- briandear 2y ago
  It’s business. Should a steakhouse be required to have vegan offerings? If that’s not what their customers want, then why would they invest hundreds of thousands on building and maintaining an app that maybe five people would use?
  - mariusor 2y ago
    When businesses provide essential services (like banking) I feel like they should be held to the same standards as government services. Not that some governments don't treat users without Android or iOS as third class citizens. So, to clarify, there are banks that have their full business value accessible only through mobile, and as a person needing banking but doesn't have access to mobile, I can make an informed decision and not be their customer. But when I create a bank account in a physical office, and then the office gets closed in favour of an alegedly much more accessible mobile application, I feel like there should be some measure protecting me from that. Do you find that unreasonable?
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    They do not have to build an app. They could build a mobile website that is accessible from almost any computing platform. For something so core and critical to society (banking), I don’t think it’s reasonable to leave it up to the private sector and say “well, if some people get left behind—ho hum, thems the breaks” If we’re talking about a florist, then sure. The market wants what it wants and if you’re not in the majority it kinda sucks. Not great, but probably not a place for government intervention. Banking, though? There should be accessibility guidelines and standards, absolutely.
hilbert42 2y ago
"Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?" To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles. This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved. Think twice, the obvious solution doesn't always turn out to be the most optimal one.
- ctrlp 2y ago
  Utilitarian models of ethics are fraught with peril themselves. Not the own you think it is.
  - atlintots 2y ago
    Go on, then. Elaborate.
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    So are many other political and philosophical ideas—essentially any field involving ethics is fraught with perils and consensus is never fully reached. Just because unanimity is never achieved in respect of some philosophical idea doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration and or it's never put into practice. Utilitarianism has been the subject of much study and debate and it's been widely practiced over several hundred years. I'm well aware of the debates over utilitarianism and its ethics, any why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do. That ought to have been obvious by my use of the word 'consensuses'. BTW, I could have made the same argument from a different philosophical perspective but the previous commentator specifically invited a utilitarian-type response by the words he used. That said, no matter what philosophical argument I'd have used someone would have found fault with it. My main point still stands, which is that obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones. Note, I've deliberately not used the word 'best' for the above reasons.
jtbayly 2y ago
> "should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?” Yes! There are many things you cannot do without a physical bank location. It is worth paying[1] something to have them. I used to use an online-only bank, but I realized I wanted to be able to walk into a branch at times, so I switched to a new bank. [1] “Paying” can mean a variety of things, including lower interest rates on savings accounts, for example.
- Spivak 2y ago
  I mean I've used an online only bank for years now and there's nothing I haven't been able to do. They send cashier's checks by mail. I suppose if I wanted to deposit cash I couldn't but it's never come up.
- Kwpolska 2y ago
  What are those mythical actions that can't be done outside of a physical location? How many of them are things you do ~once in a lifetime, like getting a mortgage?
  - genewitch 2y ago
    I need 100 rolls of quarters. I need 500 $2 bills. I need to change my pin on a debit card. I need to change all these $2 bills and quarters into $20 bills. Trivial examples that I have done at my bank. Maybe drbit cards now don't need to be put into a machine to change the pin anymore, idk.
    - Kwpolska 2y ago
      The PIN thing can be done online at both of my banks. As for the cash stuff, those are things you may need to do if you’re a shopkeeper, but I can’t imagine a reason why I would do that myself. Banks over here will sometimes charge fees for changing cash.
      - genewitch 2y ago
        in the US $2 bills are an icebreaker. There's still a lot of people that don't believe they're real. I also used them as incentives for my kids to go above and beyond with their communal chores. The quarters thing i haven't done personally but i was adjacent to for a club, it was for a game in a booth at an event. banks here don't charge, as one of their expected roles is to change money in the US.
adrian_b 2y ago
At least for me, the problem is not the closing of the brick-and-mortar branches, though that has happened near me, because for the last 25 years I have used those only seldom, preferring on-line banking. What annoys me now is the closing of the on-line banking Web sites, which could be used easily and without any problem from any computer or smartphone, and their replacement with apps, which may force you not only to have a smartphone but also to be a customer of Apple or Google, because some banks refuse to provide their Android apps otherwise than through the Google app store.
- genewitch 2y ago
  How is this different though. Infrastructure costs money. Apps are the new hotness. The same "well, I don't use it so whatever" you bring is what it seems like the online banking folks are saying to the brick and mortar people. Has anyone looked at the world lately and thought "hey maybe all these apps aren't the greatest idea"? Amazon, Shein, Temu, AliExpress have all but made history just visiting a mall and browsing. I know Walmart loved the pandemic, too, because all the mom and pop stores that survived the first 20 years of amazon couldn't survive the local and state and federal government interfering with their commerce. JoAnns is closing hundreds of stores. This whole subject is on my mind a lot lately.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
What I'm stating below is my general understanding of this subject, If I'm wrong and if you i.e the reader have investigated sufficiently on the subject let me know. >Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid While they don't penalize you, they do make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to go completely off grid. Try putting up your own 'grid', which in IMO should include your own monetary system, and not having to pay taxes.
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
It’s a bad rebuttal because you’re paying for the phone, and the bank pays for their office with what they gain from credits, stock market stuff… If the bank had no office it wouldn’t be cheaper.
- echoangle 2y ago
  At least in germany, there are both traditional banks with offices and online-only banks and one of the reasons given for the fact that traditional banks have worse conditions (less interest, sometimes monthly charges for even having an account etc.) is that they hvae to pay the offices somehow.
elpocko 2y ago
That's a huge jump from "no smartphone" to "off the grid." I prefer using laptops and I prefer doing my banking on my laptop. I'm online a lot. I do have a smartphone, usually an older one, for calls, messaging, playing music and taking photos. I even have an old Samsung tablet, for reading ebooks. It should be possible to do your banking from a laptop. I just don't want apps on my phone, because they will track me, I don't like using apps on the phone in general, and banking apps in particular because the bank wants to control what I can and can't do with my own phone. Want a rooted phone? No banking for you.

by Yeul 2y ago

By choice. Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid. Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?

mariusor 2y ago

I have a smartphone. However I choose to use a mobile OS that is neither Android nor iOS, why should I get penalized that banks don't invest in applications for my OS too?

briandear 2y ago
It’s business. Should a steakhouse be required to have vegan offerings? If that’s not what their customers want, then why would they invest hundreds of thousands on building and maintaining an app that maybe five people would use?
- mariusor 2y ago
  When businesses provide essential services (like banking) I feel like they should be held to the same standards as government services. Not that some governments don't treat users without Android or iOS as third class citizens. So, to clarify, there are banks that have their full business value accessible only through mobile, and as a person needing banking but doesn't have access to mobile, I can make an informed decision and not be their customer. But when I create a bank account in a physical office, and then the office gets closed in favour of an alegedly much more accessible mobile application, I feel like there should be some measure protecting me from that. Do you find that unreasonable?
- ncallaway 2y ago
  They do not have to build an app. They could build a mobile website that is accessible from almost any computing platform. For something so core and critical to society (banking), I don’t think it’s reasonable to leave it up to the private sector and say “well, if some people get left behind—ho hum, thems the breaks” If we’re talking about a florist, then sure. The market wants what it wants and if you’re not in the majority it kinda sucks. Not great, but probably not a place for government intervention. Banking, though? There should be accessibility guidelines and standards, absolutely.

hilbert42 2y ago

"Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?" To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles. This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved. Think twice, the obvious solution doesn't always turn out to be the most optimal one.

ctrlp 2y ago
Utilitarian models of ethics are fraught with peril themselves. Not the own you think it is.
- atlintots 2y ago
  Go on, then. Elaborate.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  So are many other political and philosophical ideas—essentially any field involving ethics is fraught with perils and consensus is never fully reached. Just because unanimity is never achieved in respect of some philosophical idea doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration and or it's never put into practice. Utilitarianism has been the subject of much study and debate and it's been widely practiced over several hundred years. I'm well aware of the debates over utilitarianism and its ethics, any why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do. That ought to have been obvious by my use of the word 'consensuses'. BTW, I could have made the same argument from a different philosophical perspective but the previous commentator specifically invited a utilitarian-type response by the words he used. That said, no matter what philosophical argument I'd have used someone would have found fault with it. My main point still stands, which is that obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones. Note, I've deliberately not used the word 'best' for the above reasons.

jtbayly 2y ago

> "should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?” Yes! There are many things you cannot do without a physical bank location. It is worth paying[1] something to have them. I used to use an online-only bank, but I realized I wanted to be able to walk into a branch at times, so I switched to a new bank. [1] “Paying” can mean a variety of things, including lower interest rates on savings accounts, for example.

Spivak 2y ago
I mean I've used an online only bank for years now and there's nothing I haven't been able to do. They send cashier's checks by mail. I suppose if I wanted to deposit cash I couldn't but it's never come up.
Kwpolska 2y ago
What are those mythical actions that can't be done outside of a physical location? How many of them are things you do ~once in a lifetime, like getting a mortgage?
- genewitch 2y ago
  I need 100 rolls of quarters. I need 500 $2 bills. I need to change my pin on a debit card. I need to change all these $2 bills and quarters into $20 bills. Trivial examples that I have done at my bank. Maybe drbit cards now don't need to be put into a machine to change the pin anymore, idk.
  - Kwpolska 2y ago
    The PIN thing can be done online at both of my banks. As for the cash stuff, those are things you may need to do if you’re a shopkeeper, but I can’t imagine a reason why I would do that myself. Banks over here will sometimes charge fees for changing cash.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      in the US $2 bills are an icebreaker. There's still a lot of people that don't believe they're real. I also used them as incentives for my kids to go above and beyond with their communal chores. The quarters thing i haven't done personally but i was adjacent to for a club, it was for a game in a booth at an event. banks here don't charge, as one of their expected roles is to change money in the US.

adrian_b 2y ago

At least for me, the problem is not the closing of the brick-and-mortar branches, though that has happened near me, because for the last 25 years I have used those only seldom, preferring on-line banking. What annoys me now is the closing of the on-line banking Web sites, which could be used easily and without any problem from any computer or smartphone, and their replacement with apps, which may force you not only to have a smartphone but also to be a customer of Apple or Google, because some banks refuse to provide their Android apps otherwise than through the Google app store.

genewitch 2y ago
How is this different though. Infrastructure costs money. Apps are the new hotness. The same "well, I don't use it so whatever" you bring is what it seems like the online banking folks are saying to the brick and mortar people. Has anyone looked at the world lately and thought "hey maybe all these apps aren't the greatest idea"? Amazon, Shein, Temu, AliExpress have all but made history just visiting a mall and browsing. I know Walmart loved the pandemic, too, because all the mom and pop stores that survived the first 20 years of amazon couldn't survive the local and state and federal government interfering with their commerce. JoAnns is closing hundreds of stores. This whole subject is on my mind a lot lately.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

What I'm stating below is my general understanding of this subject, If I'm wrong and if you i.e the reader have investigated sufficiently on the subject let me know. >Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid While they don't penalize you, they do make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to go completely off grid. Try putting up your own 'grid', which in IMO should include your own monetary system, and not having to pay taxes.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago

It’s a bad rebuttal because you’re paying for the phone, and the bank pays for their office with what they gain from credits, stock market stuff… If the bank had no office it wouldn’t be cheaper.

echoangle 2y ago
At least in germany, there are both traditional banks with offices and online-only banks and one of the reasons given for the fact that traditional banks have worse conditions (less interest, sometimes monthly charges for even having an account etc.) is that they hvae to pay the offices somehow.

elpocko 2y ago

That's a huge jump from "no smartphone" to "off the grid." I prefer using laptops and I prefer doing my banking on my laptop. I'm online a lot. I do have a smartphone, usually an older one, for calls, messaging, playing music and taking photos. I even have an old Samsung tablet, for reading ebooks. It should be possible to do your banking from a laptop. I just don't want apps on my phone, because they will track me, I don't like using apps on the phone in general, and banking apps in particular because the bank wants to control what I can and can't do with my own phone. Want a rooted phone? No banking for you.