2 ms·

> Her problem is less to do with ageing and more to do with not being interested in or exposed to technology in general throughout her life We do all sorts of

by kelnos 2y ago

> Her problem is less to do with ageing and more to do with not being interested in or exposed to technology in general throughout her life We do all sorts of things in life (that have nothing to do with technology, even) where we are required to develop, at minimum, some sort of basic understanding of the safe way of doing those things. And then we take responsibility, and follow those safety guidelines. Or we don't, and then have no one to blame but ourselves if it blows up in our faces. There certainly should be guardrails on phones that can be enabled for people who are aging and suffering mental decline, or just have developmental disabilities in general. Or, sure, for people who just don't care, and want someone else in their family to "deal with all that nerdy stuff" for them. But building systems for the lowest common denominator is rarely the right solution. > 25 year-old me would be the opposite of course I'm in my 40s, so I don't think my take on this has much to do with age.

Nursie 2y ago
> Or we don't, and then have no one to blame but ourselves if it blows up in our faces. Actually we have scammers to blame, this is pure victim-blaming on your part. I find it pretty awful when this sort of attitude is displayed towards people who are the victims of crime. One perfectly valid way to take responsibility for oneself is to choose a secured platform that precludes these sorts of problems happening in the first place. Given that people must use technology to interact with their government, and increasingly their finances, this seems a great way to go about things. > But building systems for the lowest common denominator is rarely the right solution. This is a moral viewpoint, not a practical one. Pragmatically, it clearly is a perfectly fine solution for a lot of people. Myself included. None of this is to say you shouldn’t e able to buy an open platform if you want one, but not everybody does, and it’s not to everyone’s advantage.

by kelnos 2y ago

Nursie 2y ago

> Or we don't, and then have no one to blame but ourselves if it blows up in our faces. Actually we have scammers to blame, this is pure victim-blaming on your part. I find it pretty awful when this sort of attitude is displayed towards people who are the victims of crime. One perfectly valid way to take responsibility for oneself is to choose a secured platform that precludes these sorts of problems happening in the first place. Given that people must use technology to interact with their government, and increasingly their finances, this seems a great way to go about things. > But building systems for the lowest common denominator is rarely the right solution. This is a moral viewpoint, not a practical one. Pragmatically, it clearly is a perfectly fine solution for a lot of people. Myself included. None of this is to say you shouldn’t e able to buy an open platform if you want one, but not everybody does, and it’s not to everyone’s advantage.