5 ms·

We've reached the point where people without devices or common online services are so rare that society no longer accommodates them. It's similar to how we need

by rhines 1y ago

We've reached the point where people without devices or common online services are so rare that society no longer accommodates them. It's similar to how we need legislation to ensure that disabled people have accessible infrastructure, except I doubt there will ever be legislation mandating offline/off-app accessibility.

fauigerzigerk 1y ago
Yes, but to me there is a very big difference between being forced to adopt a class of technologies (online services in general) along with the rest of society and being forced to contract with a handful of specific companies that impose extremely one-sided contractual terms on everybody, touching almost every aspect of life.
- eMPee584 1y ago
  Yes, but both permutations of digital coercion suck, right? ^^D
  - fauigerzigerk 1y ago
    General technological progress may well suck in some cases, but it's not coercion.
adiabatichottub 1y ago
File it under faulty assumptions organizations make about their clients or customers. If you live in a rural area in the United States it is still quite possible to have: * No cellular service * No landline service * No postal delivery to your property, and a physical address that isn't in any database * No public utilities It can be very frustrating to deal with services that assume you have the ability to receive SMS messages, and almost anything requiring identity these days demands a phone number.
- wilg 1y ago
  I don't think its unreasonable for private companies not to bother to offer their services to these people. Why should they have to? Many services require nearby physical infrastructure. Electing to live in the woods is not really a disability. Plus you can just get internet out there if you want and thereby receive SMS.
  - adiabatichottub 1y ago
    You're right, it's not a disability. However, it's also not always elective. Sure, a private business has no requirement to serve people outside of the market they want to serve, but what if that business is providing a service that is de-facto required in order to access government services?
    - wilg 1y ago
      It's the government's role to serve everyone generally, so they should provide reasonable accommodations for people. I suspect there are such accommodations, but it's hard to say without looking at a specific, real scenario. Also, not always elective? I'm not so sure about that. You decide where you live. If you're a minor, your parents decide where you live. That's elective in a meaningful sense. You might have reasons you are personally weighing that make sense for you to live in a certain place, but accessibility of services should be part of that calculation, and ultimately it is still up to you. The government isn't obligated to pay for your gas or provide you a car to get to the nearest post office to pay your taxes, for example. If you choose to live in such a way where it is difficult or impossible for you to comply with the law, there is not much the government can or should do about it.
  - bigiain 1y ago
    But further up this thread you're responding to it says: > the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will "call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time" Is it reasonable for a school to "call CPS and have your kids seized" because the school couldn't "bother to offer their services to these people"?
fsflover 1y ago
This is not even about having a device but about forcing you into the duopoly with no choice, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45092669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45092669
thaeli 1y ago
Well, many areas have banned app-only payment requirements (along with card-only) so it’s possible we’ll get some mandated alternatives.
mitthrowaway2 1y ago
This is how it happens that the appearance of a new option, which you are free to voluntarily choose or refuse (eg. buy a smartphone and an internet connection, maintain a Google account, accept everyone's ToS contract) gradually morphs into something mandatory if enough other people choose it.

by rhines 1y ago

fauigerzigerk 1y ago

Yes, but to me there is a very big difference between being forced to adopt a class of technologies (online services in general) along with the rest of society and being forced to contract with a handful of specific companies that impose extremely one-sided contractual terms on everybody, touching almost every aspect of life.

eMPee584 1y ago
Yes, but both permutations of digital coercion suck, right? ^^D
- fauigerzigerk 1y ago
  General technological progress may well suck in some cases, but it's not coercion.

adiabatichottub 1y ago

File it under faulty assumptions organizations make about their clients or customers. If you live in a rural area in the United States it is still quite possible to have: * No cellular service * No landline service * No postal delivery to your property, and a physical address that isn't in any database * No public utilities It can be very frustrating to deal with services that assume you have the ability to receive SMS messages, and almost anything requiring identity these days demands a phone number.

wilg 1y ago
I don't think its unreasonable for private companies not to bother to offer their services to these people. Why should they have to? Many services require nearby physical infrastructure. Electing to live in the woods is not really a disability. Plus you can just get internet out there if you want and thereby receive SMS.
- adiabatichottub 1y ago
  You're right, it's not a disability. However, it's also not always elective. Sure, a private business has no requirement to serve people outside of the market they want to serve, but what if that business is providing a service that is de-facto required in order to access government services?
  - wilg 1y ago
    It's the government's role to serve everyone generally, so they should provide reasonable accommodations for people. I suspect there are such accommodations, but it's hard to say without looking at a specific, real scenario. Also, not always elective? I'm not so sure about that. You decide where you live. If you're a minor, your parents decide where you live. That's elective in a meaningful sense. You might have reasons you are personally weighing that make sense for you to live in a certain place, but accessibility of services should be part of that calculation, and ultimately it is still up to you. The government isn't obligated to pay for your gas or provide you a car to get to the nearest post office to pay your taxes, for example. If you choose to live in such a way where it is difficult or impossible for you to comply with the law, there is not much the government can or should do about it.
- bigiain 1y ago
  But further up this thread you're responding to it says: > the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will "call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time" Is it reasonable for a school to "call CPS and have your kids seized" because the school couldn't "bother to offer their services to these people"?

fsflover 1y ago

This is not even about having a device but about forcing you into the duopoly with no choice, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45092669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45092669

thaeli 1y ago

Well, many areas have banned app-only payment requirements (along with card-only) so it’s possible we’ll get some mandated alternatives.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago

This is how it happens that the appearance of a new option, which you are free to voluntarily choose or refuse (eg. buy a smartphone and an internet connection, maintain a Google account, accept everyone's ToS contract) gradually morphs into something mandatory if enough other people choose it.