4 ms·

The problem with this argument is that forcing people to use technology, without proper training and against their will, introduces them to risks as well. Anyon

The problem with this argument is that forcing people to use technology, without proper training and against their will, introduces them to risks as well. Anyone with older parents/family can tell you the harms that come with phishing and other fraud scenarios that cost more than just accommodating people not using technology, both at the micro and macro level. Insulting people and bullying them into technology adoption when there are relatively simple fixes to the problem seem better than increasing risk exposure for no reason other than 'I believe that people who don't use technology are somehow lesser'.

pc86 6mo ago
[flagged]
- Ucalegon 6mo ago
  Do you know how many old people get scammed per year in the United States because they are using technology that they are trained on, but assume that they have to use the technology in order to function each year with minimal practical gain relative to the costs? Its around 12.5 billion dollars in 2024, up from 10 billion in 2023 [1]. Why is introducing someone to that risk worth it to watch a baseball game? Asserting that individual 'get smart' doesn't actually solve for the actual harms and if it were just simple, we would not be seeing the upward trends in fraud that we are seeing within the elderly. [1] https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/older-adults-ftc-fraud-report/ https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/older-adults-ftc-frau... edit: fixed the years
  - woobar 6mo ago
    The numbers you mention are total fraud losses. Most of fraud has nothing to do with phones, it is fraudulent money transfers and card charges.
    - Ucalegon 6mo ago
      Where is the initial point of engagement when it comes to most scams targeting the elderly? It is via phones, email, and messaging services.
- trollbridge 6mo ago
  80 year old people do not have the same neuroplasticity as 20 year olds. It is not reasonable to expect them to quickly learn new things that are constantly changing. In particular, it's very reasonable to be 80 and decide "I don't want to deal with learning how to use a smartphone and getting one".
  - pc86 6mo ago
    > It is not reasonable to expect them to quickly learn new things that are constantly changing. Of course it is. Maybe if we didn't normalize people refusing to learn things for no other reason than "I don't wanna" they'd have better neuroplasticity. > it's very reasonable to be 80 and decide "I don't want to deal with learning how to use a smartphone and getting one". I agree with you 100% on this but it doesn't logically follow from that that you get to make the Will Call clerk for the Dodgers print your ticket for every game even though you've been told for multiple years that season tickets are going paperless as an anti-scalping measure.
    - trollbridge 6mo ago
      Then it’s reasonable to expect ticket sellers to use modern technology to implement zero-knowledge, physical rfid token, etc measures that prevent scalping. The technology does exist, but it might take more effort than a lazy smartphone app - that probably isn’t effective against scalping anyway. Can’t a phone app / QR code etc be forged?
- jazzyjackson 6mo ago
  I don't think the discourse is about just this one guy, it's about an entire class of people for whom swiping around a smartphone is a bewildering experience they managed to live their whole life so far without. If you're not adept at it, it makes you feel stupid, maybe you haven't had that experience but there's more to being a luddite than stubbornness. If I can get along with the rest of my life on a flip phone, it seems pretty unreasonable to buy a device just to buy sports tickets.
  - pc86 6mo ago
    > If I can get along with the rest of my life on a flip phone, it seems pretty unreasonable to buy a device just to buy sports tickets. I would agree. It also seems unreasonable to expect the organization to make an exception to a completely legitimate anti-scalping measure for one person.
    - duskdozer 6mo ago
      >for one person For everybody. Nobody should be forced to use a proprietary phone app.
      - pc86 6mo ago
        Why not? Going to a Dodgers game is not a constitutional right, if the business wants to make it harder for people to give them money that might be stupid but it's their right.
daedrdev 6mo ago
Im going to be harsh, sorry. In this case nobody is forcing them to buy a dodgers ticket. It’s a completely optional and absurdly expensive luxury good that is purely for leisure. They can simply not but a ticket if they don't want to accept conditions of sale.
- tracker1 6mo ago
  Yeah... I mean, who says I should have to put in wheelchair ramps for my ballpark that seats tens of thousands? I mean, so few people use/need them, I should just be able to refuse service to those people. Right? /sarc
  - pc86 6mo ago
    I don't want to blow your mind but choosing not to have a smartphone and being in a wheelchair are not remotely comparable.
    - tracker1 6mo ago
      So, you want to force people to give money to specific, monopolistic, corporations? Why would I want a smart phone if I'm blind... how am I expected to use a smart phone when I am blind, exactly?
- Ucalegon 6mo ago
  Because quality of life doesn't have a value in of itself. Especially for the elderly, they should be excluded from enjoying the end of their life simply because no wants to think of a solution to the problem that doesn't require them to introduce massive amounts of risk into their life which, also, negatively impacts their quality of life.

pc86 6mo ago

[flagged]

Ucalegon 6mo ago
Do you know how many old people get scammed per year in the United States because they are using technology that they are trained on, but assume that they have to use the technology in order to function each year with minimal practical gain relative to the costs? Its around 12.5 billion dollars in 2024, up from 10 billion in 2023 [1]. Why is introducing someone to that risk worth it to watch a baseball game? Asserting that individual 'get smart' doesn't actually solve for the actual harms and if it were just simple, we would not be seeing the upward trends in fraud that we are seeing within the elderly. [1] https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/older-adults-ftc-fraud-report/ https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/older-adults-ftc-frau... edit: fixed the years
- woobar 6mo ago
  The numbers you mention are total fraud losses. Most of fraud has nothing to do with phones, it is fraudulent money transfers and card charges.
  - Ucalegon 6mo ago
    Where is the initial point of engagement when it comes to most scams targeting the elderly? It is via phones, email, and messaging services.
trollbridge 6mo ago
80 year old people do not have the same neuroplasticity as 20 year olds. It is not reasonable to expect them to quickly learn new things that are constantly changing. In particular, it's very reasonable to be 80 and decide "I don't want to deal with learning how to use a smartphone and getting one".
- pc86 6mo ago
  > It is not reasonable to expect them to quickly learn new things that are constantly changing. Of course it is. Maybe if we didn't normalize people refusing to learn things for no other reason than "I don't wanna" they'd have better neuroplasticity. > it's very reasonable to be 80 and decide "I don't want to deal with learning how to use a smartphone and getting one". I agree with you 100% on this but it doesn't logically follow from that that you get to make the Will Call clerk for the Dodgers print your ticket for every game even though you've been told for multiple years that season tickets are going paperless as an anti-scalping measure.
  - trollbridge 6mo ago
    Then it’s reasonable to expect ticket sellers to use modern technology to implement zero-knowledge, physical rfid token, etc measures that prevent scalping. The technology does exist, but it might take more effort than a lazy smartphone app - that probably isn’t effective against scalping anyway. Can’t a phone app / QR code etc be forged?
jazzyjackson 6mo ago
I don't think the discourse is about just this one guy, it's about an entire class of people for whom swiping around a smartphone is a bewildering experience they managed to live their whole life so far without. If you're not adept at it, it makes you feel stupid, maybe you haven't had that experience but there's more to being a luddite than stubbornness. If I can get along with the rest of my life on a flip phone, it seems pretty unreasonable to buy a device just to buy sports tickets.
- pc86 6mo ago
  > If I can get along with the rest of my life on a flip phone, it seems pretty unreasonable to buy a device just to buy sports tickets. I would agree. It also seems unreasonable to expect the organization to make an exception to a completely legitimate anti-scalping measure for one person.
  - duskdozer 6mo ago
    >for one person For everybody. Nobody should be forced to use a proprietary phone app.
    - pc86 6mo ago
      Why not? Going to a Dodgers game is not a constitutional right, if the business wants to make it harder for people to give them money that might be stupid but it's their right.

daedrdev 6mo ago

Im going to be harsh, sorry. In this case nobody is forcing them to buy a dodgers ticket. It’s a completely optional and absurdly expensive luxury good that is purely for leisure. They can simply not but a ticket if they don't want to accept conditions of sale.

tracker1 6mo ago
Yeah... I mean, who says I should have to put in wheelchair ramps for my ballpark that seats tens of thousands? I mean, so few people use/need them, I should just be able to refuse service to those people. Right? /sarc
- pc86 6mo ago
  I don't want to blow your mind but choosing not to have a smartphone and being in a wheelchair are not remotely comparable.
  - tracker1 6mo ago
    So, you want to force people to give money to specific, monopolistic, corporations? Why would I want a smart phone if I'm blind... how am I expected to use a smart phone when I am blind, exactly?
Ucalegon 6mo ago
Because quality of life doesn't have a value in of itself. Especially for the elderly, they should be excluded from enjoying the end of their life simply because no wants to think of a solution to the problem that doesn't require them to introduce massive amounts of risk into their life which, also, negatively impacts their quality of life.