4 ms·

He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experience

He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. In 50 years, everyone's going to have an advertisement-injecting brain implant, and stores are going to require you to have one in order to purchase anything, and they'll lock you out of commerce as a filthy Luddite if you don't get one. And, 50 years from now, commenters on HN will defend those businesses because the implant is "modern" and supporting those ancient smartphones and credit cards is hard to do.

carefree-bob 7mo ago
I do worry how smart phones have become mandatory for a lot of services. Viscerally, I don't like it, because of the monthly payment aspect. I don't have an elaborate theology that is not self-contradictory, it just seems wrong to me.
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  I think it's a normal reaction to have a visceral negative response to this. You shouldn't have to buy a harmful product as a condition for buying the thing you actually want to buy, or even more broadly as a condition for participating in commerce in general. I don't think the theology needs to be more complex than that. Do the Dodgers have the right to exclude non-smartphone owners from participating in commerce with them? I suppose they have the legal right to, but we have a visceral reaction to it because it is morally questionable, and even smartphone owners can easily come up with examples where they'd be harmed by similar discrimination: The Dodgers also have the right to exclude non-smokers. They could say tomorrow that you can only buy a season ticket if you're a smoker, and I think that would be considered equally unacceptable to most of us.
reaperducer 7mo ago
He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. When I run into this (most recently at a hospital), I tell them "The court doesn't allow me to have a smart phone because I'm a hazard to national security.†" When they argue (very rarely), I tell them "Take it up with judge Kelso in the 225th District Court. He's in the phone book." That's usually enough for them to break out the backup non-smartphone plan. In my experience, there's always another way, but they're just too lazy to do it. † Absolutely a lie, but I really don't GAF.
- orf 7mo ago
  My man, they just think you’re crazy
  - altairprime 7mo ago
    Not with throw the gauntlet and wait. They might or might not be bluffing, but that’s not a mental health issue.
  - duskdozer 7mo ago
    I personally can't wait until one will be labeled crazy for wanting to live without a brain implant and its lovely personalized, curated life experiences.
    - orf 7mo ago
      not because of the lack of a phone, because of the relatively unprompted, outlandish and obvious lie. He might as well say "i don't have a phone because aliens took it".
      - antisol 7mo ago
        What part of this is an obvious lie and/or outlandish? Kevin Mitnick was banned from using any computer for quite a while. This absolutely would have included smartphones if they'd been a thing at the time. People are banned from using computers and the Internet all the time. If you're going to claim that the "national security risk" bit is outlandish, you might be interested to know that when Mitnick was in prison he was held in solitary because officials claimed he could dial NORAD, whistle modem noises into a phone, and start a nuclear war.
        orf 7mo ago
        Is your point that because you can name one person who was banned from using a computer before the invention of the smart phone, a receptionist working at a hospital would therefore consider that a reasonable and common reason for someone to not possess a smart phone?
dotancohen 7mo ago
In my country there is a large religious population that eschew the smartphone. This is great - no government or private service simply assumes that one has a smartphone. All services are available via traditional means - most in three to five languages as well.
- 1718627440 7mo ago
  How is that good country named?
  - dotancohen 7mo ago
    Israel

carefree-bob 7mo ago

I do worry how smart phones have become mandatory for a lot of services. Viscerally, I don't like it, because of the monthly payment aspect. I don't have an elaborate theology that is not self-contradictory, it just seems wrong to me.

ryandrake 7mo ago
I think it's a normal reaction to have a visceral negative response to this. You shouldn't have to buy a harmful product as a condition for buying the thing you actually want to buy, or even more broadly as a condition for participating in commerce in general. I don't think the theology needs to be more complex than that. Do the Dodgers have the right to exclude non-smartphone owners from participating in commerce with them? I suppose they have the legal right to, but we have a visceral reaction to it because it is morally questionable, and even smartphone owners can easily come up with examples where they'd be harmed by similar discrimination: The Dodgers also have the right to exclude non-smokers. They could say tomorrow that you can only buy a season ticket if you're a smoker, and I think that would be considered equally unacceptable to most of us.

reaperducer 7mo ago

He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. When I run into this (most recently at a hospital), I tell them "The court doesn't allow me to have a smart phone because I'm a hazard to national security.†" When they argue (very rarely), I tell them "Take it up with judge Kelso in the 225th District Court. He's in the phone book." That's usually enough for them to break out the backup non-smartphone plan. In my experience, there's always another way, but they're just too lazy to do it. † Absolutely a lie, but I really don't GAF.

orf 7mo ago
My man, they just think you’re crazy
- altairprime 7mo ago
  Not with throw the gauntlet and wait. They might or might not be bluffing, but that’s not a mental health issue.
- duskdozer 7mo ago
  I personally can't wait until one will be labeled crazy for wanting to live without a brain implant and its lovely personalized, curated life experiences.
  - orf 7mo ago
    not because of the lack of a phone, because of the relatively unprompted, outlandish and obvious lie. He might as well say "i don't have a phone because aliens took it".
    - antisol 7mo ago
      What part of this is an obvious lie and/or outlandish? Kevin Mitnick was banned from using any computer for quite a while. This absolutely would have included smartphones if they'd been a thing at the time. People are banned from using computers and the Internet all the time. If you're going to claim that the "national security risk" bit is outlandish, you might be interested to know that when Mitnick was in prison he was held in solitary because officials claimed he could dial NORAD, whistle modem noises into a phone, and start a nuclear war.
      - orf 7mo ago
        Is your point that because you can name one person who was banned from using a computer before the invention of the smart phone, a receptionist working at a hospital would therefore consider that a reasonable and common reason for someone to not possess a smart phone?

dotancohen 7mo ago

In my country there is a large religious population that eschew the smartphone. This is great - no government or private service simply assumes that one has a smartphone. All services are available via traditional means - most in three to five languages as well.

1718627440 7mo ago
How is that good country named?
- dotancohen 7mo ago
  Israel