This one is a head scratcher for me and I'm going to get on my proverbial high horse about it. "All I have to do is lug my expensive and inconvenient laptop around with my 1000 year old phone and...
Exemplary
This one is a head scratcher for me and I'm going to get on my proverbial high horse about it. "All I have to do is lug my expensive and inconvenient laptop around with my 1000 year old phone and it's a super easy suitable replacement for a smartphone! Hah! Take that techno-apologists!"
I get it, it feels good to be counter culture and go against the grain of society. But, I have a hot take on this. Being able to participate in society with a dumbphone is a sort of privilege not afforded to everyone. When I "participate", I'm talking about not having your life impacted in a serious way. Having a smartphone is also a privilege, too, since they're expensive. But I'm thinking about this privilege in a utilitarian way: not living in a food desert vs. eating only organic and picking between several organic markets in your neighborhood you can walk to. The former is a basic thing: can you find food? Finding food easily is a privilege. Eating fully organic produce and free-range, locally sourced meat? Hella privilege.
Some points on this:
Not everyone can afford a computer, home internet, and a phone bill (hardware + cellular)
Some coffee shops expect you to buy something to use the wifi, so you have to buy something to just "pop in"
A lot of employers expect personnel to be reachable at all time. "I couldn't check my email" isn't always a viable answer (even though I totally think it should be).
You already know your way around a city or landscape. Don't drive because you have great transit? Lucky you! Bikeable city? A pipe dream for some in the US. Driving somewhere and can afford a separate GPS? That's pretty luxurious.
And a couple that are more specific to my major metro area:
Want to order from the menu? Scan the QR code, we don't have any menus.
Seeing a concert and getting hungry? You have to order online since they won't let you order at the bar. Oh and it's cashless.
I thought about ditching my smartphone some time ago. Like the author, I had a pretty outdated phone (Moto G7) for a while. I spent more time fighting with it than anything else. It was actually an inconvenience. Then I got a flagship iPhone. I use it more like a dumb phone at home, and it's a necessity when I'm out and about in the city. And that's something I don't understand about the thesis this article. No one is forcing your to get addicted to Instagram and sell your soul for slightly better targeted ads. Use your phone like a dumb phone! Charge it twice a week, only text and call, uninstall email, do all of that! But don't discount the usefulness and accessibility that smartphones bring to so many people.
I was rather irritated that they found themselves being insulted by being called a neo-luddite. I am offended of them being called that because Luddites were honorable people who are fighting...
I was rather irritated that they found themselves being insulted by being called a neo-luddite. I am offended of them being called that because Luddites were honorable people who are fighting against losing their livelihood because their jobs were about to be replaced by machines. In comparison, this person's ideas seems less like a reasoned position than it does simple stubbornness.
Is this writer from the Guardian's UK staff? From what I understand, the reason why whatsapp is so popular in Europe is because it costs money to both send and receive SMS messages. The choice to stay off of the app is actually costing their friends money for their companionship.
The only actually good thing about this is that they aren't contributing to the vast pile of e-waste that cellphones tend to create; that's a legitimate problem the world needs to deal with. Even so, I'm amazed they were able to continue using that phone for as long as they did, because in the US 2G networks have been off air for years now and 3G is probably going to be gone by the end of this year.
That’s a great point - all SMS messages are open to the carrier themselves by design, and using older hardware and networking standards like this means that the signal encryption between phone and...
That’s a great point - all SMS messages are open to the carrier themselves by design, and using older hardware and networking standards like this means that the signal encryption between phone and tower can easily be broken by pretty much any eavesdropper who cares to listen in.
I think that may have been the case back in the day, but nowadays it’s just used as the standard lingua Franca between iOS and Android in a market that’s fairly evenly split. SMS and calls are...
From what I understand, the reason why whatsapp is so popular in Europe is because it costs money to both send and receive SMS messages.
I think that may have been the case back in the day, but nowadays it’s just used as the standard lingua Franca between iOS and Android in a market that’s fairly evenly split. SMS and calls are still free on the vast majority of plans, and that also applies to use across borders within the EU (albeit no longer as a requirement for UK networks, thanks Boris). He might not be costing them money, but he’s certainly pushing extra effort on them and setting himself apart from the ongoing conversation. Of course it’s up to him and his friends whether to accept either side of that trade off, but it strikes me as at least somewhat inconsiderate to them and isolating for him, and I don’t see tight-knit messaging groups having anything like the drawbacks of social media.
Even so, I'm amazed they were able to continue using that phone for as long as they did, because in the US 2G networks have been off air for years now and 3G is probably going to be gone by the end of this year.
Interesting backstory to this, actually. The US didn’t really standardise the networks and frequencies until the 4G era, so there was much more fragmentation - meaning less embedded infrastructure depending on 2G staying live, and more to gain from getting rid of its legacy mishmash of protocols. The more stable and standardised way it was originally rolled out here has led to a much more conservative timeline for turning it off, and I believe the current target is about 10 years from now.
That said, there are a good few options for new, cheap, basic phones that run on modern networks if that’s a need. Specifically using an 1100 is presumably just a case of “ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Aside from all the ways people have already mentioned it is “broke” in modern society, whether we like it or not, of course…
And for anyone who struggles to resist the temptation, some phones have extreme power saving modes that restrict available apps, and can even set the screen to grayscale, which is totally kills...
And for anyone who struggles to resist the temptation, some phones have extreme power saving modes that restrict available apps, and can even set the screen to grayscale, which is totally kills the appeal of most multimedia.
The people buying dumphones to prevent addiction often lack the self control to prevent themselves from manually disabling any self imposed restrictions. Specially but not limited to the neurodiverse.
The people buying dumphones to prevent addiction often lack the self control to prevent themselves from manually disabling any self imposed restrictions. Specially but not limited to the neurodiverse.
It was most definitely not medical advice, okay? This is a separate discussion entirely, and I am not equipped to discuss it with you, but I imagine your argument also applies to itself...
It was most definitely not medical advice, okay? This is a separate discussion entirely, and I am not equipped to discuss it with you, but I imagine your argument also applies to itself...
Great point here. The real power of iOS lies beneath the surface with their new focus modes, screen time summaries, app usage timers, and sleep modes. These all kill so much temptation.
Great point here. The real power of iOS lies beneath the surface with their new focus modes, screen time summaries, app usage timers, and sleep modes. These all kill so much temptation.
The causal relationship is a bit more direct there. It’s more like “you’re free to walk the streets of Vegas, no one is forcing you to gamble…” And yeah I wouldn’t prevent anyone from walking...
The causal relationship is a bit more direct there.
It’s more like “you’re free to walk the streets of Vegas, no one is forcing you to gamble…”
And yeah I wouldn’t prevent anyone from walking around in Vegas. That would seem somewhat ridiculous to enforce such a limitation because someone could hypothetically be induced to enter a casino, and then could hypothetically become addicted to gambling.
I would propose another analogy. "You're most certainly free to gamble in the casino, no one's forcing you to bet all your savings". While, at the same time, everything about casinos is designed...
I would propose another analogy. "You're most certainly free to gamble in the casino, no one's forcing you to bet all your savings". While, at the same time, everything about casinos is designed to get you to do just that.
Where I disagree here is the degree to which the product impresses upon you to do the potentially addictive or destructive action. While some cheaper Androids may be more egregious in this aspect,...
Where I disagree here is the degree to which the product impresses upon you to do the potentially addictive or destructive action. While some cheaper Androids may be more egregious in this aspect, for the most part smartphones are just general purpose computers, and that there exist no pressures nearly as severe as literally being in, say, a poker game, where you are already compelled to bet, and the only dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable is the amount.
Yes, some cheaper androids pre-install facebook. I don't consider that in the same league. Pre-installed facebook is like walking down Las Vegas and seeing a casino plus a shiny sign advertising it.
Everything about an iPhone is not designed to get you to be addicted to Twitter doomscrolling, or to obtain an eating disorder from instagram pictures. The casino is there for you to gamble, the city of las vegas is there for citizens and visitors to do a variety of things, some of which are gambling, many of which are not.
I would even say that I was too negative in choosing Las Vegas as the metaphorical city. It's more like Chicago. Chicago has Casinos, but it also has many other things besides vices, and I'd argue more non-vice related than otherwise.
You always have agency, but the degree to which some products are planned to induce addiction is, in my view, quite immoral. And depending on your occupation, social context, and age group, some...
You always have agency, but the degree to which some products are planned to induce addiction is, in my view, quite immoral. And depending on your occupation, social context, and age group, some things which you may believe are entirely optional, in practice are not. In this sense, an actual casino may be less harmful than an app. You can always walk away from a casino.
I did this for a while and it did me a lot of good. I have pretty bad issues with attention and focus that were vastly improved in that time and have honesty stayed with me since. When I feel...
I did this for a while and it did me a lot of good. I have pretty bad issues with attention and focus that were vastly improved in that time and have honesty stayed with me since. When I feel myself drifting back toward habits and thought patterns I don't like, I'll restrict myself in ways that feel similar.
Re: Restricting smartphone usage to the level of a dumbphone, this is only kind of possible. On Android you can at least use minimal launchers that come close, but if you're stuck with an iPhone as I am right now, you're pretty much stuck with Apple's way of doing things. The best you can do is disable notifications.
And sure, not everyone can do this. When I was doing it my only responsibility was college and for that it worked just fine. Helped, actually, as I found myself spending much more of my excess time in the library reading. Not everyone can do this and that's okay, but I don't think that's really a mark against minimizing your digital life in this way. If anything, I find that it shows the need for it and makes me want to do it more...something is wrong if only people with certain lifestyles can get by without these privacy-sapping, proprietary, and attention-grabbing devices. Our society should not be structured in a way that forces their use, and I see resisting that (even in a small, individualistic way) as a good thing.
This one is a head scratcher for me and I'm going to get on my proverbial high horse about it. "All I have to do is lug my expensive and inconvenient laptop around with my 1000 year old phone and it's a super easy suitable replacement for a smartphone! Hah! Take that techno-apologists!"
I get it, it feels good to be counter culture and go against the grain of society. But, I have a hot take on this. Being able to participate in society with a dumbphone is a sort of privilege not afforded to everyone. When I "participate", I'm talking about not having your life impacted in a serious way. Having a smartphone is also a privilege, too, since they're expensive. But I'm thinking about this privilege in a utilitarian way: not living in a food desert vs. eating only organic and picking between several organic markets in your neighborhood you can walk to. The former is a basic thing: can you find food? Finding food easily is a privilege. Eating fully organic produce and free-range, locally sourced meat? Hella privilege.
Some points on this:
And a couple that are more specific to my major metro area:
I thought about ditching my smartphone some time ago. Like the author, I had a pretty outdated phone (Moto G7) for a while. I spent more time fighting with it than anything else. It was actually an inconvenience. Then I got a flagship iPhone. I use it more like a dumb phone at home, and it's a necessity when I'm out and about in the city. And that's something I don't understand about the thesis this article. No one is forcing your to get addicted to Instagram and sell your soul for slightly better targeted ads. Use your phone like a dumb phone! Charge it twice a week, only text and call, uninstall email, do all of that! But don't discount the usefulness and accessibility that smartphones bring to so many people.
I was rather irritated that they found themselves being insulted by being called a neo-luddite. I am offended of them being called that because Luddites were honorable people who are fighting against losing their livelihood because their jobs were about to be replaced by machines. In comparison, this person's ideas seems less like a reasoned position than it does simple stubbornness.
Is this writer from the Guardian's UK staff? From what I understand, the reason why whatsapp is so popular in Europe is because it costs money to both send and receive SMS messages. The choice to stay off of the app is actually costing their friends money for their companionship.
The only actually good thing about this is that they aren't contributing to the vast pile of e-waste that cellphones tend to create; that's a legitimate problem the world needs to deal with. Even so, I'm amazed they were able to continue using that phone for as long as they did, because in the US 2G networks have been off air for years now and 3G is probably going to be gone by the end of this year.
Isn't SMS also a very insecure protocol? While privacy is a legitimate concern, lacking basic security is even worse.
That’s a great point - all SMS messages are open to the carrier themselves by design, and using older hardware and networking standards like this means that the signal encryption between phone and tower can easily be broken by pretty much any eavesdropper who cares to listen in.
I think that may have been the case back in the day, but nowadays it’s just used as the standard lingua Franca between iOS and Android in a market that’s fairly evenly split. SMS and calls are still free on the vast majority of plans, and that also applies to use across borders within the EU (albeit no longer as a requirement for UK networks, thanks Boris). He might not be costing them money, but he’s certainly pushing extra effort on them and setting himself apart from the ongoing conversation. Of course it’s up to him and his friends whether to accept either side of that trade off, but it strikes me as at least somewhat inconsiderate to them and isolating for him, and I don’t see tight-knit messaging groups having anything like the drawbacks of social media.
Interesting backstory to this, actually. The US didn’t really standardise the networks and frequencies until the 4G era, so there was much more fragmentation - meaning less embedded infrastructure depending on 2G staying live, and more to gain from getting rid of its legacy mishmash of protocols. The more stable and standardised way it was originally rolled out here has led to a much more conservative timeline for turning it off, and I believe the current target is about 10 years from now.
That said, there are a good few options for new, cheap, basic phones that run on modern networks if that’s a need. Specifically using an 1100 is presumably just a case of “ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Aside from all the ways people have already mentioned it is “broke” in modern society, whether we like it or not, of course…
And for anyone who struggles to resist the temptation, some phones have extreme power saving modes that restrict available apps, and can even set the screen to grayscale, which is totally kills the appeal of most multimedia.
The people buying dumphones to prevent addiction often lack the self control to prevent themselves from manually disabling any self imposed restrictions. Specially but not limited to the neurodiverse.
It was most definitely not medical advice, okay? This is a separate discussion entirely, and I am not equipped to discuss it with you, but I imagine your argument also applies to itself...
Great point here. The real power of iOS lies beneath the surface with their new focus modes, screen time summaries, app usage timers, and sleep modes. These all kill so much temptation.
That's kinda like saying "you're free to smoke cigarettes, no one is forcing you to get addicted"...
The causal relationship is a bit more direct there.
It’s more like “you’re free to walk the streets of Vegas, no one is forcing you to gamble…”
And yeah I wouldn’t prevent anyone from walking around in Vegas. That would seem somewhat ridiculous to enforce such a limitation because someone could hypothetically be induced to enter a casino, and then could hypothetically become addicted to gambling.
I would propose another analogy. "You're most certainly free to gamble in the casino, no one's forcing you to bet all your savings". While, at the same time, everything about casinos is designed to get you to do just that.
Where I disagree here is the degree to which the product impresses upon you to do the potentially addictive or destructive action. While some cheaper Androids may be more egregious in this aspect, for the most part smartphones are just general purpose computers, and that there exist no pressures nearly as severe as literally being in, say, a poker game, where you are already compelled to bet, and the only dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable is the amount.
Yes, some cheaper androids pre-install facebook. I don't consider that in the same league. Pre-installed facebook is like walking down Las Vegas and seeing a casino plus a shiny sign advertising it.
Everything about an iPhone is not designed to get you to be addicted to Twitter doomscrolling, or to obtain an eating disorder from instagram pictures. The casino is there for you to gamble, the city of las vegas is there for citizens and visitors to do a variety of things, some of which are gambling, many of which are not.
I would even say that I was too negative in choosing Las Vegas as the metaphorical city. It's more like Chicago. Chicago has Casinos, but it also has many other things besides vices, and I'd argue more non-vice related than otherwise.
You always have agency, but the degree to which some products are planned to induce addiction is, in my view, quite immoral. And depending on your occupation, social context, and age group, some things which you may believe are entirely optional, in practice are not. In this sense, an actual casino may be less harmful than an app. You can always walk away from a casino.
But that doesn't invalidate the fact that users have a choice in both scenarios.
I did this for a while and it did me a lot of good. I have pretty bad issues with attention and focus that were vastly improved in that time and have honesty stayed with me since. When I feel myself drifting back toward habits and thought patterns I don't like, I'll restrict myself in ways that feel similar.
Re: Restricting smartphone usage to the level of a dumbphone, this is only kind of possible. On Android you can at least use minimal launchers that come close, but if you're stuck with an iPhone as I am right now, you're pretty much stuck with Apple's way of doing things. The best you can do is disable notifications.
And sure, not everyone can do this. When I was doing it my only responsibility was college and for that it worked just fine. Helped, actually, as I found myself spending much more of my excess time in the library reading. Not everyone can do this and that's okay, but I don't think that's really a mark against minimizing your digital life in this way. If anything, I find that it shows the need for it and makes me want to do it more...something is wrong if only people with certain lifestyles can get by without these privacy-sapping, proprietary, and attention-grabbing devices. Our society should not be structured in a way that forces their use, and I see resisting that (even in a small, individualistic way) as a good thing.