This is an interesting article. I firmly believe that we as a society should not require people to use a smartphone until there are good, cheap, privacy respecting phones available - but at the...
This is an interesting article. I firmly believe that we as a society should not require people to use a smartphone until there are good, cheap, privacy respecting phones available - but at the same time, I really dislike the "generationalist" tone of this piece.
For instance, this I completely agree with:
There’s a fanaticism that comes with everyone being a consumer of the same product. Any dissent is reflexively attacked or, at best, dismissed. “How can you live without one?” “What are you trying to prove?” Other than this anomaly, I live a normal consumer life.
It's how I feel about people who use commercial operating systems and are insistent that I'm just being obstinate when I choose not to.
But, at the same time, there are choice quotes like this:
I know I come across as smug and virtue-signaling. You’re probably thinking right now how obnoxious I am
and:
We’re all over 40, we remember pay phones and how making plans used to work.
and:
My 17-year-old daughter can’t imagine life without her smartphone. [...] I wonder about the strength of connection developing between her and her texting friends.
This article comes so close to criticizing the systems that incentivize every technology manufacturer to make positively detrimental hardware and software, but takes an early exit to completely toothless nostalgia for a day and age in which it was far more difficult to connect outside your geographical area.
I am barely under 40 and agree with a lot of the sentiment regarding not wanting a smartphone. It's a nuisance being bound to a short battery life and being always-on is so distracting. This is...
We’re all over 40, we remember pay phones and how making plans used to work.
I am barely under 40 and agree with a lot of the sentiment regarding not wanting a smartphone. It's a nuisance being bound to a short battery life and being always-on is so distracting.
My 17-year-old daughter can’t imagine life without her smartphone. [...] I wonder about the strength of connection developing between her and her texting friends.
This is like something out of a parent in 1998. Around then, me any my friends at school grew plenty close communicating via AIM and SMS. Several of us from high school are still close, chatting daily and playing videogames together 20+ years later, despite living generally no less than 2 hours apart.
It's so odd having articles like "These damn immature Millennials" still being written, because so many Millennials are pushing 40. We listen to NPR unironically, I think we have outgrown the videogame+texting "you'll never develop connections" trope.
I think there's also a greater narrative to be told about societal values, internalizations, and how its harmful to judge others simply because they interact with the world in a different way than...
I think there's also a greater narrative to be told about societal values, internalizations, and how its harmful to judge others simply because they interact with the world in a different way than you do. I'd really love to see that article, because people don't often think about how judgy statements like "What are you trying to prove?" can hurt others, and how they encourage a society lacking in diversity and approaching this through the lens of something with close to no stakes for most is more likely to get people to listen than say judgement statements about gender, ethnicity, politics, or work life balance.
Yeah, I would also love to see that article! However, I'm not sure simply moving away from contentious subjects would be enough; I'm actually quite surprised at the level of vitriol I've received...
Yeah, I would also love to see that article! However, I'm not sure simply moving away from contentious subjects would be enough; I'm actually quite surprised at the level of vitriol I've received for statements like, "I should be allowed to pay for goods in cash or check if I don't want to use a privacy-violating payment platform."
If you want the transaction to be private, wouldn't it have to be using cash? Checks don't seem very private. (At least, not to the merchant or the bank.)
If you want the transaction to be private, wouldn't it have to be using cash? Checks don't seem very private. (At least, not to the merchant or the bank.)
Indeed. In this particular case I'm mostly thinking of rent, in which case I already have to trust the merchant, and the bank is already not in my threat model. If they were, I could circumvent...
Indeed. In this particular case I'm mostly thinking of rent, in which case I already have to trust the merchant, and the bank is already not in my threat model. If they were, I could circumvent that somewhat with a certified check or money order.
It's not even not having a smartphone, per se, that's the problem. It's not having a modern and popular one, as I discovered recently. This post is mostly a stream of consciousness rant; you've...
It's not even not having a smartphone, per se, that's the problem. It's not having a modern and popular one, as I discovered recently. This post is mostly a stream of consciousness rant; you've been warned.
Up until August or so, my main phone was a Nexus 4, which was released about 8 years ago. Unfortunately, the bottom half of the touchscreen died, leaving me unable to unlock it, and all the repair shops around me are quoting ridiculous rates to get it replaced. (I could probably do some fuckery with it, but I don't have the gear for it here.) Between it and me importing a Pixel 5a, I had to use a Windows phone that I otherwise used only as a basic phone and as a hotspot for everything else.
It was a ridiculous challenge.
I encountered a few obstacles that the article author encountered, such as asking a stranger for directions, or having to scan a QR code in order to sign in somewhere, without having a URL provided as a backup. Even if there was a URL, the page that it leads to is Javascript-infested webshit, being unable to load in my phone's browser without taking forever or outright crashing it, as with most websites.
A frequent thing I've heard was "just use the app", or some variation of it. I've had delivery people bitch at me when they forgot to bring a terminal with them, saying "why didn't you just pay using [one of three apps]", followed by me showing them the phone. I've called a taxi service only to be told to use the app because they couldn't figure out where I was, despite me telling them the exact intersection. A potential bank had the nerve to say "you need our app to [do something extremely simple]" and that's overly complicated in the web app.
That's not even counting stuff that is completely out of your reach if you don't have an iPhone or a Google enabled android phone, the "fuck you" tier. Stuff like BLIK, an instant payment service that is run by banks here, only works if you have a bank's phone app, and doesn't even support something like "logging in through the browser to get a code".
The most frustrating case was when I recently went to a developer conference that basically forced you to get an app to do anything. There wasn't anything done outside of the app, you couldn't even see which conferences were when without it; there were no signs posted anywhere with that info. I either had to ask around or just wing it, and even then, people were asking why I didn't just buy a new phone, saying things like "you're a programmer, you can afford it". I almost felt like yelling at them that I shouldn't have to buy an expensive piece of tech just because people failed horribly at thinking of basic use cases.
For what it's worth, this is why I'm against proprietary software being a requirement for anything, especially important infrastructure like banks. They should be required by law to make that...
For what it's worth, this is why I'm against proprietary software being a requirement for anything, especially important infrastructure like banks. They should be required by law to make that accessible easily on any platform, and that would lead them, practically, to making open protocols with actual good security, where people could implement their own clients.
I believe the European Union has this with their PSD2 requirement. But, I haven't heard much about it in two years, and don't know if it went anywhere or got lost in bureaucracy.
I believe the European Union has this with their PSD2 requirement.
But, I haven't heard much about it in two years, and don't know if it went anywhere or got lost in bureaucracy.
Practically, it's implemented through each bank's proprietary app, though some countries have a national ID which the banks then just use for the verification.
Practically, it's implemented through each bank's proprietary app, though some countries have a national ID which the banks then just use for the verification.
Hell, ever since Google added root detection features, arbitrary apps will simply refuse to run on a rooted phone. It's nearly enough to make me want to switch to iOS because what's the fucking...
Hell, ever since Google added root detection features, arbitrary apps will simply refuse to run on a rooted phone. It's nearly enough to make me want to switch to iOS because what's the fucking point anymore, if I'm going to be forced into a walled garden no matter what platform I'm on?
Yeah, that's another pain point. The Android ecosystem isn't in a good place right now. Your choices are either Use an old phone, have your phone slow down as programs bloat themselves, and be...
Yeah, that's another pain point. The Android ecosystem isn't in a good place right now. Your choices are either
Use an old phone, have your phone slow down as programs bloat themselves, and be locked out of security updates after far too short a time
Use a new phone, and eventually be forced onto the dumpster fire that is Android 12 (I am here right now)
Use a rooted phone or custom ROM, and be randomly locked out of various apps as you mentioned
I legitimately can't tell which is the least frustrating choice.
Some objective things, a lot of highly subjective and aesthetic things. Reviewers seem to love it, but I legitimately don't think I've hated a software update this much in my life. (Maaaaybe the...
Some objective things, a lot of highly subjective and aesthetic things. Reviewers seem to love it, but I legitimately don't think I've hated a software update this much in my life. (Maaaaybe the automatic Windows downgrade from 7 to 8, but it's a very tough call.)
A "quick" version:
I love having my phone set up in a certain way, and for an Android release whose tagline is "designed for you", a lot of functionality surrounding customization has been removed in vanilla A12 compared to vanilla A11. A big point is setting my preferred UI colour and designs. It's been replaced with 4 ugly pastel colours, or basing your UI on your wallpaper and hoping that they're colours that you want. Considering I change(d) my wallpaper relatively frequently but left the UI elements the same, this is surprisingly infuriating for me. One feature that I frequently got used to on A11 in the few weeks I used it was outright removed in A12 (being able to quickly control casted media volume with volume buttons), and another one got heavily nerfed (power button shortcuts), and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more that I haven't noticed, given I didn't use A11 for that long.
On top of the lack of customizability, I absolutely loathe the new UI design choices. It feels like I'm using a Fisher Price phone. Default text is either too massive or too small, and you can't make it bigger or smaller without changing the size of the other problematic text. Buttons are ridiculously round and space-wasting. The information density everywhere seems to have halved itself to make it look "prettier", but then it also hides the wallpaper for no reason, despite it being emphasized so much in the marketing material. I used to like having image variations and that changed a bit when the phone was unlocked, but it's harder to see now with the password entry screen literally blocking the wallpaper when you pull it up, making the effect less pronounced. Same goes for viewing notifications, which for some reason block the wallpaper even if it's empty, leaving you with an ugly blank background.
Battery life seems to be a lot worse. On A11, I could go to work and come home at around 90-95% battery if I don't use the phone much. On A12, I don't think I've seen it higher than 80% when I came home. This is with near-identical settings, and all the same apps.
Weird bugs related to security, such as the phone not locking itself when hitting the power button (yes, Smart Lock is off), or occasionally being able to access previous images taken if going into camera mode without unlocking the phone. (Lots of other bugs, too, but I feel that security bugs are a higher priority.)
And that's just the stuff I know for sure was a change from 11->12. I found many more issues, but I don't know/recall if they were in 11, so I don't want to say it's necessarily 12's fault.
Yeah, those all seems like really legit criticisms. I'm largely against the whole smartphone model for a lot of these reasons - let people configure their shit, goddamn it! - but some of the more...
Yeah, those all seems like really legit criticisms. I'm largely against the whole smartphone model for a lot of these reasons - let people configure their shit, goddamn it! - but some of the more egregious issues are likely masked by having a relatively new phone.
Thank you for taking the time to point all of these out - with this in mind I may try to find some ROMs that do better in some of these departments.
I haven't had any experience with A12 yet (waiting on LineageOS official builds), but from the screenshots I've seen, the UI looks atrocious. If I could go back to the Android 7 look and feel,...
I haven't had any experience with A12 yet (waiting on LineageOS official builds), but from the screenshots I've seen, the UI looks atrocious.
If I could go back to the Android 7 look and feel, while keeping the goodies of new versions, I totally would. It's the only version IMO that did Material "right".
Not disagreeing with any of your points, except to add that Magisk (popular rooting tool) supports very nice and effective per-app spoofing, tricking individual apps into believing phone is not...
Not disagreeing with any of your points, except to add that Magisk (popular rooting tool) supports very nice and effective per-app spoofing, tricking individual apps into believing phone is not rooted.
Not anymore! Magisk's dev has been hired by Google on Android's security team. With that, and with Hardware-based SafetyNet being a thing now, Magisk by itself will no longer do any hiding, maybe...
Not anymore!
Magisk's dev has been hired by Google on Android's security team.
With that, and with Hardware-based SafetyNet being a thing now, Magisk by itself will no longer do any hiding, maybe except removing module changes from a user-controlled list of apps.
There are 3rd party workarounds that still try their best, with doing things like "downgrading" SafetyNet to the non-hardware version and spoofing that, but I personally think those are on their last legs and it only takes Google to flip a switch, to make all this effort worthless.
That's not what a walled garden is. I agree that root detection is a net negative, but you're still free to install any app you like - it's just that proprietary software is gonna be shitty, as it...
That's not what a walled garden is. I agree that root detection is a net negative, but you're still free to install any app you like - it's just that proprietary software is gonna be shitty, as it always is.
I'm not though, there's software that requires root that I'm no longer free to install if I want a fully functional device. It's not the same as classic walled gardens like iOS, but I think it...
I'm not though, there's software that requires root that I'm no longer free to install if I want a fully functional device. It's not the same as classic walled gardens like iOS, but I think it still qualifies. It's just replacing overt barriers with subtle ones.
Can someone tell me why this line is a smartphone? Why wasn't it the modems that gated you to get onto the dial-up internet? The extra phone lines that my family could never afford? The telephone...
Can someone tell me why this line is a smartphone? Why wasn't it the modems that gated you to get onto the dial-up internet? The extra phone lines that my family could never afford? The telephone that Ma Bell forced you to use? The telegraphs and long distance telephone calls that my parents paid up the nose to reach their parents for 5 minutes of communication as immigrants to the US? Should we rewind to the combustion engine? Electricity? Gas lighting?
I know it's become en vogue in free software heavy technology circles to decry the smartphone, but this problem isn't new and has been happening in every country around the world since the Industrial Revolution itself. The nostalgia in the article makes it clear how much this is the rationalized packaging of an emotional response. There's an honest discussion to have about the role of technology and society, but this isn't it. Matter of fact, my relatives in a developing country all have affordable access to smartphones and have for a decade or so now, but don't always have access to a computer or a stable at-home internet connection. Being able to voice or video chat my relatives in a different timezone in a different country has been life-changing, especially for my parents for whom modern life in a Western country can often feel disorienting. I remember collecting calling cards in the '90s with the lowest rates to try to eke out just a few more minutes with my relatives, assuming the land lines on their end weren't busted (as the quality of copper in many developing nations was poor and often underwent theft).
I'm guessing most of the folks who decry the smartphone have relatives who live in developed countries with stable access to the internet and before that had high-quality land lines. This wasn't the case for a lot of other folks in the world. Just a thought to keep in mind when evaluating emotional responses to technology.
This take really confuses me. It kinda sounds like you're either saying that free software folks should be okay with surveillance-heavy, highly proprietary handhelds being the norm everywhere,...
I know it's become en vogue in free software heavy technology circles to decry the smartphone, but this problem isn't new and has been happening in every country around the world since the Industrial Revolution itself.
This take really confuses me. It kinda sounds like you're either saying that free software folks should be okay with surveillance-heavy, highly proprietary handhelds being the norm everywhere, which makes no sense, or that you're saying free software people should be upset about other things too, which we are.
I largely agree with this post, as I think do most people who've posted in this comments section, but I really don't understand this part.
Any good discussion on technology and humanity needs to balance the good of technology against its bad. This thread here (and some I've read in other FOSS spaces) largely focuses on the negatives....
This take really confuses me. It kinda sounds like you're either saying that free software folks should be okay with surveillance-heavy, highly proprietary handhelds being the norm everywhere, which makes no sense, or that you're saying free software people should be upset about other things too, which we are.
Any good discussion on technology and humanity needs to balance the good of technology against its bad. This thread here (and some I've read in other FOSS spaces) largely focuses on the negatives. Scanning the comments here talk about proprietary software, smartphone addiction, the cost of smartphones (which markets are these?), and how liberating it is to not have a phone. I think my comment is the first about the benefits of the smartphone.
The fact is, the smartphone has done a lot of good in the world. Yes, most smartphones today have proprietary software and firmware in them. That's still a concern in a much higher portion of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs than most of humanity lives in. To ignore this and thus ignore the benefits of proprietary technology and how it enables innovation, yet simultaneously locks in incumbents and removes the choice of users, is to offer a very biased picture of innovation. In other words it feels very non-representative of my own and my family's relationship with the smartphone and thus I suspect many others.
Another issue I have with the critique as a whole is that, democratizing technologies like the smartphone and home appliances are usually a lot more useless to the global rich than the global middle class and the global poor. A King in antiquity would have had no need for a dishwasher, proprietary or not, because he would have been able to have an entire staff of dish washers washing his dishes. Likewise, an upper-middle class Western resident lived their lives just fine with a robust, well-connected POTS phone network, and probably initially only saw marginal use from the smartphone. The global poor, those who were the King's dishwashers, or those like my family who barely had access to a POTS phone network at all, benefit much more from these technologies.
The impact of technology on humanity is complicated. IMO, articles like this do it a disservice.
We definitely agree there. However I submit that people are allowed to be generally happy with a technology existing and still criticize its implementation. No?
The impact of technology on humanity is complicated. IMO, articles like this do it a disservice.
We definitely agree there.
However I submit that people are allowed to be generally happy with a technology existing and still criticize its implementation. No?
I mean sure, but I'd broadly prefer a more nuanced take on the whole matter. These are the kind of responses I'd expect from a Reddit thread titled "DAE hate Smartphones??" or "DAE Zoomers??" not...
I mean sure, but I'd broadly prefer a more nuanced take on the whole matter. These are the kind of responses I'd expect from a Reddit thread titled "DAE hate Smartphones??" or "DAE Zoomers??" not on a site about purportedly high levels of discussion. I think concerns about smartphone addiction and dopamine hits are real, but the level of pessimism in this thread seriously does not reflect the reality of this issue. It feels echo-chambery to me. Someone even made an insinuation that smartphone usage violates the rights of the disabled!
This feels deeply unfair to me. You mention the important use cases of smartphones in broadening communications, and then act like nobody else has even acknowledged it; yet, in my comment, which...
I think concerns about smartphone addiction and dopamine hits are real, but the level of pessimism in this thread seriously does not reflect the reality of this issue.
This feels deeply unfair to me. You mention the important use cases of smartphones in broadening communications, and then act like nobody else has even acknowledged it; yet, in my comment, which is currently the top comment, I concluded with:
This article comes so close to criticizing the systems that incentivize every technology manufacturer to make positively detrimental hardware and software, but takes an early exit to completely toothless nostalgia for a day and age in which it was far more difficult to connect outside your geographical area.
@Liru's top level comment isn't about "smartphones bad" at all; rather, it's an anecdote about how software vendors fail their customers in certain situations.
@Lou's is specifically about another transformative technology, possible only because of handhelds.
As @cfabbro says, I think you are being unfair to the Tildes members in this thread. It's good and right to call for "nuanced discussion" and look out for high levels of pessimism, but I just don't see that on display in this thread.
Speaking only for myself, I find handhelds extremely useful. I think Android and iOS have, in very different ways, made certain kinds of computing much more accessible, and have enabled a lot of positive economic developments, in addition to making informal communication across endless distances almost effortless.
Given the emphasis you place on nuance, however, it's concerning to me that you don't see the major problems that the modern ultra-centralized, ultra-proprietary smartphone market facilitates. I don't say this as an ideological statement, but because of concrete problems that the lack of transparency creates for activists, rideshare/ODD drivers, and many others.
The overwhelming tone of this thread is anti-smartphone, with a a sentence or two near the end of some posts acknowledging that smartphones help connect others. In fact the goal of my post was to...
This feels deeply unfair to me. You mention the important use cases of smartphones in broadening communications, and then act like nobody else has even acknowledged it; yet, in my comment, which is currently the top comment, I concluded with
The overwhelming tone of this thread is anti-smartphone, with a a sentence or two near the end of some posts acknowledging that smartphones help connect others. In fact the goal of my post was to explicitly take the general tone of the thread and flip it; to write mostly about the positives of the smartphone and leave a sentence or two about the caveats, much like the other posts are largely negative about the smartphone while acknowledging its connectivity. I don't find this unfair. The thread makes it feel like smartphones are 90% negative and 10% positive where I'm pretty sure polling a broader audience would find a very different ratio.
Given the emphasis you place on nuance, however, it's concerning to me that you don't see the major problems that the modern ultra-centralized, ultra-proprietary smartphone market facilitates. I don't say this as an ideological statement, but because of concrete problems that the lack of transparency creates for activists, rideshare/ODD drivers, and many others.
Do I need to hold myself to a higher standard in order to make this criticism? I simply flipped the prevailing tone of the thread around; 90% positive, 10% negative. If I do need to hold a rebuttal to a higher standard, then discussions by necessity will place more of a burden on those rebutting over those agreeing with everyone else in a thread. This is where my above comment about the echo-chamber came in.
@Liru's top level comment isn't about "smartphones bad" at all; rather, it's an anecdote about how software vendors fail their customers in certain situations. @Lou's is specifically about another transformative technology, possible only because of handhelds.
As @cfabbro says, I think you are being unfair to the Tildes members in this thread. It's good and right to call for "nuanced discussion" and look out for high levels of pessimism, but I just don't see that on display in this thread.
I don't feel comfortable rebutting these points because I would be discussing others' comments in a thread not involving the other person.
That is really not the case. Smartphones are great and extremely popular. Praising smartphones is like arguing that water is a good way to get hydrated. True, but obvious to the point that it...
The overwhelming tone of this thread is anti-smartphone, with a a sentence or two near the end of some posts acknowledging that smartphones help connect others. In fact the goal of my post was to explicitly take the general tone of the thread and flip it; to write mostly about the positives of the smartphone and leave a sentence or two about the caveats, much like the other posts are largely negative about the smartphone while acknowledging its connectivity. I don't find this unfair...
That is really not the case. Smartphones are great and extremely popular. Praising smartphones is like arguing that water is a good way to get hydrated. True, but obvious to the point that it doesn't need to be stated. So you talk about the other side, the one that's not so obvious. Did you know that you can die if you drink too much water? Now that's (kinda) interesting!
Smartphones won. They're the air that we breath. They need no defense.
Just using some rhetoric to stress a point, mah dude! Logic without rhetoric is like cereal without milk: You can eat that way, but that's no way to live...
Just using some rhetoric to stress a point, mah dude! Logic without rhetoric is like cereal without milk: You can eat that way, but that's no way to live...
I guess I don't understand what argument it is you think you're rebuffing here. Nobody in this thread, or even the author of the article, is saying "smartphones are bad and we, as a society,...
I guess I don't understand what argument it is you think you're rebuffing here. Nobody in this thread, or even the author of the article, is saying "smartphones are bad and we, as a society, should stop using them." I, at least, am only arguing that it should be an option not to use a smartphone, like I believe it should be an option not to own a car (I don't) or not to eat meat. I firmly believe nobody should be required to own a smartphone, and that we shouldn't assume everyone has one - but that in no way means I think people shouldn't own them or shouldn't be allowed to own them. Does that distinction make sense?
Right so I'm asking why is that line a smartphone or a car and why is it not electricity or gas lighting? Having society support niche usecases is expensive, so allocating social resources to...
I firmly believe nobody should be required to own a smartphone, and that we shouldn't assume everyone has one - but that in no way means I think people shouldn't own them or shouldn't be allowed to own them. Does that distinction make sense?
Right so I'm asking why is that line a smartphone or a car and why is it not electricity or gas lighting? Having society support niche usecases is expensive, so allocating social resources to support these niche usecases needs to be discussed. My comment is just that the level of this discussion is closer to axe-grinding than an actual discussion on the pros and cons of making the smartphone an optional way to interact with the world.
Because those are provided by highly regulated monopolies or directly by the government, at least everywhere I've ever lived. If I'm required to be a customer of some company, they need to be...
why is it not electricity or gas?
Because those are provided by highly regulated monopolies or directly by the government, at least everywhere I've ever lived. If I'm required to be a customer of some company, they need to be basically a government department, not Google. I feel the same about ISPs, by the way.
an actual discussion on the pros and cons of making the smartphone an optional way to interact with the world.
Fair enough, but you also haven't brought forward any cons of making smartphones optional - you've been talking about what makes them useful to individuals. Which is fine, but you're contradicting yourself.
Aha that actually makes a lot of sense. I disagree, but I think we could make a good follow-up thread about that. But I can work with this! It makes me understand your viewpoint a lot better. Fair...
Because those are provided by highly regulated monopolies or directly by the government, at least everywhere I've ever lived. If I'm required to be a customer of some company, they need to be basically a government department, not Google. I feel the same about ISPs, by the way.
Aha that actually makes a lot of sense. I disagree, but I think we could make a good follow-up thread about that. But I can work with this! It makes me understand your viewpoint a lot better.
In one of your first comments in this thread you mentioned only "scanning" the comments here, and I would highly suggest that you go back and actually give everything a proper read before...
In one of your first comments in this thread you mentioned only "scanning" the comments here, and I would highly suggest that you go back and actually give everything a proper read before criticizing them. Because IMO you are completely misrepresenting what some people here have actually been saying.
E.g. Nobody insinuated "smartphone usage violates the rights of the disabled!", they specifically said:
In the U.S., it might actually be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to not provide an alternative to a smartphone based menu.
[In reply to someone else mentioning a restaurant they recently went to that had no regular menus available anymore, only a QR code one, which requires a smartphone with internet in order to access.]
Smartphone "usage" is not what violates the rights of the disabled. In that specific situation, it's the exclusive requirement to have/use one in order to access a basic service, which potentially violates their rights, since that is not currently possible for everyone due to certain disabilities preventing them from doing so. And it's also a matter of basic discrimination too, since not everyone can afford a smartphone with internet access either.
Sure, but a discussion about the rights of the disabled should also include voices from those with vision impairments who can use their smartphone now to magnify a menu or voice read their menu,...
Smartphone "usage" is not what violates the rights of the disabled. In that specific situation, it's the exclusive requirement to have/use one in order to access a basic service, which potentially violates their rights, since that is not currently possible for everyone due to certain disabilities preventing them from doing so.
Sure, but a discussion about the rights of the disabled should also include voices from those with vision impairments who can use their smartphone now to magnify a menu or voice read their menu, no? I'm not sure how comfortable I feel having the ADA referenced to make the case for smartphones hurting the rights of the disabled without actually having disabled voices in this discussion. There is also the fact that QR code menus as a whole only became more common due to the unprecedented COVID pandemic and was a hurried attempt by businesses to make diners more comfortable with dining out during the pandemic.
And it's also a matter of basic discrimination too, since not everyone can afford a smartphone with internet access either.
As I mentioned in earlier comments, smartphones are hardly the only thing that falls into this category. The US also has had the Lifeline Program in order to address issues related with income inequality and phone/broadband communication.
This isn't unique to smartphones. Electricity is mandatory to interact with the rest of society. In many societies, so is some form of powered vehicle. Banking is mandatory in many societies. The...
makes an enormous difference: "mandatory".
This isn't unique to smartphones. Electricity is mandatory to interact with the rest of society. In many societies, so is some form of powered vehicle. Banking is mandatory in many societies. The ability to read and write is also mandatory in most societies. That's why I was asking why the line is the smartphone. It feels like the author and participants in this thread dislike the smartphone which is why the smartphone is the point up for dispute. Folks here like electricity, so it's not up for debate.
Can you make the case why that shouldn't be smartphones and but should be electricity? Why that should be banking and it shouldn't be smartphones? I'm very willing to make the case that the...
Can you make the case why that shouldn't be smartphones and but should be electricity? Why that should be banking and it shouldn't be smartphones? I'm very willing to make the case that the smartphone is worth its problems and that its problems can be fixed over time. Moreover, can you get others to agree with that?
Then I'm going to have to refer back to the bit I wrote about the global middle class and the global poor, and about how the smartphone has connected my family. I'm sorry people in this thread...
Then I'm going to have to refer back to the bit I wrote about the global middle class and the global poor, and about how the smartphone has connected my family. I'm sorry people in this thread have had negative experiences. But the plural of anecdote isn't data. Lots of people have had negative experiences to lots of things.
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand and deeply empathize with the author's fears around being sucked into all the apps and social media and screen-fixating dopamine loops. It's a...
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand and deeply empathize with the author's fears around being sucked into all the apps and social media and screen-fixating dopamine loops. It's a legitimate problem that we as a society are still wrestling with and probably will be for decades. Social media, doomscrolling, microtransactions, etc are all dangerous and affecting the mental health of everyone not just the younger age groups. Modern technology's ability to rapidly iterate and innovate has vastly outstripped the ability of government entities to regulate and guide it, and it may never catch up in any meaningful way. So it is up to us individually (at least for now) to try and figure out what is healthy, what isn't healthy, and what tradeoffs are worth making between convenience and privacy,
The particular line in the sand that the author has drawn though, seems misplaced. By drawing the line around the smartphone itself, she has categorically excluded all the abilities that such a device enables. Which is where she finds herself encountering the most friction when engaging in a society where the possession of a smart device is assumed.
We could have a long and probably very interesting debate on if a smartphone taken holistically is a net positive for an individual person. However this sidesteps one of the key nuances, which is that owning a smartphone doesn't mean you have to use all of it's features and all of it's apps. If you choose too, you can be just as obstinate about how you interact with the world while also having a phone for the things you deem critical. You can lockout social media on your own device, block certain websites you want to make sure you don't want to ever visit, etc. You can set lockout timers and silence notifications, uninstall things you find toxic, and so on. There are options about how to engage with smart devices beyond just "yes/no".
Having a smartphone as the cost of existing in society means you need to have $300-1000 up front (or overpay for a monthly plan if you can’t afford the buy-out) plus the more expensive phone plans...
Having a smartphone as the cost of existing in society means you need to have $300-1000 up front (or overpay for a monthly plan if you can’t afford the buy-out) plus the more expensive phone plans to have data if you want to exist in society. For example: the upcoming NYC subway plans (unless they have changed them in the last few months). These aren’t inconveniences, they’re ways you’re barred from being a member of society.
Edit: to clarify, this is in response to
The particular line in the sand that the author has drawn though, seems misplaced. By drawing the line around the smartphone itself, she has categorically excluded all the abilities that such a device enables. Which is where she finds herself encountering the most friction when engaging in a society where the possession of a smart device is assumed.
To point out that we are rapidly increasing “places where the possession of a smart device is assumed” to services needed to survive/contribute to society with seemingly little regard to the consequences or plans on how to help those who are going to get excluded by these plans.
Maybe my line of thinking is off, but this cost seems high. When I was in Paraguay in 2017, one of our side projects was constructing basic houses for the poor. The people for whom we were...
Having a smartphone as the cost of existing in society means you need to have $300-1000 up front
Maybe my line of thinking is off, but this cost seems high. When I was in Paraguay in 2017, one of our side projects was constructing basic houses for the poor. The people for whom we were building lacked running water and their existing dwellings were built from trash and scraps. One thing they did have? Smartphones, albeit with a relatively limited data plan. Apparently the Chinese have driven the cost down so much that their Android smartphones have exploded in popularity. Which is understandable, a smartphone allows you to WhatsApp your family, check news, and look for work; all while being cheaper than even the cheapest of Chromebooks.
Ironically, when I went was around the time Fox News was debating about the definition of poor Americans.
Yeah, the last I checked, you can find smartphones that'll run all modern apps (bar, maybe, some high-performance games like Genshin Impact) for around $50. In the US, the government will also...
Yeah, the last I checked, you can find smartphones that'll run all modern apps (bar, maybe, some high-performance games like Genshin Impact) for around $50. In the US, the government will also completely subsidize the cost of a reoccurring cell phone plan if you qualify as low-income.
You are of course correct, I was not thinking from that perspective at all. My thoughts were focused on the author and her particular POV as (presumably) a person capable of affording a...
with seemingly little regard to the consequences or plans on how to help those who are going to get excluded by these plans.
You are of course correct, I was not thinking from that perspective at all. My thoughts were focused on the author and her particular POV as (presumably) a person capable of affording a smartphone, but unwilling to do so. I also find myself in a very privileged position where because of family who work for a major phone carrier, I get a phone plan so cheap that I literally don't even think about it, and forget that other people do have to consider it.
I think you're right there's a much more important discussion to be had surrounding having “places where the possession of a smart device is assumed” in a world were such devices are not affordable to everyone that needs to access that place or those services. Can you share more info/links about the changes to the NYC subway?
Sorry, couldn’t tell from mobile if I replied to you or myself. Here is an old post about requiring internet access. I think my comment is the top comment and the whole thread goes into it a bit...
Sorry, couldn’t tell from mobile if I replied to you or myself. Here is an old post about requiring internet access. I think my comment is the top comment and the whole thread goes into it a bit more and has some sources. That’s probably the easiest place to start. I’ll try to find something newer once I’m home.
I agree - and I think this should be enshrined in law, in the sense that users should be able to fully control the functionality of the devices they own. We have already seen that Apple and Google...
However this sidesteps one of the key nuances, which is that owning a smartphone doesn't mean you have to use all of it's features and all of it's apps.
I agree - and I think this should be enshrined in law, in the sense that users should be able to fully control the functionality of the devices they own. We have already seen that Apple and Google are both moving in the direction of giving people less control over how they interact with their handhelds, and I think that has the potential to be disastrous.
Telling a true addict to just silence notifications is like telling a smoker "just keep the cigarettes in your pocket". And it's 2021: we're mostly addicted to smartphones.
Telling a true addict to just silence notifications is like telling a smoker "just keep the cigarettes in your pocket". And it's 2021: we're mostly addicted to smartphones.
I'm afraid this is going to come off as condescending, I hope it doesn't. I think I'm in a pretty good place in terms of screen addiction. I use my phone to text and IM my various friend groups,...
I'm afraid this is going to come off as condescending, I hope it doesn't.
I think I'm in a pretty good place in terms of screen addiction. I use my phone to text and IM my various friend groups, but I have removed myself from Facebook, never really participated in Twitter, and never installed IG or TicTok. Having opt'd out of those areas alone I think has been really healthy for me personally. I still engage, but there are clear boundaries around how much and when. Slack notifications from work are suppressed outside of work hours, and I ignore email (both personal and work) until I choose to engage with it instead of immediately.
So I share all of this not to try and prove how superior I am, but because I think we're all trying to work through this evolving landscape together. I'm definitely not the ideal example everyone should model themselves after, I doomscrolled just as hard as everyone else during the pandemic and 2020 election. However the boundaries I've managed to establish give me hope that there are solutions to these problems, and I hope we can find our collective way through them eventually.
It's going to take all of us working together and helping each other out to enable us all to develop more healthy habits around screens, social media, and the rest.
I have either removed myself or never used any of those you listed. Screen addiction is still a problem. Sometimes, if you really crave something, the only solution is not having it around. That...
I have either removed myself or never used any of those you listed. Screen addiction is still a problem. Sometimes, if you really crave something, the only solution is not having it around. That is why you won't find any chocolat at my house. I just can't deal with it. That is specially hard for the neuroatypical. Self-control will only take you so far.
I used to go outside without a smartphone all the time. It was liberating. Then they invented ride sharing apps, and I just couldn't go without it. I am now completely addicted. The other day I...
I used to go outside without a smartphone all the time. It was liberating. Then they invented ride sharing apps, and I just couldn't go without it. I am now completely addicted.
The other day I went to a restaurant that didn't have a paper menu, just a QR code (a first for me). I almost left on the spot, but my friend convinced me to stay. Food was not even that good.
I will say that the lack of a paper menu has become a lot more common during the pandemic. But I've never been to a restaurant that had the QR code and just flat out didn't have a printed menu....
I will say that the lack of a paper menu has become a lot more common during the pandemic. But I've never been to a restaurant that had the QR code and just flat out didn't have a printed menu. They've always had paper ones available when asked.
In the U.S., it might actually be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to not provide an alternative to a smartphone based menu (i.e., what if someone can't use a smartphone due to their disability?).
Some number of months into the pandemic was the first time I had encountered the QR menu system. It was at a local brewery, and I immediately liked it. Now the waitstaff don't have to walk around...
Some number of months into the pandemic was the first time I had encountered the QR menu system. It was at a local brewery, and I immediately liked it. Now the waitstaff don't have to walk around and check on you constantly, you just order something any time you feel like it and it comes to your table with minimal disruption. That friend who arrives a few minutes late can just order whenever they feel like it, etc and so on.
That does have certain advantages! However, what really bothers me is that the smartphone was the only available option. And, at that restaurant, you actually ordered the regular way, you just...
That does have certain advantages! However, what really bothers me is that the smartphone was the only available option. And, at that restaurant, you actually ordered the regular way, you just looked at your screen instead of paper.
Given the option, I would gladly order on the counter, no need for waiters to keep an eye on me.
Making a rational choice about what's cheap and easy for you isn't an addiction, I don't think. I don't mean to nitpick, but "smartphone addiction" is something I have yet to see any real evidence...
addicted
Making a rational choice about what's cheap and easy for you isn't an addiction, I don't think. I don't mean to nitpick, but "smartphone addiction" is something I have yet to see any real evidence for, and as someone who lost her dad to alcoholism it kind of grinds my gears.
The other day I went to a restaurant that didn't have a paper menu, just a QR code (a first for me).
Did you ask for a paper menu? It's pretty common around here to have a QR code on the table, but for the waitstaff to give you a menu if you ask. But I agree, this is annoying to me for much the same reason that I don't like to go to "cashless" shops.
Up front, your feelings are valid and I can understand where you are coming from. Losing someone or seeing someone hurt because of addiction is incredibly difficult and I can definitely understand...
Up front, your feelings are valid and I can understand where you are coming from. Losing someone or seeing someone hurt because of addiction is incredibly difficult and I can definitely understand why if you don’t see evidence for screen addiction being real why this would be upsetting to you.
I don’t want to publicly go into all of the details of my addiction, suffice to say there are a lot of things I am banned from getting from doctors and a number of things that cannot be in my apartment. If someone wants more details, you can DM me but I don’t particularly want to blast that out into the world at this current moment. Maybe another time I will feel comfortable with that. The way my phone makes me feel is the same as those things. The little scratch that never ends in the back of my head telling me to pick up my phone. The way I panic if I don’t know where my phone is. The extreme discomfort I feel if I don’t know where my phone is even in my own home. The ways I find myself causally picking it up mindlessly and spending hours on it when I only plan to spend seconds and the way that and all of the other things negatively impact my day, my ability to keep up with my chores, my work, and my social life. The way all my attempts to block apps, to turn my screen black-and-white, forcing myself to put it out of sight, all of them fail because as soon as my phone doesn’t satisfy the itch, that voice in my head will start screaming and my mind will fixate on it until I go change them back. Shit, texting and driving has nearly killed me and I’m STILL unable to fully keep myself from texting and driving. Obviously I’m just one person, and I have a mental illness that makes me prone to addiction, but I would be very unsurprised if there already is or is going to be scientific papers on phone/screen addiction.
Yes I asked for a paper menu. There was none. As far I know the concept of addiction includes addictive behavior such as gambling and sex. Obviously an alcohol addiction is not the same as a...
Yes I asked for a paper menu. There was none.
As far I know the concept of addiction includes addictive behavior such as gambling and sex. Obviously an alcohol addiction is not the same as a gambling addiction or even a cocaine addiction, for that matter.
Ehhhh. At least in the US "sex addiction" usually is a buzzword thrown around by Christian groups that want people to only have sex after marriage. But I do see your point.
sex
Ehhhh. At least in the US "sex addiction" usually is a buzzword thrown around by Christian groups that want people to only have sex after marriage.
I'm currently interviewing for a new job, and I met with the CPO of a company last week who had only a flip phone, no smart phone. Honestly felt a pang of jealousy over it. As someone with carpal...
I'm currently interviewing for a new job, and I met with the CPO of a company last week who had only a flip phone, no smart phone. Honestly felt a pang of jealousy over it. As someone with carpal tunnel, I try to do as much as possible through desktop using my ergo peripherals instead of my phone, but it's unavoidable at times.
This is an interesting article. I firmly believe that we as a society should not require people to use a smartphone until there are good, cheap, privacy respecting phones available - but at the same time, I really dislike the "generationalist" tone of this piece.
For instance, this I completely agree with:
It's how I feel about people who use commercial operating systems and are insistent that I'm just being obstinate when I choose not to.
But, at the same time, there are choice quotes like this:
and:
and:
This article comes so close to criticizing the systems that incentivize every technology manufacturer to make positively detrimental hardware and software, but takes an early exit to completely toothless nostalgia for a day and age in which it was far more difficult to connect outside your geographical area.
I am barely under 40 and agree with a lot of the sentiment regarding not wanting a smartphone. It's a nuisance being bound to a short battery life and being always-on is so distracting.
This is like something out of a parent in 1998. Around then, me any my friends at school grew plenty close communicating via AIM and SMS. Several of us from high school are still close, chatting daily and playing videogames together 20+ years later, despite living generally no less than 2 hours apart.
It's so odd having articles like "These damn immature Millennials" still being written, because so many Millennials are pushing 40. We listen to NPR unironically, I think we have outgrown the videogame+texting "you'll never develop connections" trope.
I think there's also a greater narrative to be told about societal values, internalizations, and how its harmful to judge others simply because they interact with the world in a different way than you do. I'd really love to see that article, because people don't often think about how judgy statements like "What are you trying to prove?" can hurt others, and how they encourage a society lacking in diversity and approaching this through the lens of something with close to no stakes for most is more likely to get people to listen than say judgement statements about gender, ethnicity, politics, or work life balance.
Yeah, I would also love to see that article! However, I'm not sure simply moving away from contentious subjects would be enough; I'm actually quite surprised at the level of vitriol I've received for statements like, "I should be allowed to pay for goods in cash or check if I don't want to use a privacy-violating payment platform."
If you want the transaction to be private, wouldn't it have to be using cash? Checks don't seem very private. (At least, not to the merchant or the bank.)
Indeed. In this particular case I'm mostly thinking of rent, in which case I already have to trust the merchant, and the bank is already not in my threat model. If they were, I could circumvent that somewhat with a certified check or money order.
It's not even not having a smartphone, per se, that's the problem. It's not having a modern and popular one, as I discovered recently. This post is mostly a stream of consciousness rant; you've been warned.
Up until August or so, my main phone was a Nexus 4, which was released about 8 years ago. Unfortunately, the bottom half of the touchscreen died, leaving me unable to unlock it, and all the repair shops around me are quoting ridiculous rates to get it replaced. (I could probably do some fuckery with it, but I don't have the gear for it here.) Between it and me importing a Pixel 5a, I had to use a Windows phone that I otherwise used only as a basic phone and as a hotspot for everything else.
It was a ridiculous challenge.
I encountered a few obstacles that the article author encountered, such as asking a stranger for directions, or having to scan a QR code in order to sign in somewhere, without having a URL provided as a backup. Even if there was a URL, the page that it leads to is Javascript-infested webshit, being unable to load in my phone's browser without taking forever or outright crashing it, as with most websites.
A frequent thing I've heard was "just use the app", or some variation of it. I've had delivery people bitch at me when they forgot to bring a terminal with them, saying "why didn't you just pay using [one of three apps]", followed by me showing them the phone. I've called a taxi service only to be told to use the app because they couldn't figure out where I was, despite me telling them the exact intersection. A potential bank had the nerve to say "you need our app to [do something extremely simple]" and that's overly complicated in the web app.
That's not even counting stuff that is completely out of your reach if you don't have an iPhone or a Google enabled android phone, the "fuck you" tier. Stuff like BLIK, an instant payment service that is run by banks here, only works if you have a bank's phone app, and doesn't even support something like "logging in through the browser to get a code".
The most frustrating case was when I recently went to a developer conference that basically forced you to get an app to do anything. There wasn't anything done outside of the app, you couldn't even see which conferences were when without it; there were no signs posted anywhere with that info. I either had to ask around or just wing it, and even then, people were asking why I didn't just buy a new phone, saying things like "you're a programmer, you can afford it". I almost felt like yelling at them that I shouldn't have to buy an expensive piece of tech just because people failed horribly at thinking of basic use cases.
For what it's worth, this is why I'm against proprietary software being a requirement for anything, especially important infrastructure like banks. They should be required by law to make that accessible easily on any platform, and that would lead them, practically, to making open protocols with actual good security, where people could implement their own clients.
I believe the European Union has this with their PSD2 requirement.
But, I haven't heard much about it in two years, and don't know if it went anywhere or got lost in bureaucracy.
Practically, it's implemented through each bank's proprietary app, though some countries have a national ID which the banks then just use for the verification.
A Pidgin-like program for banks would be amazing.
Hell, ever since Google added root detection features, arbitrary apps will simply refuse to run on a rooted phone. It's nearly enough to make me want to switch to iOS because what's the fucking point anymore, if I'm going to be forced into a walled garden no matter what platform I'm on?
Yeah, that's another pain point. The Android ecosystem isn't in a good place right now. Your choices are either
I legitimately can't tell which is the least frustrating choice.
May I ask what's wrong with Android 12? Both of my Pixel phones are on A12 and it seems to work okay.
Some objective things, a lot of highly subjective and aesthetic things. Reviewers seem to love it, but I legitimately don't think I've hated a software update this much in my life. (Maaaaybe the automatic Windows downgrade from 7 to 8, but it's a very tough call.)
A "quick" version:
I love having my phone set up in a certain way, and for an Android release whose tagline is "designed for you", a lot of functionality surrounding customization has been removed in vanilla A12 compared to vanilla A11. A big point is setting my preferred UI colour and designs. It's been replaced with 4 ugly pastel colours, or basing your UI on your wallpaper and hoping that they're colours that you want. Considering I change(d) my wallpaper relatively frequently but left the UI elements the same, this is surprisingly infuriating for me. One feature that I frequently got used to on A11 in the few weeks I used it was outright removed in A12 (being able to quickly control casted media volume with volume buttons), and another one got heavily nerfed (power button shortcuts), and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more that I haven't noticed, given I didn't use A11 for that long.
On top of the lack of customizability, I absolutely loathe the new UI design choices. It feels like I'm using a Fisher Price phone. Default text is either too massive or too small, and you can't make it bigger or smaller without changing the size of the other problematic text. Buttons are ridiculously round and space-wasting. The information density everywhere seems to have halved itself to make it look "prettier", but then it also hides the wallpaper for no reason, despite it being emphasized so much in the marketing material. I used to like having image variations and that changed a bit when the phone was unlocked, but it's harder to see now with the password entry screen literally blocking the wallpaper when you pull it up, making the effect less pronounced. Same goes for viewing notifications, which for some reason block the wallpaper even if it's empty, leaving you with an ugly blank background.
Battery life seems to be a lot worse. On A11, I could go to work and come home at around 90-95% battery if I don't use the phone much. On A12, I don't think I've seen it higher than 80% when I came home. This is with near-identical settings, and all the same apps.
Weird bugs related to security, such as the phone not locking itself when hitting the power button (yes, Smart Lock is off), or occasionally being able to access previous images taken if going into camera mode without unlocking the phone. (Lots of other bugs, too, but I feel that security bugs are a higher priority.)
And that's just the stuff I know for sure was a change from 11->12. I found many more issues, but I don't know/recall if they were in 11, so I don't want to say it's necessarily 12's fault.
Yeah, those all seems like really legit criticisms. I'm largely against the whole smartphone model for a lot of these reasons - let people configure their shit, goddamn it! - but some of the more egregious issues are likely masked by having a relatively new phone.
Thank you for taking the time to point all of these out - with this in mind I may try to find some ROMs that do better in some of these departments.
I haven't had any experience with A12 yet (waiting on LineageOS official builds), but from the screenshots I've seen, the UI looks atrocious.
If I could go back to the Android 7 look and feel, while keeping the goodies of new versions, I totally would. It's the only version IMO that did Material "right".
Not disagreeing with any of your points, except to add that Magisk (popular rooting tool) supports very nice and effective per-app spoofing, tricking individual apps into believing phone is not rooted.
Not anymore!
Magisk's dev has been hired by Google on Android's security team.
With that, and with Hardware-based SafetyNet being a thing now, Magisk by itself will no longer do any hiding, maybe except removing module changes from a user-controlled list of apps.
There are 3rd party workarounds that still try their best, with doing things like "downgrading" SafetyNet to the non-hardware version and spoofing that, but I personally think those are on their last legs and it only takes Google to flip a switch, to make all this effort worthless.
Aaack! I need ice cream.
That's not what a walled garden is. I agree that root detection is a net negative, but you're still free to install any app you like - it's just that proprietary software is gonna be shitty, as it always is.
I'm not though, there's software that requires root that I'm no longer free to install if I want a fully functional device. It's not the same as classic walled gardens like iOS, but I think it still qualifies. It's just replacing overt barriers with subtle ones.
That's a good point! Personally I get around this by having two phones, but that's not a good solution for most people :/
Can someone tell me why this line is a smartphone? Why wasn't it the modems that gated you to get onto the dial-up internet? The extra phone lines that my family could never afford? The telephone that Ma Bell forced you to use? The telegraphs and long distance telephone calls that my parents paid up the nose to reach their parents for 5 minutes of communication as immigrants to the US? Should we rewind to the combustion engine? Electricity? Gas lighting?
I know it's become en vogue in free software heavy technology circles to decry the smartphone, but this problem isn't new and has been happening in every country around the world since the Industrial Revolution itself. The nostalgia in the article makes it clear how much this is the rationalized packaging of an emotional response. There's an honest discussion to have about the role of technology and society, but this isn't it. Matter of fact, my relatives in a developing country all have affordable access to smartphones and have for a decade or so now, but don't always have access to a computer or a stable at-home internet connection. Being able to voice or video chat my relatives in a different timezone in a different country has been life-changing, especially for my parents for whom modern life in a Western country can often feel disorienting. I remember collecting calling cards in the '90s with the lowest rates to try to eke out just a few more minutes with my relatives, assuming the land lines on their end weren't busted (as the quality of copper in many developing nations was poor and often underwent theft).
I'm guessing most of the folks who decry the smartphone have relatives who live in developed countries with stable access to the internet and before that had high-quality land lines. This wasn't the case for a lot of other folks in the world. Just a thought to keep in mind when evaluating emotional responses to technology.
This take really confuses me. It kinda sounds like you're either saying that free software folks should be okay with surveillance-heavy, highly proprietary handhelds being the norm everywhere, which makes no sense, or that you're saying free software people should be upset about other things too, which we are.
I largely agree with this post, as I think do most people who've posted in this comments section, but I really don't understand this part.
Any good discussion on technology and humanity needs to balance the good of technology against its bad. This thread here (and some I've read in other FOSS spaces) largely focuses on the negatives. Scanning the comments here talk about proprietary software, smartphone addiction, the cost of smartphones (which markets are these?), and how liberating it is to not have a phone. I think my comment is the first about the benefits of the smartphone.
The fact is, the smartphone has done a lot of good in the world. Yes, most smartphones today have proprietary software and firmware in them. That's still a concern in a much higher portion of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs than most of humanity lives in. To ignore this and thus ignore the benefits of proprietary technology and how it enables innovation, yet simultaneously locks in incumbents and removes the choice of users, is to offer a very biased picture of innovation. In other words it feels very non-representative of my own and my family's relationship with the smartphone and thus I suspect many others.
Another issue I have with the critique as a whole is that, democratizing technologies like the smartphone and home appliances are usually a lot more useless to the global rich than the global middle class and the global poor. A King in antiquity would have had no need for a dishwasher, proprietary or not, because he would have been able to have an entire staff of dish washers washing his dishes. Likewise, an upper-middle class Western resident lived their lives just fine with a robust, well-connected POTS phone network, and probably initially only saw marginal use from the smartphone. The global poor, those who were the King's dishwashers, or those like my family who barely had access to a POTS phone network at all, benefit much more from these technologies.
The impact of technology on humanity is complicated. IMO, articles like this do it a disservice.
We definitely agree there.
However I submit that people are allowed to be generally happy with a technology existing and still criticize its implementation. No?
I mean sure, but I'd broadly prefer a more nuanced take on the whole matter. These are the kind of responses I'd expect from a Reddit thread titled "DAE hate Smartphones??" or "DAE Zoomers??" not on a site about purportedly high levels of discussion. I think concerns about smartphone addiction and dopamine hits are real, but the level of pessimism in this thread seriously does not reflect the reality of this issue. It feels echo-chambery to me. Someone even made an insinuation that smartphone usage violates the rights of the disabled!
This feels deeply unfair to me. You mention the important use cases of smartphones in broadening communications, and then act like nobody else has even acknowledged it; yet, in my comment, which is currently the top comment, I concluded with:
@Liru's top level comment isn't about "smartphones bad" at all; rather, it's an anecdote about how software vendors fail their customers in certain situations.
@Lou's is specifically about another transformative technology, possible only because of handhelds.
As @cfabbro says, I think you are being unfair to the Tildes members in this thread. It's good and right to call for "nuanced discussion" and look out for high levels of pessimism, but I just don't see that on display in this thread.
Speaking only for myself, I find handhelds extremely useful. I think Android and iOS have, in very different ways, made certain kinds of computing much more accessible, and have enabled a lot of positive economic developments, in addition to making informal communication across endless distances almost effortless.
Given the emphasis you place on nuance, however, it's concerning to me that you don't see the major problems that the modern ultra-centralized, ultra-proprietary smartphone market facilitates. I don't say this as an ideological statement, but because of concrete problems that the lack of transparency creates for activists, rideshare/ODD drivers, and many others.
The overwhelming tone of this thread is anti-smartphone, with a a sentence or two near the end of some posts acknowledging that smartphones help connect others. In fact the goal of my post was to explicitly take the general tone of the thread and flip it; to write mostly about the positives of the smartphone and leave a sentence or two about the caveats, much like the other posts are largely negative about the smartphone while acknowledging its connectivity. I don't find this unfair. The thread makes it feel like smartphones are 90% negative and 10% positive where I'm pretty sure polling a broader audience would find a very different ratio.
Do I need to hold myself to a higher standard in order to make this criticism? I simply flipped the prevailing tone of the thread around; 90% positive, 10% negative. If I do need to hold a rebuttal to a higher standard, then discussions by necessity will place more of a burden on those rebutting over those agreeing with everyone else in a thread. This is where my above comment about the echo-chamber came in.
I don't feel comfortable rebutting these points because I would be discussing others' comments in a thread not involving the other person.
That is really not the case. Smartphones are great and extremely popular. Praising smartphones is like arguing that water is a good way to get hydrated. True, but obvious to the point that it doesn't need to be stated. So you talk about the other side, the one that's not so obvious. Did you know that you can die if you drink too much water? Now that's (kinda) interesting!
Smartphones won. They're the air that we breath. They need no defense.
Apple and Samsung can take a beating.
I don't find this perspective conducive to high quality discussion. That sounds more like venting to me.
Just using some rhetoric to stress a point, mah dude! Logic without rhetoric is like cereal without milk: You can eat that way, but that's no way to live...
I guess I don't understand what argument it is you think you're rebuffing here. Nobody in this thread, or even the author of the article, is saying "smartphones are bad and we, as a society, should stop using them." I, at least, am only arguing that it should be an option not to use a smartphone, like I believe it should be an option not to own a car (I don't) or not to eat meat. I firmly believe nobody should be required to own a smartphone, and that we shouldn't assume everyone has one - but that in no way means I think people shouldn't own them or shouldn't be allowed to own them. Does that distinction make sense?
Right so I'm asking why is that line a smartphone or a car and why is it not electricity or gas lighting? Having society support niche usecases is expensive, so allocating social resources to support these niche usecases needs to be discussed. My comment is just that the level of this discussion is closer to axe-grinding than an actual discussion on the pros and cons of making the smartphone an optional way to interact with the world.
Because those are provided by highly regulated monopolies or directly by the government, at least everywhere I've ever lived. If I'm required to be a customer of some company, they need to be basically a government department, not Google. I feel the same about ISPs, by the way.
Fair enough, but you also haven't brought forward any cons of making smartphones optional - you've been talking about what makes them useful to individuals. Which is fine, but you're contradicting yourself.
Aha that actually makes a lot of sense. I disagree, but I think we could make a good follow-up thread about that. But I can work with this! It makes me understand your viewpoint a lot better.
Fair enough. I could go into more detail.
In one of your first comments in this thread you mentioned only "scanning" the comments here, and I would highly suggest that you go back and actually give everything a proper read before criticizing them. Because IMO you are completely misrepresenting what some people here have actually been saying.
E.g. Nobody insinuated "smartphone usage violates the rights of the disabled!", they specifically said:
[In reply to someone else mentioning a restaurant they recently went to that had no regular menus available anymore, only a QR code one, which requires a smartphone with internet in order to access.]
Smartphone "usage" is not what violates the rights of the disabled. In that specific situation, it's the exclusive requirement to have/use one in order to access a basic service, which potentially violates their rights, since that is not currently possible for everyone due to certain disabilities preventing them from doing so. And it's also a matter of basic discrimination too, since not everyone can afford a smartphone with internet access either.
Sure, but a discussion about the rights of the disabled should also include voices from those with vision impairments who can use their smartphone now to magnify a menu or voice read their menu, no? I'm not sure how comfortable I feel having the ADA referenced to make the case for smartphones hurting the rights of the disabled without actually having disabled voices in this discussion. There is also the fact that QR code menus as a whole only became more common due to the unprecedented COVID pandemic and was a hurried attempt by businesses to make diners more comfortable with dining out during the pandemic.
As I mentioned in earlier comments, smartphones are hardly the only thing that falls into this category. The US also has had the Lifeline Program in order to address issues related with income inequality and phone/broadband communication.
I think it's all fine, but there is one word that will cut through many arguments, a simple word that makes an enormous difference: "mandatory".
This isn't unique to smartphones. Electricity is mandatory to interact with the rest of society. In many societies, so is some form of powered vehicle. Banking is mandatory in many societies. The ability to read and write is also mandatory in most societies. That's why I was asking why the line is the smartphone. It feels like the author and participants in this thread dislike the smartphone which is why the smartphone is the point up for dispute. Folks here like electricity, so it's not up for debate.
Isn't that the case that some things should be mandatory, while others don't?
Can you make the case why that shouldn't be smartphones and but should be electricity? Why that should be banking and it shouldn't be smartphones? I'm very willing to make the case that the smartphone is worth its problems and that its problems can be fixed over time. Moreover, can you get others to agree with that?
I don't have any case to make that is better than the others made on this thread and in the article.
Then I'm going to have to refer back to the bit I wrote about the global middle class and the global poor, and about how the smartphone has connected my family. I'm sorry people in this thread have had negative experiences. But the plural of anecdote isn't data. Lots of people have had negative experiences to lots of things.
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand and deeply empathize with the author's fears around being sucked into all the apps and social media and screen-fixating dopamine loops. It's a legitimate problem that we as a society are still wrestling with and probably will be for decades. Social media, doomscrolling, microtransactions, etc are all dangerous and affecting the mental health of everyone not just the younger age groups. Modern technology's ability to rapidly iterate and innovate has vastly outstripped the ability of government entities to regulate and guide it, and it may never catch up in any meaningful way. So it is up to us individually (at least for now) to try and figure out what is healthy, what isn't healthy, and what tradeoffs are worth making between convenience and privacy,
The particular line in the sand that the author has drawn though, seems misplaced. By drawing the line around the smartphone itself, she has categorically excluded all the abilities that such a device enables. Which is where she finds herself encountering the most friction when engaging in a society where the possession of a smart device is assumed.
We could have a long and probably very interesting debate on if a smartphone taken holistically is a net positive for an individual person. However this sidesteps one of the key nuances, which is that owning a smartphone doesn't mean you have to use all of it's features and all of it's apps. If you choose too, you can be just as obstinate about how you interact with the world while also having a phone for the things you deem critical. You can lockout social media on your own device, block certain websites you want to make sure you don't want to ever visit, etc. You can set lockout timers and silence notifications, uninstall things you find toxic, and so on. There are options about how to engage with smart devices beyond just "yes/no".
Having a smartphone as the cost of existing in society means you need to have $300-1000 up front (or overpay for a monthly plan if you can’t afford the buy-out) plus the more expensive phone plans to have data if you want to exist in society. For example: the upcoming NYC subway plans (unless they have changed them in the last few months). These aren’t inconveniences, they’re ways you’re barred from being a member of society.
Edit: to clarify, this is in response to
To point out that we are rapidly increasing “places where the possession of a smart device is assumed” to services needed to survive/contribute to society with seemingly little regard to the consequences or plans on how to help those who are going to get excluded by these plans.
Maybe my line of thinking is off, but this cost seems high. When I was in Paraguay in 2017, one of our side projects was constructing basic houses for the poor. The people for whom we were building lacked running water and their existing dwellings were built from trash and scraps. One thing they did have? Smartphones, albeit with a relatively limited data plan. Apparently the Chinese have driven the cost down so much that their Android smartphones have exploded in popularity. Which is understandable, a smartphone allows you to WhatsApp your family, check news, and look for work; all while being cheaper than even the cheapest of Chromebooks.
Ironically, when I went was around the time Fox News was debating about the definition of poor Americans.
Yeah, the last I checked, you can find smartphones that'll run all modern apps (bar, maybe, some high-performance games like Genshin Impact) for around $50. In the US, the government will also completely subsidize the cost of a reoccurring cell phone plan if you qualify as low-income.
You are of course correct, I was not thinking from that perspective at all. My thoughts were focused on the author and her particular POV as (presumably) a person capable of affording a smartphone, but unwilling to do so. I also find myself in a very privileged position where because of family who work for a major phone carrier, I get a phone plan so cheap that I literally don't even think about it, and forget that other people do have to consider it.
I think you're right there's a much more important discussion to be had surrounding having “places where the possession of a smart device is assumed” in a world were such devices are not affordable to everyone that needs to access that place or those services. Can you share more info/links about the changes to the NYC subway?
Sorry, couldn’t tell from mobile if I replied to you or myself. Here is an old post about requiring internet access. I think my comment is the top comment and the whole thread goes into it a bit more and has some sources. That’s probably the easiest place to start. I’ll try to find something newer once I’m home.
I agree - and I think this should be enshrined in law, in the sense that users should be able to fully control the functionality of the devices they own. We have already seen that Apple and Google are both moving in the direction of giving people less control over how they interact with their handhelds, and I think that has the potential to be disastrous.
Telling a true addict to just silence notifications is like telling a smoker "just keep the cigarettes in your pocket". And it's 2021: we're mostly addicted to smartphones.
I'm afraid this is going to come off as condescending, I hope it doesn't.
I think I'm in a pretty good place in terms of screen addiction. I use my phone to text and IM my various friend groups, but I have removed myself from Facebook, never really participated in Twitter, and never installed IG or TicTok. Having opt'd out of those areas alone I think has been really healthy for me personally. I still engage, but there are clear boundaries around how much and when. Slack notifications from work are suppressed outside of work hours, and I ignore email (both personal and work) until I choose to engage with it instead of immediately.
So I share all of this not to try and prove how superior I am, but because I think we're all trying to work through this evolving landscape together. I'm definitely not the ideal example everyone should model themselves after, I doomscrolled just as hard as everyone else during the pandemic and 2020 election. However the boundaries I've managed to establish give me hope that there are solutions to these problems, and I hope we can find our collective way through them eventually.
It's going to take all of us working together and helping each other out to enable us all to develop more healthy habits around screens, social media, and the rest.
I have either removed myself or never used any of those you listed. Screen addiction is still a problem. Sometimes, if you really crave something, the only solution is not having it around. That is why you won't find any chocolat at my house. I just can't deal with it. That is specially hard for the neuroatypical. Self-control will only take you so far.
I used to go outside without a smartphone all the time. It was liberating. Then they invented ride sharing apps, and I just couldn't go without it. I am now completely addicted.
The other day I went to a restaurant that didn't have a paper menu, just a QR code (a first for me). I almost left on the spot, but my friend convinced me to stay. Food was not even that good.
I will say that the lack of a paper menu has become a lot more common during the pandemic. But I've never been to a restaurant that had the QR code and just flat out didn't have a printed menu. They've always had paper ones available when asked.
In the U.S., it might actually be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to not provide an alternative to a smartphone based menu (i.e., what if someone can't use a smartphone due to their disability?).
I asked the waiter what would happen if we didn't have a smartphone at all. He told me I would use his smartphone instead.
Some number of months into the pandemic was the first time I had encountered the QR menu system. It was at a local brewery, and I immediately liked it. Now the waitstaff don't have to walk around and check on you constantly, you just order something any time you feel like it and it comes to your table with minimal disruption. That friend who arrives a few minutes late can just order whenever they feel like it, etc and so on.
That does have certain advantages! However, what really bothers me is that the smartphone was the only available option. And, at that restaurant, you actually ordered the regular way, you just looked at your screen instead of paper.
Given the option, I would gladly order on the counter, no need for waiters to keep an eye on me.
Making a rational choice about what's cheap and easy for you isn't an addiction, I don't think. I don't mean to nitpick, but "smartphone addiction" is something I have yet to see any real evidence for, and as someone who lost her dad to alcoholism it kind of grinds my gears.
Did you ask for a paper menu? It's pretty common around here to have a QR code on the table, but for the waitstaff to give you a menu if you ask. But I agree, this is annoying to me for much the same reason that I don't like to go to "cashless" shops.
Up front, your feelings are valid and I can understand where you are coming from. Losing someone or seeing someone hurt because of addiction is incredibly difficult and I can definitely understand why if you don’t see evidence for screen addiction being real why this would be upsetting to you.
I don’t want to publicly go into all of the details of my addiction, suffice to say there are a lot of things I am banned from getting from doctors and a number of things that cannot be in my apartment. If someone wants more details, you can DM me but I don’t particularly want to blast that out into the world at this current moment. Maybe another time I will feel comfortable with that. The way my phone makes me feel is the same as those things. The little scratch that never ends in the back of my head telling me to pick up my phone. The way I panic if I don’t know where my phone is. The extreme discomfort I feel if I don’t know where my phone is even in my own home. The ways I find myself causally picking it up mindlessly and spending hours on it when I only plan to spend seconds and the way that and all of the other things negatively impact my day, my ability to keep up with my chores, my work, and my social life. The way all my attempts to block apps, to turn my screen black-and-white, forcing myself to put it out of sight, all of them fail because as soon as my phone doesn’t satisfy the itch, that voice in my head will start screaming and my mind will fixate on it until I go change them back. Shit, texting and driving has nearly killed me and I’m STILL unable to fully keep myself from texting and driving. Obviously I’m just one person, and I have a mental illness that makes me prone to addiction, but I would be very unsurprised if there already is or is going to be scientific papers on phone/screen addiction.
Yes I asked for a paper menu. There was none.
As far I know the concept of addiction includes addictive behavior such as gambling and sex. Obviously an alcohol addiction is not the same as a gambling addiction or even a cocaine addiction, for that matter.
Ehhhh. At least in the US "sex addiction" usually is a buzzword thrown around by Christian groups that want people to only have sex after marriage.
But I do see your point.
I'm currently interviewing for a new job, and I met with the CPO of a company last week who had only a flip phone, no smart phone. Honestly felt a pang of jealousy over it. As someone with carpal tunnel, I try to do as much as possible through desktop using my ergo peripherals instead of my phone, but it's unavoidable at times.