Homeless people get free smartphones and free service in the US. Living in very rural areas is in fact a lifestyle choice. Not all choices need to be subsidized.
Interesting choice of vocabulary.
You could decide not to serve people without also describing them as freeloaders in order to feel morally righteous about your choice.
I think the discussion is less around "subsidizing" them and more why requiring a cellphone with 2FA to exist and do basic things is kinda stupid.
You were the one introducing this vocabulary (as well as claiming everyone living there does it by choice). Now you try to move the debate again with people "demanding" stuff. None of this vocabulary or framing exists in the original article, or in mine.
Let me clarify the question: why do you insist on framing this debate in a way that makes a moral claim about people's character?
Recently former homeless person here. The Republicans in Congress refused to renew the Lifeline program in 2023 and the replacement is objectively worse in every single way.
> Not all choices need to be subsidized.
Ah yes, being homeless, a choice. I hope it never happens to you.
I must be imagining the farms that I pass in the mountains in the middle of nowhere when I go backpacking. Surely your argument isn't, "My farm was here, so it's impossible for other farms to be in different locales"?
>I once...
My phrasing did not suggest "one time" (the phrase was "I pass", suggesting regularity), and it's not just one single farm, it's a few, and I've passed them many times. I have to agree with someone else[1] about your using vocabulary that others haven't introduced - I question whether or not a good faith discussion can be had because of that. Have a good one!