Hacker News Reader

Comment by Grombobulous | Hacker News Reader

Last two sentences of your first paragraph are definitely not the sort of thing I was trying to say is okay.

I also don’t think some of the conveniences I talked about have much of a cost. My kids having a cell phone with basic phone and texting capability isn’t a digital sovereignty issue.

And I’m not sure if digital sovereignty matters if the alternative is digital abstinence.

That’s like saying “When you buy a Toyota Camry your life is beholden to Toyota, you should just walk to your destination.” The trade-off isn’t really even, is it?

View on HN

Car dependency is an excellent parallel. People buy cars on the promise that they should expect freedom of movement, but then they arrange their lives so they can only go where roads have been paved, and arrive where buildings have been demolished for parking lots. They become financially dependent on oil extraction in the Middle East. They become incapable of getting anywhere alone when they lose the ability to drive, due to ailments or age.

So why do we do it? Because we can't imagine living without the convenience of our phones.

And similar to a phone, I don’t usually think that the answer is to just not own one at all.

I’m all for reducing trips and being more mindful about car dependency but I’m not personally going to sell my car because I can afford it and it makes my life better.

Are you imagining a modern society that developed without cars as being more of a burden to live in, or are you imagining the current society, developed with cars, as being more of a burden to live in when just getting rid of cars? Because yeah, getting rid of a car is going to make most people's lives harder. That's kind of what makes it a dependency.

> My kids having a cell phone with basic phone and texting capability isn’t a digital sovereignty issue.

Of course it is, the first version of Twitter was a texting platform. You can't draw some line and say that this is the end of the baggage that comes with this convenience because that is not how the world works. The inevitability of social pressure means "keeping up with the Joneses" so your kids need to communicate with others, not just you.

Just because it doesn't come in the form of an app doesn't mean it is safe or come without risks.

Telecoms (calling and texting) are literally regulated utilities. I’m confused at where the baggage is.

I’m failing to see how Twitter is relevant.

I’m failing to see the “keeping up with the Joneses” factor here. I am talking about basic cellular service not a $1,000 iPhone loaded up with brain rot apps.

> literally regulated utilities.

Regulated in what way that is relevant to the concern about digital sovereignty or privacy?

> I’m failing to see how Twitter is relevant.

My point is that voice and text ONLY (dumb phones) isn't some significant change from apps in terms of the concerns I am raising.

> I am talking about basic cellular service

If you and your children can maintain that situation, great, it doesn't change that society has NOT accepted that. That society sees you as unusual for not conforming. Which is the entire point of my argument. The pressure to conform doesn't yield because of a single person's choice and many use the arguments you are using to maintain their children's access to a $1,000 iPhone loaded up with brain rot apps.

I gotta be honest I don’t care enough about this subject enough to keep going lol

I am really just not in any pickle and don’t lose sleep over any of this. That was my original entire point is that sometimes it’s acceptable to allow things to be convenient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com