I hate this trend with a passion.
Digital can make a lot things easier, but frankly speaking for a majority of those use cases a mobile website will do just fine as well.
My bank is digital only and doesn't have any local branches. That works for me and is fine. It's not like I'm switching banks every few weeks. They still have an all phone line access as well though. You can call people round the clock to do transfers, get your balance, etc. Even my analog grandmother has her bank account with them.
On the other hand, you have restaurants and other businesses that just over do it. There is a restaurant around my work place that I went to once or twice a month. Nothing special but fair prices and good lunch menus. Then they went all digital. Want a menu? Scan this barcode. Want to order? Create an account and place you order with your table number. Want to pay? You can click pay on your phone and enter your details.
Don't have a phone? Totally sorry, we don't have any printed back-ups and our servers don't have any card terminals anymore anyway.
> He does own a smartphone – an Apple iPhone he bought secondhand about three years ago – but says: “I don’t use apps at all. I don’t download them for security reasons.”
Yes and?
He makes a choice and he is being penalized for it. Presumably the benefits for him outweigh the costs. For Richard Stallman they do.
There is no innate human right to grocery store coupons or private parking lots.
I have to install an app to communicate with my child's state-sponsored daycare. I'll have to install an app to communicate with the teachers at his future school. Is this still fine?
It'd be one thing, if it were just apps. But all of these apps are essentially just containers for some web application.
Do you get access to the web application without the app? No.
So what's the point of the apps? So they can send you notifications and annoy you with irrelevant updates concerning other groups at the same daycare all day long, because they don't care to filter?
Here in Sweden, it took me about 5 months but I was able to get the school to send me info by email. They switched to an app-only system, and I have no smartphone.
Setting aside any issues related to privacy or US corporate control over my life, I'm one of the people who doesn't use a smartphone because the temptation to be online, at the drop of the hat, is too much to resist.
I compare it to being like someone who needs to lose weight, so keeps all chocolate out of the house, while everyone seems to expect me to have a luscious bar of high quality chocolate with me all the time, just sitting there, begging me to eat it.
There is an ongoing debate about smartphones at school, and the addiction and distraction they can be for kids. I think my strongest argument is that the addiction and distraction don't simply disappear for adults, and there was no way they were going to force me to get a smartphone.
I don't think that would work for those with a smartphone, but it's a crack keeping an alternative open.
In January our city switched from a web portal to an app-only system.
Last fall I was working on getting a username+password access to the portal, since the students and teachers don't need BankID to log in. I was using my son's login to read the weekly newsletters.
At the time I warned our skolnämnden that I would not be getting a smartphone. They switched to app-only, making it impossible for me to get info or let the school know about absences or late arrive.
It took talking with the teachers, with fritids, and the principal to work out an email-based option.
Thank you for pointing this out. However, it seems that HN crowd really doesn't like this kind of viewpoint. "If you cannot do everything without a smart phone, that's the society's fault, not yours.", as echoed by comments under my (also downvoted) comment.
Many people here seem to have trouble understanding how the world works. If all you do is complain (which will change nothing) instead of adapt, good luck with your miserable life.
Because it's dismissive, sophomoric, and can be applied to literally anything you might complain about - eg "If you don't like how the 'HN crowd' votes, then stop coming here". In reality, Exit is not the only option.
It could have been explained better, but there are lots of reasons to prefer paper over digital and websites over apps. Apps can collect very invasive information, often unnecessarily (my Fuji camera app requires that I enable fine-grained location information in order to open the app at all).
"Security reasons" might be standing in for an inexpressible distaste about being tracked, even if nothing specifically bad is likely to result from it.
We really got to get away from this vibe that other people's underbelly feelings aren't valid unless they can back them up with seventy scientific articles. It doesn't matter whether this "moron" has a good or a bad reason to not want apps. Apps make him feel insecure, so he doesn't want them. Why can't that be enough?
The general attitude of companies that make apps doesn't help. No wonder he feels insecure, even if he can't articulate the specific reason in every case.
Yes, only paranoid morons would doubt the security of random apps, when they, and smartphones in general, have such a stellar security and privacy record.
That's like saying the tyranny of credit cards prevents me from enjoying discounts in some venues. Or that the tyranny of educational system prevents me from working as a doctor.
No, I don't like installing apps for every stupid parking lot or restaurant. But calling it "tyranny" is clickbait and bad journalism. I pay more for my sons bus pass because I don't want him to have a smartphone.
That's a choice I made. My solution isn't to make everyone else pay more because the same discount can't be given without a smartphone. I see why businesses would want to reward me when I let them send me push notifications. Again, not even remotely tyranny. If anything this is tyranny of bad writing.
If the app is required - which has happened already (eg. bank apps, car charging) or could happen in the future - then I think it's reasonable to call this bad. Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news.
It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?
We require computers today for many things. Why not force websites to provide phone service with exactly the same pricing. Guess what the effect will be? Higher prices.
The same is true with apps, some things make no financial sense without them.
If the pen collected location information continuously and sent it to a insecure cloud endpoint, and sent me spammy notifications every day, then probably I would.
It's not always your choice. In my country, you're basically cut off from banking services if you don't own a smartphone. I lived without one for years and had to give in a couple of years ago (second hand but perfectly usable — thanks to LineageOS).
The pain was self-inflicted in my case, but some people simply don't have money for one (as there are lots of people living on 200-250 USD per month or even less — they have nothing left at the end of the month).
If any banking whatsoever then sure, this is a problem like cashless society. But if it's from a set of specific banks that makes sense. I use a smartphone only bank and pay lower costs as a result. That makes sense.
I guess you're right ultimately, if there's choice. But the alternatives get more expensive. Basically all kinds of businesses have figured out they can get us to sell our privacy in return for a relatively cheaper product - and as this becomes the norm, it no longer even seems to be cheaper, it's just that resisting selling your privacy gets more expensive.
Sure, but that's a different debate. You can see why it would be in the interest of the business for you to install that app and why it would be worth enough for a discount.
We're giving them something that provides value and saves on costs.
If the pen was somehow of financial benefit to the bank, and I didn't benefit, and they won't let me use a different pen, I'd still resent it. No, I don't want to jump through a hoop to make your business some extra money.
Or, think of Stephen Hawking, able to communicate but unable to operate a pen in the later part of his life. Wouldn't you complain if he had been unable to control his bank account because he couldn't use a pen?
The relevant Uniform Commercial Code has a wider definition of what counts as a signature than using a pen, § 3-401, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 .
Accessibility is a great point. In that regard apps often exceed pens in their accessibility support and laws such as the ADA require organizations like banks to comply with accessibility regulation.
Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them, such a caretaker could use the app for them in such a case.
Better yet. A person who is bedridden or incapacitated could use an app from the convenience of their own home instead of physically going to a bank. A blind person could avoid the walk to a distant location. It's a mixed bag in terms of accessibility.
> Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them
You should likely be more careful about how your use of "disabled person" as I'm sure you know most disabled people do not have caretakers.
Also, the link I gave says 'agent or representative' - a caretaker is not necessarily either of those.
My point is that, yes, I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen - and so would you, it seems.
So why is it okay to complain about forcing everyone to use a pen, but not okay to complain about forcing everyone to use an app, especially when we know there are people who will not use a smartphone including, for example, religious reasons. There is a market for "kosher phones" which don't let you install apps, or even have no internet support at all.
You're right, accessibility and disability are large and complex subjects with a huge gradient of issues/conditions/situations.
One of the banks I use requires an app since it's an online only bank. I pay lower rates as a result. Does this bar some people from using that bank?
Yes. But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. Would it make sense to require that bank to offer branches, phone access etc?
No. Because then it won't be as cheap. Should the regulator make sure banks that provide "full service" exist?
Yes.
I didn't say it's not OK to complain. In fact I gave a personal example in which I chose not to use an app for my sons public transport and as a result am consciously paying more. I did say that:
* Calling it tyranny is nonsense and bad journalism. The entire article is hyperbole and just silly.
* Cheaper pricing and app specific features make sense and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
* I think it's reasonable to requiring an app bad.
* Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news.
You replied "Why?"
Since you and rwmj agree that calling is tyranny is too much, it comes across like the "Why?" refers to the objection to requiring an app.
When you follow that up with "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?", it sure sounds like a statement that you don't think people would complain for an app-only requirement. Otherwise I can't make it make sense.
> But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem.
So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US? Somewhere in a 100 mile radius? When is it a problem, and what could be used to prevent it from getting there? Is 1 mile to the nearest non-app parking space a problem?
Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not.
The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere?
> and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille.
More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.
When I said "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?" I didn't have a problem with complaining. I had a problem with the hyperbole and the fact that this nonsense is on HN. People always complain about everything which is what we do. I'd expect more from something on the front page here. This was a you at HN audience in general.
> So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US?
Not an American but that's generally a tradeoff yes. My main bank closed the branch next to me. They are not app only, that's what they do. That's why we have regulators (sorry Americans) to make sure a level of service exists.
But regulators shouldn't "break the market". I use two banks. One does have branches and I use it for my business accounts. Another is app only and far cheaper. A regulators job is to make sure both have room to exist and compete on a level playing field.
Will that mean branches closing? Maybe. The alternative is more cost to the shareholders/customers.
> Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not.
That's a straw man argument. Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.
I live in a small country. We have 5 banks. If all are forced to have branches everywhere a 6th bank will never form since the cost/time to build up a bank becomes prohibitive. Thus no competition. Indeed we hadn't had a new bank for 50 years or so. Until we allowed an app only bank which gives much better rates.
This isn't different in the states, competition is difficult when the big banks can crash you and the public is afraid to step into a smaller bank. That means you need to build accessible branches to service a community that will never set foot there. You're effectively saying: "make the barrier of entry so high that no competition can happen".
> The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere?
That's fair. You 100% have the "right" to live offline. I agree with that and I'm very much against a cashless society.
But this isn't that. What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age. That's a very different thing from "able". Progress always meant some things went away or became harder to do as a result, this is no different.
> We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
Because having Braille on the elevator or having the elevator say the floor we're on doesn't impact the rest of the population. E.g. when I go to the hospital the elevator waits forever in every floor. That makes sense, disabled and elderly need time to reach the open door.
In my building it is much faster, don't the disabled and elderly deserve this in my building too?
Well, they do. But the tenants in my building don't want to wait every time the elevator stops and have a cascading effect on all the floors due to that delay. We can provide localized solutions by holding the door and helping. It's a tradeoff.
> Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille.
> More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.
Sure. I'm 100% for the "right" to avoid smartphones and apps. I think every public service and infrastructure should be accessible without them.
However, demanding that it would be in the same price and with the same current level of convenience is problematic as it would impact everyone. I think the analogy you gave is great. Braille on elevators should stay forever when we can. They should also speak, accessibility her...
> I had a problem with the hyperbole and the fact that this nonsense is on HN.
As someone without a smartphone, I caution you to be very wary about what specifically you mean by "nonsense". If you only mean "tyranny", that's one thing. If you mean it's not a problem until I live little better than a hermit in the woods is another, unable to have real banking, real health care, real education for any kids, unable to order taxi service, unable to pay for parking, unable to refuel, unable to get packages, and so on ... yeah, no, you need some empathy.
> Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.
Here's my handicap, which I've had therapy about. I'm on the internet too much. When it's accessible, as now when I should be working, I find it almost impossible to avoid the urge to check.
My solution is to not have a smartphone with me, to limit when I can be online. I am about to head to the basement, where the wifi doesn't reach, in order to focus on work.
Would you force a teetotaler to drink? Would you recommend that someone trying to lose weight should carry a bag of peanut butter cups with them all the time?
Here is another handicap: there are people who are electrosenstive, that is, they get headaches or have other problems when they are too close to radio signals, so they do not even carry a cell phone.
Now, I happen to believe that is not based on the physical effects of radio signals, but forcing them to use a smartphone will cause them severe mental distress.
There are still others who suffer from anxiety knowing their every action is being surveilled. When I started with therapy, the doctor asked if I thought the phones were listening to me, to see if I had any signs of schizophrenia. He then realized how that connected to the conversation, so had to rephrase the question, because we both know nearly all apps listen to us, one way or other.
Apps cannot solve these issues because smartphone-based apps and the ecosystem supporting it are the issue.
> What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age.
No, what you asked for was a bank that only supports people who decide to use a smartphone which can connect to the Apple and Google app stores, so that you could pay lower rates.
The benefit is that you profit by their ability to exclude people who are more expensive to maintain. Completely legal, of course, as the freedom to live offline is not (currently, in nearly all jurisdictions) a protected right.
That excludes people like me who are "living online" but who do not have a smartphone, that excludes people who use a PinePhone or other smartphone which doesn't run Android, that excludes people who use an Android phone but have not agreed to the Google Store terms of service, as zevv did at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140223 .
And don't forget that one of the reasons we are more expensive to maintain is that you are more profitable for them. Banks can send you ads directly, and know you've read them. McD's can use personalized ads based on your buying habits to induce you to buy more and overeat. And of course many apps have in-app advertising, which cannot be blocked. Uber made $1 billion last year from in-app ads.
Is surveillance capitalism required for the modern age?
> Slowing the elevators for the elderly (of which there are quite a lot) is problematic and probably not what most of us want.
The newer elevators around here, at least the one in government-owned buildings, solve that issue with a flip seat.
Do you consider “going to your GP” a minor area of life, on par with rewards programs? Because if you can only pay for parking or buy bus tickets with an app, I’m not sure how most people get to their GP.
Agree, the article's prime example is also that ppl cannot get LIDL loyalty discounts, which to me seems a bit tame too commonplace for the "tyranny" word choice.
All of the council car parks in my local town now expect you to use a parking app to pay. They removed cash devices and the recent BT switch-off of 3G clobbered the credit card devices
Paying for parking that way was never very successful. Machines often failed to work even before apps. Apart from the inherent discrimination more people probably pay successfully now.
For example, he cannot access his bank account via his desktop anymore.
He have to go to his agency in person.
Well we all did that for years so it's just annoying, because he still have the possibility to do it and it's his choice.
But what will happen if all the brick and mortar close ? When will it be mandatory to get a smartphone for his bank app, just to have access to his money ?
> If you want to do stuff at a physical bank you pay fees for everything
This hasn't been my experience at all in the US. If you need something in-person, going to the bank is the best option since they don't charge fees like a random ATM does.
i can't access any of my online accounts without a phone. one at least still does simple sms, so it doesn't require a smartphone, but it requires a phone nonetheless. the other requires an app. the problem is that this is a trend. more and more banks switch to requiring apps. if we don't fight the trend, then all banks will do it. switching banks now does not work because the new bank does not know that this is the reason you switched, and the old bank is also unlikely to track this detail.
You're getting downvoted, but here in a populated but not very interesting part of Pennsylvania there must be 15 different banks or credit unions with brick & mortar offices within 10 miles. I lament that not everyone has this degree of choice, but it's not a fantasy.
There may be an online-only bank somewhere in the USA that's app-only, but I wouldn't know. Every bank I've ever encountered has a very functional web site.
We have an app only bank in Canada called WealthSimple, but hardly the only choice.
The problem here seems to be that people want the free accounts and low fees of app only banks, but still want the costly things they got rid of that make those possible like branches.
The solution is that banks should support any TOTP client for authentication and not just their proprietary app. So you can use open source software or a hardware key.
But they won't. HN is quite good at suggesting a lot of genuinely intelligent and valid potential technical solutions, but most banks won't even think about supporting TOTP broadly. They'll lean into smartphones and apps because this is where the bast majority of their customers are. In this case the 'tyranny' is the overwhelming preference of other people. The masses have spoken, and they want everything to be on their phones.
Also because ticking boxes. You just provide an app that fulfills all the silly security requirements for banking apps and then if something goes wrong, the customer has the burden of proving it's the banks fault.
I've had my banking app installed on an old Samsung phone running lineageos. I only powered it on when I had to do online banking. At some point I needed to update the app and they started checking for rooted devices, so it wouldn't work anymore. Now I've installed it on a much newer android device that I also use for a lot of other crap and sketchy stuff I don't want on my main phone. Also it's powered on all the time. Whether that's really more secure than what I did before is questionable.
Maybe not for you, but rooted phones are a legitimate risk for users that do sideload pirated games and malware etc. I still think the risks are arbitrary, but I can understand why banks want to avoid rooted phones
Then they should also avoid rooted Windows machines where malware is a legitimate risk and orders of magnitude more prevalent than on mobile. Doing one but not the other is arbitrary and just pushes people towards having a locked-down device that they don't fully control with them all the time (can't uninstall tracking software from the vendor, for example). A locked-down computer that just sits in your office all day would be less worrisome
I had a couple of such TOTP clients from different banks. For approving an operation, both of them required me to sign the amount of money transferred by that operation (i.e. they generated a one-time code that depended on a hash of the amount of money), so no confusions were possible.
The ING has a small Android based single-purpose authenticator device they offer to customers without smartphones. It can scan the QR code and do the auth.
Not sure what you mean. There are numerous online banks that can operate country wide, and surely there is at least one of them that offer web banking without requiring an app?
I rather get the impression that the market doesn't always work like economists would like it to work. But do we really need competing banks just for the basic stuff like processing payments? It seems plausible that it's a good idea to have multiple competing banks for the more complex services but perhaps the basic processing of payments could be handled by the government, which already has the monopoly of providing the currency in the first place. Just a thought. Free markets are a tool, not a religion, right?
Some people might insist that a government monopoly would be worse but here in the UK I've noticed that government web sites are usually less crap than web sites created by the private sector.
Good news is we are already hitting upper limits of how many people we can reach via apps/smartphone/internet.
Limits that in the past 2 decades (of scaling) the people who built these Platforms didn't have to think about. Now they do. And they are coming under serious pressure because they have built out more Supply than there is Demand.
For example, we got the explosive growth of Netflix. Everyone sees that and piles into streaming. When growth slows in one country they immediately move into another and they keep growing until they run out of countries to expand into. So Netflix has been in India (a country advertised as having zillions of consumers) for nearly 10 years now but they haven't found more than 25 million paying subscribers. Learning takes time. And everyone is learning there are limits to growth based purely on the online model.
While I agree with your overarching point re:saturation,
> haven't found more than 25 million subscribers
There is a metric ton of demand for steaming services in India.. just that amazon prime and hotstar.com took most of the market. Most of this is due to pricing:
Prime: 999 INR/year
Netflix: 650 INR/month
Recently they've tried segmenting.. by packaging a single-device 720p-only plan along with the telecom plans, and I'd bet that's the majority of their customer base today since people get it for free. They also have a deal with samsung and other companies that make mid-range phones which most people in india own to have netflix pre-installed. So this + the telecom plans is the way they count them as users.
To be fair, amazon packages theirs with the 1-day delivery service on amazon.in, so it's a bit of an unfair advantage there. But even if you compare with hotstar, they charge 1499/year, which is about 1/6th of netflix's price.
Again to be fair, live cricket streaming is _huge_ here, and people get hotstar for that anyways, so a bit of an unfair advantage again.
Even twitch managed to make price cuts here. I bet netflix can as well. I doubt regional content production is actually a problem for somebody like netflix.
At least in germany, there are both traditional banks with offices and online-only banks and one of the reasons given for the fact that traditional banks have worse conditions (less interest, sometimes monthly charges for even having an account etc.) is that they hvae to pay the offices somehow.
That's a huge jump from "no smartphone" to "off the grid."
I prefer using laptops and I prefer doing my banking on my laptop. I'm online a lot. I do have a smartphone, usually an older one, for calls, messaging, playing music and taking photos. I even have an old Samsung tablet, for reading ebooks.
It should be possible to do your banking from a laptop.
I just don't want apps on my phone, because they will track me, I don't like using apps on the phone in general, and banking apps in particular because the bank wants to control what I can and can't do with my own phone. Want a rooted phone? No banking for you.
I have a smartphone. However I choose to use a mobile OS that is neither Android nor iOS, why should I get penalized that banks don't invest in applications for my OS too?
It’s business. Should a steakhouse be required to have vegan offerings? If that’s not what their customers want, then why would they invest hundreds of thousands on building and maintaining an app that maybe five people would use?
When businesses provide essential services (like banking) I feel like they should be held to the same standards as government services. Not that some governments don't treat users without Android or iOS as third class citizens.
So, to clarify, there are banks that have their full business value accessible only through mobile, and as a person needing banking but doesn't have access to mobile, I can make an informed decision and not be their customer. But when I create a bank account in a physical office, and then the office gets closed in favour of an alegedly much more accessible mobile application, I feel like there should be some measure protecting me from that. Do you find that unreasonable?
They do not have to build an app. They could build a mobile website that is accessible from almost any computing platform.
For something so core and critical to society (banking), I don’t think it’s reasonable to leave it up to the private sector and say “well, if some people get left behind—ho hum, thems the breaks”
If we’re talking about a florist, then sure. The market wants what it wants and if you’re not in the majority it kinda sucks. Not great, but probably not a place for government intervention. Banking, though? There should be accessibility guidelines and standards, absolutely.
"Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?"
To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles. This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
Think twice, the obvious solution doesn't always turn out to be the most optimal one.
So are many other political and philosophical ideas—essentially any field involving ethics is fraught with perils and consensus is never fully reached.
Just because unanimity is never achieved in respect of some philosophical idea doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration and or it's never put into practice. Utilitarianism has been the subject of much study and debate and it's been widely practiced over several hundred years.
I'm well aware of the debates over utilitarianism and its ethics, any why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do. That ought to have been obvious by my use of the word 'consensuses'.
BTW, I could have made the same argument from a different philosophical perspective but the previous commentator specifically invited a utilitarian-type response by the words he used. That said, no matter what philosophical argument I'd have used someone would have found fault with it.
My main point still stands, which is that obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones. Note, I've deliberately not used the word 'best' for the above reasons.
You could just as easily have cited Aristotle or Augustine or Aquinas or any other philosopher who wrote an ethics. The previous commentator didn't invite a utilitarian-type response. He implicitly posed a question about the justification for the ordering of goods in society. Nothing about that statement is definitively answered (or even satisfyingly questioned) by big-U Utilitarianism.
Since you appear to enjoy a little bit of philosophical discussion, let's break down what you ackshually said:
> To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles.
The "beginning" of ethics hardly begins with Bentham or Mill or even the Enlightenment. Utility is quite a modern concept in ethics. The question of what is "the good" is presupposed in any system of value. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is perhaps one of the more perverse interpretations of human good on record.
> This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
The majority of modern states and cities were most emphatically NOT "founded" on utilitarian models. Most states predate any notion of such post-hoc rationalizations. Cities were largely founded as commercial centers along trade routes or ports, or sometimes intentionally as colonies. States were largely the results of conquest by militarized groups that were certainly NOT utilitarian. Quite the contrary. In the bronze age, they would have simply been warrior bands centered around family/tribal bonds and vassal/suzerainty relationships founded on violence. By the time of the great early empires around the Mediterranean, formal structures of militarism and class privileges won through violence were the organizing forms of society, not "give-and-take" consensus gathering (unless you mean one group giving up the fight and the other either enslaving them or killing them outright).
Maybe you could have argued they are founded on something like Hobbesian social contract theory (certainly not Rousseau's version) but that, too, would suffer from being simply "not true in fact."
The main point that "obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones" suffers from being trivial, condescending, and a non sequitur. The commenter didn't offer a solution as such, but raised the obvious question of why they should have to pay for someone else's choices. Utilitarianism is the worst of all philosophical answers because it entails the most absurdities.
Point proven, your comment just confirms what I said earlier:
…an(d) why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do.
I'm aware of those issues and omissions for brevity's sake. Also, I would point out that what I said was a passing comment on HN and not meant for a paper in a learned philosophical journal.
BTW, in case you didn't notice, I never mentioned whether I was for or against utilitarianism specifically because discussion about it inevitability ends in arguments that usually remain unresolved. That it was just an example ought to have been obvious.
It would be informative to compare the syllabus content at your philosophy school versus that of mine.
My philosophy school was a library card. Am I presuming too much by your handle that you are a lover of the higher mathematics? Although I think it would be hard to derive a workable ethics from number theory, I believe it has been tried. Descartes and Spinoza metaphysics come to mind, but Plato's number magic is probably a more entertaining place to start.
As you say, not relevant to you, but do you think mathematicians generally have some kind of affinity for Utilitarian ethics?
In general (there are exceptions) most adhere to the broader set of consequentialism of which utilitarianism is one form of.
A number would say that ethics and morality are subjective and not objective and thus an attempt to apply a utilitarian metric or measure of "good" along with a (partial?) ordering such as "greatest good" is a doomed endeavour.
Few would deny that from this, that would follow (for some specific values of this 'n that).
There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes it's one's best tutor.
I'm not a mathematician but I've studied mathematics in conjunction with my bread-and-butter subjects science and engineering. It's thus fair to say the analytical philosophers and their ilk have had a strong influence on my thinking—Frege, Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, and G.E. Moore—I can even see my copy of Principia Ethica on the bookshelf on the other side of the room from where I'm sitting.
(BTW, In my world I cannot see any relevant connection between number theory (as mathematicians understand it) and ethics.)
The analytical strand of philosophy is particularly significant for me as formal logic has a direct bearing on some of my technical work (they're closely related). It also led to me electing to take HPS.
Philosophy is a remarkably broad church and its analytical strand is only one section, and in no way do I consider myself pigeonholed to just one or two of its strands; Being and Nothingness, The Social Contract, Leviathan, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (the) Republic are just a few titles from the large compulsory corpus from which I was trained.
I will not delve further into utilitarianism given what I've already said except to say I have neither the talent of Shakespeare nor am I an APL programmer, so it would be impossible for me to present my rather convoluted views on the matter in a short HN post without some part being misinterpreted. To do it linguistic justice and present a watertight case that precisely and accurately explains my view I'd likely require a dozen pages of typed text, and clearly that's not possible on HN.
That's not a copout, it's just fact. Moreover, philosophy taught me long ago that précising and brevity can easily lead to misunderstandings unless one's words are very carefully chosen. I was reminded of that again earlier today when you came on the attack.
Yes, all good. I appreciate what you are saying and I'm sorry to "attack" your comment earlier. I apologize. I'm often writing for the next reader that comes around, aka the audience. Nothing personal. If you made it through Being and Nothingness then you're a better reader than I am. Kudos to you. I did find my philosophical education benefited substantially by reading outside of the syllabus. The great ethical and political books are too often treated as benighted artifacts of history until the Enlightenment, at which point they are often taught as holy writ.
I took your handle as a reference to Hilbert. Was it not? Although it might be difficult to a mind shaped very much by analytic philosophy, I do think there is "value", or at least entertainment value, in esoteric number theory (numerology or number magic) in relation to ethical systems. The ancients took it seriously and they were a lot smarter than I am. There is even a vein of mysticism in Wittgenstein. And what is infinity or the continuum? Very strange places to spend much time. Have driven some mad. Plus it's fun to consider the significance of a number. Often there are esoteric attributes attached to familiar and unfamiliar numbers that will blow your mind. Not just the puzzling oddities involving primes or transposed operations, but relating to ethics and metaphysics. If you really want to tempt madness, read up on some of the ancient Pythagorean or Kabbalah number magic. There be dragons of insanity there.
The big take from philosophy is that irrespective of just about any subject if we're to move forward then it's of paramount importance that proper debate takes place and that each protagonist's arguments and supporting propositions are properly understood.
I use those terms in the philosophical sense as distinct from the nonsensical shouting that we witness all too often on Social Media and elsewhere on the Web. That we often do not listen carefully and take time to analyze what others are saying is the cause of much of the world's ills.
I've always prized debates as I've learned so much from having taken part in them. And It's a great shame that these days formal debating seems to have gone out of fashion.
If one cannot explain or logically support one's propositions during a debate (or when trying to teach a subject) then one doesn't fully understand the matter at hand. What's also important to recognize is that there are times during a debate when a protagonist first becomes aware of fallacies and weaknesses in his/her own case and that realization can occur without his/her opponent being aware of the fact.
It's an interesting phenomenon which I've experienced albeit not for quite some while. Moreover, when I've become aware that I've been wrong under such circumstances then learning turned out to be a sharper and more positive experience than other forms of learning (trouble is that these days there's little opportunity to partake in such debates as few are prepared spend the time to take them seriously).
The reason I mention that scenario here is to show that as I'm a bit of a veteran of such discussions and that I'm used to opponents 'clobbering' me during disagreements. If I were to be offended by such criticisms in philosophical debates then I'd have quit long ago.
However, what I do find disconcerting is when I've not chosen my words carefully enough for whatever reason (usually brevity) and what comes out ends up either sounding wrong or that I'm misinterpreted. My earlier comment would likely fall into that class.
I try to avoid misunderstandings by being prolix, that is I'll restate a point using different phraseology but at times even that doesn't work. I'm often surprised how some readers even misinterpret the most straightforward of statements. [Note: I'm not referring to you in the following.] And that just happened yesterday with another of my comments when someone deliberately misquoted what I said. Clearly hide has no bounds when one's actual words are deliberately misquoted just below what one has actually written. I'm curious about the logic that underpins such strange thinking.
(I suppose one shouldn't be a bit surprised these days when the leader of the free world sets quintessential examples for all to follow. By uttering blatant and outrageous lies with a deadpan expression that'd put masters of the art like Buster Keaton to shame then it's little wonder that many are bound to emulate his practice.)
I'm unaware of any correlation between the large decline in the study of liberal arts subjects in recent decades and many of the antics we're witness in politics these days but I'd not be surprised by one iota if something of note were to be found.
Philosophy often comes under that wing which implies that fewer people are studying the subject (well, at lest so on a per capita basis), and I'd posit that's not an ideal situation by any stretch. I'd suggest that skills that philosophy teaches such as the ability to help people think logically and to examine issues from multiple perspectives and to do so from factual evidence are in very short supply at a time when the world desperately needs them.
We need aeridite people who can speak with authority on important world affairs such as Russell and the remarkable historian A.J.P. Taylor used to do, they had the ability to mesmerize just abou...
Ah metaphysics, can't live with it, can't live without it. I wish I had the depth to join you in a meaningful discussion of abstract geometry but I'm a dilettante when it comes to philosophical math. Instead, I'll only offer a couple of parting observations on until next we meet in the comments section. I'm perhaps in the minority on HN when it comes to how I perceive our political moment. Recent comments I made on the topic will give an idea of my positions, if you care to know them. I like to think they are non-obvious and somewhat well-defended. My philosophical interests are mostly in political philosophy and somewhat in ethics and metaphysics, of necessity. I respectfully disagree with the interpretation that Socrates "demolished" Thrasymachus's arguments. He was a bit of a paper tiger in the dialogue. For my money, Callicles is the dark horse of that section of Republic and Plato doesn't really have a satisfying rebuttal for him. I think philosophy is valuable but it seems relatively easy to run up against epistemological walls in analytic philosophy (or any school, really). Wittgenstein's gnomic turn in the Philosophical Investigations is an example. "About that which we cannot speak, thereof must we remain silent."
Relatedly, the "saying" you referenced is actually a slight misquote from Shakespeare's Hamlet that changes the meaning significantly. It comes from a scene where Hamlet is rejecting his schoolmate Horatio's dependence on naturalist/rationalist explanations for the supernatural appearance of old King Hamlet's ghost. Significantly, they were both students in philosophy! The complete quote is "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
As time is running out to post here there are few points I wish to mention.
Your last reply left some issues dangling and it's clear my comments have left you with an inaccurate view about my position about several matters. Note the problem mainly rests with me for shortcutting explanations, also forums such as HN make it difficult to put complex arguments let alone have them resolve cleanly.
Second thoughts made me post this late comment. Earlier, just after your post, I made three separate attempts at replying but aborted them because of their excessive length. Each time I had to shorten what could easily pass as a multipart blog and before it was finished it'd become clear it was too long and would have bombed out if I'd tried to post it—and that's after I'd deleted the largest part which was about mathematics† and its relationship to/overlap with philosophy. (Editing comment so that it's difficult to misinterpret its contents and still keep it short and succinct is difficult—at least it is for me.)
You're probably asking why I would commit so much effort to reply to a comment. There are many reasons and I can't mention them all but I've extracted and précised a few from the longer draft. Perhaps the most significant reason is that whenever I've made a general comment that lacks detail or references there are always those who either misinterpret the message or use its limitations to lever their contrary position.
There's nothing wrong with protagonists leveraging their propositions but in any discussion it makes sense to put one's points as clear and as succinctly as possible. With mathematics and science/technology putting one's case is comparatively straightforward as equations and accepted facts (scientific evidence/the scientific method) provide a solid framework from which to state one's case. In physics, whilst opinions often differ wildly and despite controversies such as the relevance of the Scientific Method and Popper's Falsifiability/Refutability rage on, consensus is often reached even if it takes decades. There comes the realization the properties of nature are immutable, Nature doesn't give a damn about physicists' opinions. Physicists can't argue when Nature says m(e) = ~9.10938371393×10^−31 kg. In the end it's no-contest, Nature's position always wins out.
On the orher hand, things are rather different with philosophy for multiple reasons. With philosophy a wide and diverse range of opinions are to be expected due to its inherent nature and structure. In short, philosophical concepts are usually founded on earlier frameworks which of themselves have no universally-accepted 'truths'. Moreover, with philosophy, linguistics, semantics and even its epistemological underpinnings—the theory of knowledge—continue to be subject of argument. In Principia Ethica G.E. Moore questions the foundations of ethics. One can't put a measure on "good", similarly, one can't explain or convey a sense of "yellow" to someone who's been blind from birth. In his books Language, Truth, and Logic and The Problem of Knowledge A. J. Ayer continues in a similar vein to the effect that sentences about ethics and ethical constructs are more emotional than propositional.
And these issues are still being debated. Simply, if one can't anchor and measure a "notion" or "concept" then one's pretty well stuffed to define it as an axiom. That's not to say we should give up worrying about ethics, as you'd know we don't. You'd also note that arguments about these matters get very messy.
It's clear my roots are anchored in the analytical tradition. And from what you've mentioned, the factors that have shaped your philosophical views are based more on metaphysical lines, thus I doubt you and I would ever fully agr...
It's important for me to stress that I make a clear distinction between the way I comment on HN where I usually take a more flexible position and present a less dogmatic view than I would in a paper or technical report (or when partaking in a formal debate) where structure, accuracy, presentation and demeanor of the written word or what's said are important. Here, gravitas also matters.
Again, that brings me back to the other point you raised about about Book-I of The Republic and why I said what I did. First, the subject matter—that of justice—is important and it needs highlighting. Second, very few on HN are interested in the fine minutiae (points of argument) in the Socrates/Thrasymachus debate) let alone why a person who conducts a modern analysis of Book-I would likely come to different conclusions to those of Plato's contemporaries (clearly philosophical thought has developed and matured over the intervening two millennia, so too the way we analyze and document philosophical concepts).
In a strict reading of Book-I I'd essentially agree with you but there's just too much to discuss to detail it here, although I'd mention that Socrates (Plato) doesn't give a proper definition of justice and admits to being not able to do so. To my mind, Socrates takes a similar position with Justice that's somewhat akin to the well-known quote about porn "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it". Your point about Callicles and justice is well taken, between his and other writings by Plato and others we are nevertheless able to gleen a much more nuanced view of what Ancient Greeks thought about Justice.
My view is we should focus the public's attention on the noble aspects of what Plato was trying to achieve in Book-I and not the points that are only of interest to philosophers and logicians. And I reckon that's damn easy—almost everyone can understand that Justice isn't Thrasymachus' notion of every man for himself and that Justice serve a much bigger more noble purpose. (Similarly, other philosophical concepts must be understood to before they're useful. The public has no difficulty in understanding the concept the greatest good for the greatest number but it couldn't give a damn about the minutiae of utilitarian theory. So let's use it.)
I'd contend the sentiment, import and values expressed by Plato in Book-I are essentially timeless; with some concessions to differences in societal/cultural norms and such, a modern reader's understanding and take on Plato's intention wouldn't be that different to that held by Ancient Athenians. This is what actually matters, and it's why I emphasize it over the minutiae.
I'd back that assertion by virtue of the enormous influence and sway that Greek philosophy still has on Western thought. That this is still true is really quite remarkable given the intervening two millennia. More to point, the reason why The Republic has endured for around 2400 years and that it's still a key document in the philosophical corpus is because across those millennia many have considered what Plato says is important enough to ensure its preservation.
That doesn't necessarily mean everybody agrees with Plato, nor that everything he says is accurate and or logical by modern standards. Nor do we consider or accept the political framework in which the work was written was above reproach, in Ancient Athens slavery was a given, nowadays—at least for most of us—it's an abomination.
On the matter of disagreement, I'd refer you to Karl Popper's work The Open Society and its Enemies—Volume I Plato wherein he indicts Plato on multiple accounts. The Book's title alone tells us of Popper's distaste for Plato's political philosophy.
But put all that aside for a moment, The Republic, especially Book-I, is a sheer delight to read. ...
> "should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?”
Yes! There are many things you cannot do without a physical bank location. It is worth paying[1] something to have them. I used to use an online-only bank, but I realized I wanted to be able to walk into a branch at times, so I switched to a new bank.
[1] “Paying” can mean a variety of things, including lower interest rates on savings accounts, for example.
What are those mythical actions that can't be done outside of a physical location? How many of them are things you do ~once in a lifetime, like getting a mortgage?
The PIN thing can be done online at both of my banks.
As for the cash stuff, those are things you may need to do if you’re a shopkeeper, but I can’t imagine a reason why I would do that myself. Banks over here will sometimes charge fees for changing cash.
in the US $2 bills are an icebreaker. There's still a lot of people that don't believe they're real. I also used them as incentives for my kids to go above and beyond with their communal chores. The quarters thing i haven't done personally but i was adjacent to for a club, it was for a game in a booth at an event.
banks here don't charge, as one of their expected roles is to change money in the US.
At least for me, the problem is not the closing of the brick-and-mortar branches, though that has happened near me, because for the last 25 years I have used those only seldom, preferring on-line banking.
What annoys me now is the closing of the on-line banking Web sites, which could be used easily and without any problem from any computer or smartphone, and their replacement with apps, which may force you not only to have a smartphone but also to be a customer of Apple or Google, because some banks refuse to provide their Android apps otherwise than through the Google app store.
How is this different though. Infrastructure costs money. Apps are the new hotness. The same "well, I don't use it so whatever" you bring is what it seems like the online banking folks are saying to the brick and mortar people.
Has anyone looked at the world lately and thought "hey maybe all these apps aren't the greatest idea"? Amazon, Shein, Temu, AliExpress have all but made history just visiting a mall and browsing.
I know Walmart loved the pandemic, too, because all the mom and pop stores that survived the first 20 years of amazon couldn't survive the local and state and federal government interfering with their commerce.
JoAnns is closing hundreds of stores. This whole subject is on my mind a lot lately.
What I'm stating below is my general understanding of this subject, If I'm wrong and if you i.e the reader have investigated sufficiently on the subject let me know.
>Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid
While they don't penalize you, they do make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to go completely off grid. Try putting up your own 'grid', which in IMO should include your own monetary system, and not having to pay taxes.
In the UK loads of bank branches have closed. They've opened up "hubs" which are a joke, some are open only have weekend opening hours of Saturday morning and you usually have to travel to a different town to get to it.
I had some hilariously degenerate experiences with this recently. There are basic services that branches won't provide at all anymore like cashing cheques, which can be annoying in some circumstance. But the real dumb one was being blocked from taking a certain action in the online banking with a message like "present yourself with 2 forms of government ID at a local branch". OK. Fine. Drive there, wait in line, blah blah blah. The teller looks at me like I'm crazy when I say that online banking sent me there. They figure it out, do the KYC process, unblock me and I say great now can you do the thing I was trying to do before all this? "No, you must use online banking for that."
Related issue: how every website seems to migrate to some smartphone-optimized version that looks like a mobile app blown up to a bigger screen that works much worse on desktop. Hall of Shame: Twitter, Facebook, even Vanguard.
What's even more confusing/frustrating is that, despite being developed with very elaborate, mature frameworks, they still lack basic UI accommodations, like making clickable elements detectable by add-ons, or allowing you to open up a detail view in a new tab.
I get if Joe Shmoe's cobbled-together app forgets some things, but why wouldn't stuff like that be rolled in as a default, with all the development hours applied to it?
My bank is developing a new version of their online banking solution. They've decided to model in on their app, which I refuse to use because it's absolutely garbage. So now I have a online banking platform that can't do copy/paste on, hides much of the relevant information and is generally much harder to use than the old version.
I've provide feedback on multiple occasions, but I don't have high hopes for them to fix anything. If I where running a business and to use the site every day I'd be pissed and threatening to move my business else where.
My bank used to provide you with a small TOTP device the size of a usb key. Sadly they eventually deprecated it and recently dismissed it entirely in favor of their increadibly slow app.
While I have a smartphone, I choose to not have a Google account.
One of the banks that I am using has terminated its on-line banking service, which I had been using for almost 20 years, replacing it with an app.
That would not have been a problem if they would have provided the app themselves on their Web site, but they refuse to do this and they provide the app only in the Google on-line store, which I cannot use because I do not have a Google account, despite the fact that the app is free.
Therefore I have reduced a lot the number of operations that I do through that bank, redirecting them to another bank, which still has on-line banking on their Web site. Fortunately, for now the bank that has closed their on-line banking Web site still keeps an SMS service, which allows me e.g. to check the balance of my account from my phone and which notifies me about the transactions on my credit card.
Many years ago, I have closed all my accounts at a bank that has annoyed me by updating their on-line banking Web site so that it no longer accepted any browsers except Microsoft Internet Explorer. At that time I have hoped that it will be the last time when I leave a bank because they believe that they can force their customers to also be customers of unrelated third parties, but now this problem with Google has appeared.
I am not a US citizen and the bank is not from USA. I doubt that it can be legal for a bank here in Europe to condition their services by their customer becoming the customer of a foreign entity that is Google. However I cannot afford to waste time and money to determine the legality of their actions.
I was not aware of it, so when I will have time I will experiment with it, to see if it works for downloading the app I need when logging in anonymously.
> But what will happen if all the brick and mortar close ?
Hello, it's me from the future, reporting live from Germany. My bank is online only and to talk to a person, I need to call the hotline and wait (I shit you not) 20~25 minutes for the PIN input prompt to repeat itself once too many times and time out, handing me off to a very confused human who is wondering how I'm speaking to them unauthenticated (they're very suspicious and will not answer most questions; it's a pretty useless party trick). Alternatively, you can have the answering machine send you an authentication code by snail mail which you can then use once in the next few days to call them one time
I put up with it because the other bank account I applied for rejected me for not being creditworthy (never had a debt in my life, but also no loan, so there is no credit data and apparently that's suspicious; on the other hand, students get accounts there with no problem, so maybe it's a combination of no credit data and age? Or not having citizenship? They're not saying of course, I can only assume it's an illegal reason because why else not say it). The other bank card I own from a neighboring country isn't accepted in most supermarkets, I'd need to bring cash into the country or pay extra for using an ATM abroad. Single European Market is really lovely, you should try it
I use my phone primarily for messaging. In fact, I often forget and have the Anti-Distraction mode turned on, so I only get important comms but no app notifications.
SIDENOTE
People need to chill out with the word "tyranny". It's like saying that you are being "assaulted" by a different opinion, or claiming that ordinary platform moderation is "censorship". You are not being terrorized, assaulted, or censored.
There are people in the world who are truly subjected to those things, and you have NO idea what that's actually like.
I think you're in a very small minority if you think that someone using the phrase "tyranny of notifications" is implying they live under a dictatorial regime. Most people just understand the hyperbole.
Scary things make people pay attention and click the links. I loathe the casual use of the term “lynching” by people in the public eye but same rules apply, using exaggerated, scary words to sell your weak point. Not saying I agree with it, but it’s marketing and journalism.
I agree on two points in your sidenote. The first is that online moderation is rarely, if ever, "censorship". The second thing is that the majority of us have no idea what it's actually like being terrorized or assaulted.
That said, words can take on different meanings depending on context. We can only imagine the tyranny of being a prisoner of war but we can also complain about the tyranny of noise pollution in modern cities; that doesn't mean I think they're equal. I know some people suffer assault domestically but I can also label some perfumes as an assault to the senses; it doesn't lessen the gravity of the former. And yes, Calvin, you are allowed to think your household is a den of censorship and oppression (https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....).
My problem with gatekeeping words is that it is performative. We can indeed chill out on using these words save for their most extreme interpretations but it doesn't really help anyone suffering from these things and just makes language less colorful for the rest of us. And, once more, nor does their usage dismiss the extent of any of these situations because you don't need to be a genius to know that words can have subtle changes in meaning depending on context.
In my country the same reason is used to make things more expensive and give contracts via nepotism to allow for "alternative use without apps" to companies to make the whole thing through SMS or physical office while making the whole thing expensive for everyone and inefficient.
It is unfair. A close friend of mine has brain damage, is low income, and he can't really use a smart phone. He just has a simple flip phone and it's all he has. It has been isolating for him with working and managing his life.
Tell your friend what good company he is in, as one of many, many of
us, who do not fit a fleeting mythical stereotype. There are hundreds
of reasons why people can not or will not use smartphones. Eyesight.
Dexterity. Poverty. Location tracking by hostiles. Privacy. Poor
memory. Security needs. Environmental concerns...
We should not play the victims. Being without one of those cursed
things is a blessing. We get good mental health. We get focus and
calm. We get a profound sense of freedom, time to think, to create, to
talk to real people, to see the world go by. We learn to enjoy being
bored. We interact with other real people. We willingly pay more for
freedom and privacy.
What we lose is being tied up in pointless abusive machinations of an
already dying "online" culture, one that is over-extended, fragile,
dysfunctional, and we dodge much of the abusive enshitified corporate
hell that every living being now hates.
Please, big-up your friend instead of painting him as a victim.
People are writing this off, but it eventually becomes impossible not to own a smartphone; an expensive device, with an expensive monthly plan, and an absolutely terrible privacy record. Eventually more businesses will require smartphone usage just to use their services. There could even be a time when government services require it.
I think that ends up pretty nuanced. A cheap $50 Android will receive security updates for one year if you're lucky. So now you have a choice between buying a new cheap phone yearly, forgoing security, or being technically savvy enough to put a 3rd party OS on your phone. With regard to privacy, smart phones really don't have options for privacy unless you go with a 3rd party OS. And, if you do so, you might not even be able to run the various apps which the various businesses require. I just don't see this as a valid alternative.
The larger point is that to use the mainstream apps you would buy a smartphone for, you are forced into a contract (or at least to agree to terms of service) with one of two third parties, Apple or Google.
A landline phone is about the cost of a cheap smartphone, and the landline itself costs about as much as the cheapest cell plans.
But you actually don't need either of those. You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet you get, and access to someone's wifi, which is freely available at many coffee shops, or from neighbors.
I still agree you shouldn't need it, especially if you already have a computer. But it's only "expensive" if you choose the higher tiers.
A landline phone doesn't spy on you, and has often better audio quality (unless you're in an area with great cell coverage). And you can also use the mobile network with a "feature phone", like those that were around until smartphones arrived, they're still around.
> But you actually don't need either of those. You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet you get, and access to someone's wifi, which is freely available at many coffee shops, or from neighbors.
The cheapest device you can get will be unusably slow - good luck doing anything out and about without inconveniencing everyone else while you wait for your device to load and pray the app opens in a timely fashion. Oh, that is, if your outdated device can even download and run it.
Access to wifi isn't really as ubiquitous as you make it seem either - what if the business you're needing to use the app for doesn't have wifi? Run down the street to the coffee shop?
Depending on where you live, a smartphone can be bought for 100 bucks and a basic line (voice, messages, 2GB of data) for less than 5 bucks. It's not ideal but it's not a sacrifice anymore.
You can also use wifi. Even free wifi. You can get a very nice used phone with many years of updates for 100 dollars. You can find a worse phone for much less if you really want to.
edit: You can even get a free phone from your community. Possibly a better one than the a53. Most people have a phone or several in a drawer.
If having a smartphone and a cellular plan will become an absolute requirement to partake in the society, carriers certainly are going to hike prices. Here in Finland, cellular plans used to be very cheap, but now the prices have been soaring after the society has become more and more reliant on the phones.
The UK is an incredibly competitive and well-regulated market. If you're in receipt of welfare benefits, you can get a tariff with unlimited 5G data for £12 ($15) per month. If you're a light user, you can get a tariff with a few gigabytes of data for as little as £5 ($6.50) per month.
A cheap but perfectly useable phone costs less than £100 new from a brand like Xiaomi, Motorola or TCL; on any high street, you'll find a shop selling second-hand phones for as little as £30. I cannot think of any object in human history that provides so much utility for so little money.
This is actually something the US does pretty well, actually. The Lifeline Assistance Program (colloquially known as "Obama Phones") gives low income people (basically anyone who qualifies for food stamps) a phone, with calling and internet, at no cost to the individual.
I wouldn't bet on that being around much longer, because for some reason it makes a lot of conservatives absolutely seethe. Many of them convinced themselves poor people were being given the latest luxury model iphone out of taxpayer funds.
Totally true that smartphones are useful. But people can decide they don't want one for many reasons, including not wanting to accept 20-pages-long T&C just to turn them on, and surrendering lots of personal data. If you're a lot into tech stuff, you might go around that by blocking most data collection, but most people don't have the competence for this, or have better things to do with their lives.
if only i was that simple. you will still need to swap it for a newer phone every once in a while when the OS stops being supported, and have to transfer the apps and auth to the new device which is not always straight forward
This has always been the case though. Before the smartphone, it was computers and internet; before that it was landline phone service. Both of the latter were far more expensive than a modern smartphone, so we are actually making progress in reducing barriers to social participation.
Landlines didn't spy on people. Computers and Internet, well, depends on which OS you are on, but there are options that don't. What about smartphones? IMHO that's the big issue, not what they cost.
Before that, government services required phone calls, or fixed addresses to receive mail, or a free public transit program to get people to government buildings. Comparatively, it's a lot easier and cheaper to just give the needy smartphones and data plans. Hence the Lifeline Assistance Program (Obama phones), which does just that.
Somewhat unrelated to the piece, but this is the second website I’ve seen in two days that appears to not have properly merged an edit?
“ The RAC’s head of policy, Simon Williams, says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking. It has been trialled by a number of councils, but a big question mark hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn.
The RAC’s head of policy Simon Williams says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking, and it has been trialled by a number of councils. However, a big question mark now hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn imminently.”
I think the other one was an npr piece posted on HN yesterday? Is there a bug with wordpress or are people just getting sloppy?
Very weird logic. As the article points out, this is an intentional choice for many people. So you shoulder the consequences, that seems fair to me?
I don't currently drive a car, and to be honest, I have anxiety about driving. I could bitch about how US is hostile to people who don't drive, to the point that it's difficult to go to places/get things done, but that's useless. I can 1) move to NYC and never leave the city 2) get a car, work on my anxiety, and start enjoying life or 3) talk to Guardian and complain all day long. 1) is not actually a bad choice, and literally millions of people choose that, but I am working on 2) because that's the sensible thing to do. If I intentionally choose not to drive, not because of a physical disability or not being to afford a car, I bear the consequences.
We all shoulder the consequences of slowly sliding into a society of lock-in and surveillance, which is what unnecessarily requiring smartphones advances. That there are choices along the way doesn't make it fair - if I let you choose which of your fingers I cut off, am I being fair? Wait a few years, and the "choice" will be between living in the woods, and carrying an always-on telescreen with you at all times.
I do drive and the having do download a bunch of parking apps is a pain the arse. And for each one you have to spend five minutes entering your address card number etc.
I didn't own a smartphone until 2022. Now, after three years of carrying this dopamine-slothed brick, I’m ditching it—but first, let’s autopsy the “security” demands forcing ownership.
Peak security theater: banks (at least in Europe) mandate smartphones as “safe,” yet the device itself is the ultimate attack vector.
- 2FA apps? Single point of failure (SIM-jacking, zero-days, bricked phone = locked out of life).
- Biometrics? Your face now lives in a corp database that will get breached.
The irony? A YubiKey was objectively safer: no GPS, mic, or app permissions. But we’ve normalized “security” as surrender to surveillance capitalism. Banks want your data, not hardware tokens.
Smartphones manufacture threats:
- AirTag stalking requires… a smartphone to detect.
- Signal/encrypted chat? Tied to a phone number (→ ID → surveillance graph).
- “Find My Phone” = backdoor with a UX polish.
The system isn’t securing you, it’s securing access to you. Every forced 2FA method is another node to map, monetize, and manipulate.
Not only do I need a smartphone for "everything" in my live.(managing my local gym membership for example)
I also only have the choice between two us companies: Google or Apple.
I had an ubuntu smartphone at some point but it's practically useless.
If I want a appointment with my doctor in Germany living in the same street as I, the Californian Company Google has to be involved for some reason.
I remember the European young folk who had RFID chips implanted in their arms so they could fast track the lines in dance clubs. I wonder how many of those chips are still in arms, today.
I'm not denying smartphone adoption. I'm just giving it 20 years to mature. During which time I can observe it from the outside, and better track dystopian policies that may result from it and slow their progress... by using a desktop computer and advocating for arms-length 'security' solutions, instead of installing apps and losing all control. The opaque app sandbox is just as menacing to the user as to the hypothetical hacker. Currently I'm thinking, why should I EVER decide to use a device for which I cannot easily attain God-Mode? That includes defeating end to end encryption so I can see the plaintext the device uses to communicate. If that itself carries another layer of encryption, I will suspect it to be devious by default, and isn't that rational?
It just seems like Darwin In Action, and my quick adoption would make me the brunt of some cosmic joke. I will never buy a cellphone without an easily removable battery, either. On general principle. Some things are not features, they are curses disguised as features.
It is not even about privacy and safety or freedom of choice really. Besides very soon - in this duopoly you really will not be owning phones or even access to apps would be limited/controlled to more draconian measures than it is today.
Anyways. I took an auto ride few weeks back and an old gentleman picked me up. He did have a tattered smartphone. But he didn't have the UPI app or a QR code (QR is the way here; UPI the instant payment thingie in India). He was not agitated but really looked embarrassed and helpless and told me in broken English he tried a few times but he forgets many kinds of PINs and messes up and his bank account gets blocked and then he has to run around with documents to get it unblocked and then again. I had some cash and I was able to pay him. But it's horrible. There are people for whom cash is the ONLY way. Even going to the bank (or ATM; which anyway is still a difficulty for me) means sometimes half to one day's work gone. Just like that. This has a lot to do with political climate changes. So many people get trampled over without any check and balances because they have the vote without a voice or any real power.
I think a lot of us, and for many of us who tap and pay at a Starbucks as if it's bill there lowest currency denomination in our consciousness, never stop to try and understand this and realise this. This is not merely inconvenience in huge part of this planet - it's a real life pain. I don't think even this article considered such a case/life struggles due to smartphones and everything getting tied to a SIM et cetera.
ok - but despite this well-meaning story.. the answer IMO is still cash; use it, support it, continue it. The alternatives are not stable over time -- not a joke.
Those without smartphones _and_ those who do not wish to install trash on their smartphones, _and_ those who do not wish to use Android (or an Android build blessed by the corporations) or iOS.
I had a tangential experience to this phenomenon lately. I moved continents a few years ago. Eventually I had to switch my Play Store country to where I moved. That restricted my access to certain versions of apps but my downloaded apps continued to function anyway.
Then, a few months ago, I finally bought a new phone. I quickly found out that there was no way I could get this one banking app from my home country on the new phone (other than switching my country setting again, which isn't worth the potential hassle right now). Fortunately, I could still do online banking with on my browser...right?
I try to login to my online banking. They say they will send me an OTP on my registered mobile number. Makes sense, and, thanks to the wonders of roaming, I will be able to receive it. Except...instead of just sending me the actual OTP like any sane platform would do, I had to first confirm that I was, indeed, trying to sign-in to online banking by replying "YES" to their SMS prompt. And due to the wonders of SMS roaming protocol, though I could receive their messages, I simply could not reply to them no matter which gods I invoke.
Security design by committee. I curse the manager who though this was a necessary and valuable addition to the whole OTP scheme.
It's not so much a "convenience tax" as in the article but, I guess, a penalty for moving countries. I have no choice now but simply to just settle this when I go on vacation to my home country. There is probably no convenient resolution to this even when I am in the correct geospace.
PS. I have two banks from home country and I was able to install the other bank's app in my new phone without a hitch. I try to avoid cynicism but this simply has the stink of Managerial Software Engineering Best Practices all over it.
> And at the bakery chain Greggs, you can collect loyalty “stamps” for free food and drink and get “exclusive app-only gifts”. You currently get a free hot drink just for downloading the app.
> McDonald’s is running a high-profile promotion called Deal Drop, where it offers items at “bargain” prices, such as a classic Big Mac for £1.49 (normally £4.99) and a children’s Happy Meal for £1.99 (normally £3.59) – but all of the discounts are available exclusively with the company’s app.
The article paints a painstakingly detailed photo of the UK's app culture, but fails to explain exactly why app users are entitled to such discounts. What exactly is McDonald's doing with your data that is worth a whopping £3.50 Big Mac discount, and more?? Why is the app so important?? I have never found an article that does more than scratch the surface on this topic. Any suggestions?
I think such discounts are not as much because of the data, they're a way to tier your customers, similar to coupons.
That way you both get to take the full price from people whose time is expensive enough that they won't bother with the apps, and also those who wouldn't pay the full price but have enough time to use the apps.
I never eat McD's, but I see the pattern everywhere. If you make between the minimum and average wage in Slovenia and don't own property, you practically can't get by without dedicating 6h per week to grocery shopping in various different 'discount' chains (Lidl, Hofer AKA Aldi Sud, Euro Spin), keeping up with the weekly discount catalogs and using all the app discounts (more recently).
As a user of Greggs and McD (UK) I can maybe offer some insight.
Fairly obviously the discounts are to encourage customer loyalty so you keep going to McD rather than somewhere healthier. Also to get you to come back - if you haven't been for ages they may offer a 99p big mac to get you back in.
As to why apps rather than paper coupons, my closest McD has a typically had group of about 20 people waiting for the 50 items they ordered with new stuff ordered every 30 seconds or so. The last thing the low wage rushed staff need are customers going can you explain this coupon to me an is it valid for extra fries on Friday etc.
I've also seen it explained that it's part of their toolset in extracting maximum "value" from a customer.
Richer customers self-select to pay higher prices without the app as they can't be bothered faffing around to find the digital coupon/deal/whatever combination (you can, of course, only use one of the wide range of deals at a time). Poorer customers will invest the time in finding and using a deal.
They both get the same sandwich, but McD got them to pay different prices for it.
Most forms of direct marketing require unambiguous consent in the UK (likewise for data collection used for direct marketing). Culturally, many Brits are relatively suspicious of authority and will not consent to the use of their data 'just because'. Loyalty apps are a great invention: they give advertisers a direct channel to the consumer, and the consumer a way to receive something of value in exchange for their deliberate engagement.
I think the idea is to get as many people as possible to install and set up the app, so they then have more incentive to become repeat customers. Theyre probably making some loss on new signups and hope to get it back later on.
Market segmentation through user profiling and individualized discounts based on the entire order, making it hard for people to tell if they are being treated "fairly."
Get more people to use McD's app. When they order, give them a personalized coupon giving you a discount. The discount is different for everyone. Use the response rate, plus information about your buying habit (always buys a family-sized order on Fridays) to optimize the discount.
Raise the non-app prices so the people using the app think they got a deal ... while the overall price is on average higher than if McD's had flat rates for everyone.
People tend to think flat rates are more fair when the services are identical, and get pissed off when they find it isn't.
So, what's this story getting unfairly penalized for? It's been bumping around between page and 2 and 3 after it had more than 80 upvotes and not even half the comments; meanwhile there's a story with not even half the votes, that is also older, which is firmly near the top.
I was in a full service restaurant a few months ago, and they were steering everybody to scan a QR code for their menus. Had eaten there several times before and this was new. I demanded a physical menu, even though the waiter said it might be outdated. Wanted a beer, but the drink menus were no more. I stared the waiter down and snapped, "WATER!" You must push back or else they'll think their lazy changes are fine. Maybe next time they'll expect me to bus the table?
App store monopoly hurts us way more than it is talked about. Suddenly, not only we are not to chose which devices to use to access what could be a simple website. Now unrelated third party decides if we have access to it based in, for example, country of residence. Or at all. Apple routine forces censorship on our phones as if it was it's property.
I still believe it was a tragedy that Microsoft folded their attempt into mobile. To explain my level of desperation, I feel our next best hope here is China.
I for one will never ever do any kind of banking or monetary
transaction on a Smart Phone.
As for other apps, I just have a couple of simple games and Firefox, which I only use when in waiting an office for am appointment. So far where I am, it is not an impediment.
I have a big issue with this, and the truth is that the majority of people simply do not care and/or do not understand the implications.
By tying your service to a smartphone your are basically refusing to provide service if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS. If the app doesn't complain about emulation or something different than Android or IOS you are in luck, but that's not the case with most banking apps. And that's only talking about people who don't have it by choice and have money to buy one.
For me, once, it went beyond: I took my first dose of the Covid vaccine, and the second dose's date would still be announced. I asked where it would be available to the nurse, "On the Instagram page of the <local health body>". "But i don't have Instagram" i said, and the nurse shrugged. It requires both a phone and a social media account with your real info, but since absolute nobody complains about it they just do because it's easier.
This will continue as long people are complacent with it. In some places the government is required to provide you services, by law, by any means available and not depending on 3rd party service, but they do require apps anyway and people stay quiet. Phones as an alternative is fine, it's a tool, but should not be an obligatory device for you to be considered an human being.
Sure, I own a smartphone, it runs just plain android but without any google accounts or services because I do not agree to Googles terms of services. I never did, and as an European citizen especially with recent developments I feel that has been the right choice.
The thing is, without google account there is no play store, and without play store I am not able to install the majority of apps - no banking, no parking, and all the other services people complain about in these threads.
This is my choice, and I stick to it. I'm also pretty vocal about it and complain when needed. Doctors office informs me I only can get medicine with the app? Apparently they can make exceptions when you complain, because I'm allowed to get medicine with a simple phone call. My bank tried to force me to use their app, but apparently they still do have an alternative login method when you complain. Sure, I know it's a fight I will lose in the long run, but I enjoy it while it lasts.
> if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS.
Or if Apple or Google arbitrarily decide that they don't like that customer. You don't have to have done something wrong, they can decide that you're likely associated with someone who did.
When people ask for examples, I point to a NYT report of a man in San Francisco whose young son had redness on his penis and complained about it feeling sore. The pediatrician asked for some photos to make a diagnosis online. Google flagged it as child porn and notified the police. The police said it wasn't, but Google declined to restore service.
In India, Google locked an engineer from Gujarat out of his Google
account because it contained explicit content potentially involving
child abuse or exploitation. The engineer believes it's because the
account contain images of him as a child being bathed by his
grandmother.
I use these examples specifically because many in my government want "Chat Control", where snitchware scans messages for child porn and the like, and notifies the police. It will be full of false positives like these, especially if the scanning software continues to be built by puritanical American companies.
Another class is people who the US deems to be a security threat. How long will it be until the US extends its sanctions against the ICC by ordering Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Oracle, and Google to shut down the accounts for the ICC and anyone involved in their genocide investigation, work and personal?
869 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 376 ms ] threadMy bank is digital only and doesn't have any local branches. That works for me and is fine. It's not like I'm switching banks every few weeks. They still have an all phone line access as well though. You can call people round the clock to do transfers, get your balance, etc. Even my analog grandmother has her bank account with them.
On the other hand, you have restaurants and other businesses that just over do it. There is a restaurant around my work place that I went to once or twice a month. Nothing special but fair prices and good lunch menus. Then they went all digital. Want a menu? Scan this barcode. Want to order? Create an account and place you order with your table number. Want to pay? You can click pay on your phone and enter your details. Don't have a phone? Totally sorry, we don't have any printed back-ups and our servers don't have any card terminals anymore anyway.
Yes and?
He makes a choice and he is being penalized for it. Presumably the benefits for him outweigh the costs. For Richard Stallman they do.
There is no innate human right to grocery store coupons or private parking lots.
It'd be one thing, if it were just apps. But all of these apps are essentially just containers for some web application.
Do you get access to the web application without the app? No.
So what's the point of the apps? So they can send you notifications and annoy you with irrelevant updates concerning other groups at the same daycare all day long, because they don't care to filter?
The communication apps are out of control since the teachers seem to have choice in what is required and so changes every year.
My middle schooler needs 3 different apps (and a Chromebook) to check/hand in homework and parents need 2 to receive communication from the teachers.
Setting aside any issues related to privacy or US corporate control over my life, I'm one of the people who doesn't use a smartphone because the temptation to be online, at the drop of the hat, is too much to resist.
I compare it to being like someone who needs to lose weight, so keeps all chocolate out of the house, while everyone seems to expect me to have a luscious bar of high quality chocolate with me all the time, just sitting there, begging me to eat it.
There is an ongoing debate about smartphones at school, and the addiction and distraction they can be for kids. I think my strongest argument is that the addiction and distraction don't simply disappear for adults, and there was no way they were going to force me to get a smartphone.
I don't think that would work for those with a smartphone, but it's a crack keeping an alternative open.
Last fall I was working on getting a username+password access to the portal, since the students and teachers don't need BankID to log in. I was using my son's login to read the weekly newsletters.
At the time I warned our skolnämnden that I would not be getting a smartphone. They switched to app-only, making it impossible for me to get info or let the school know about absences or late arrive.
It took talking with the teachers, with fritids, and the principal to work out an email-based option.
Many people here seem to have trouble understanding how the world works. If all you do is complain (which will change nothing) instead of adapt, good luck with your miserable life.
Complaining on the Internet never does anything. Zero.
We really got to get away from this vibe that other people's underbelly feelings aren't valid unless they can back them up with seventy scientific articles. It doesn't matter whether this "moron" has a good or a bad reason to not want apps. Apps make him feel insecure, so he doesn't want them. Why can't that be enough?
I know that seems like a novel or even totally alien concept nowadays, but that was what people used to do not long ago: own up to their own choices.
No, I don't like installing apps for every stupid parking lot or restaurant. But calling it "tyranny" is clickbait and bad journalism. I pay more for my sons bus pass because I don't want him to have a smartphone.
That's a choice I made. My solution isn't to make everyone else pay more because the same discount can't be given without a smartphone. I see why businesses would want to reward me when I let them send me push notifications. Again, not even remotely tyranny. If anything this is tyranny of bad writing.
It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?
We require computers today for many things. Why not force websites to provide phone service with exactly the same pricing. Guess what the effect will be? Higher prices.
The same is true with apps, some things make no financial sense without them.
Apps give discounts and there is a tradeoff. We can't demand similar benefits without paying the same price.
The pain was self-inflicted in my case, but some people simply don't have money for one (as there are lots of people living on 200-250 USD per month or even less — they have nothing left at the end of the month).
If any banking whatsoever then sure, this is a problem like cashless society. But if it's from a set of specific banks that makes sense. I use a smartphone only bank and pay lower costs as a result. That makes sense.
We're giving them something that provides value and saves on costs.
Eg, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/250d63/was_u... has "We used prints as my partner was dying and lost motor control."
Or, think of Stephen Hawking, able to communicate but unable to operate a pen in the later part of his life. Wouldn't you complain if he had been unable to control his bank account because he couldn't use a pen?
The relevant Uniform Commercial Code has a wider definition of what counts as a signature than using a pen, § 3-401, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 .
Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them, such a caretaker could use the app for them in such a case.
Better yet. A person who is bedridden or incapacitated could use an app from the convenience of their own home instead of physically going to a bank. A blind person could avoid the walk to a distant location. It's a mixed bag in terms of accessibility.
You should likely be more careful about how your use of "disabled person" as I'm sure you know most disabled people do not have caretakers.
Also, the link I gave says 'agent or representative' - a caretaker is not necessarily either of those.
My point is that, yes, I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen - and so would you, it seems.
So why is it okay to complain about forcing everyone to use a pen, but not okay to complain about forcing everyone to use an app, especially when we know there are people who will not use a smartphone including, for example, religious reasons. There is a market for "kosher phones" which don't let you install apps, or even have no internet support at all.
One of the banks I use requires an app since it's an online only bank. I pay lower rates as a result. Does this bar some people from using that bank?
Yes. But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. Would it make sense to require that bank to offer branches, phone access etc?
No. Because then it won't be as cheap. Should the regulator make sure banks that provide "full service" exist?
Yes.
I didn't say it's not OK to complain. In fact I gave a personal example in which I chose not to use an app for my sons public transport and as a result am consciously paying more. I did say that:
* Calling it tyranny is nonsense and bad journalism. The entire article is hyperbole and just silly.
* Cheaper pricing and app specific features make sense and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
* I think it's reasonable to requiring an app bad.
* Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news.
You replied "Why?"
Since you and rwmj agree that calling is tyranny is too much, it comes across like the "Why?" refers to the objection to requiring an app.
When you follow that up with "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?", it sure sounds like a statement that you don't think people would complain for an app-only requirement. Otherwise I can't make it make sense.
> But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem.
So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US? Somewhere in a 100 mile radius? When is it a problem, and what could be used to prevent it from getting there? Is 1 mile to the nearest non-app parking space a problem?
Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not.
The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere?
> and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille.
More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.
> So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US?
Not an American but that's generally a tradeoff yes. My main bank closed the branch next to me. They are not app only, that's what they do. That's why we have regulators (sorry Americans) to make sure a level of service exists.
But regulators shouldn't "break the market". I use two banks. One does have branches and I use it for my business accounts. Another is app only and far cheaper. A regulators job is to make sure both have room to exist and compete on a level playing field.
Will that mean branches closing? Maybe. The alternative is more cost to the shareholders/customers.
> Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not.
That's a straw man argument. Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.
I live in a small country. We have 5 banks. If all are forced to have branches everywhere a 6th bank will never form since the cost/time to build up a bank becomes prohibitive. Thus no competition. Indeed we hadn't had a new bank for 50 years or so. Until we allowed an app only bank which gives much better rates.
This isn't different in the states, competition is difficult when the big banks can crash you and the public is afraid to step into a smaller bank. That means you need to build accessible branches to service a community that will never set foot there. You're effectively saying: "make the barrier of entry so high that no competition can happen".
> The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere?
That's fair. You 100% have the "right" to live offline. I agree with that and I'm very much against a cashless society.
But this isn't that. What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age. That's a very different thing from "able". Progress always meant some things went away or became harder to do as a result, this is no different.
> We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
Because having Braille on the elevator or having the elevator say the floor we're on doesn't impact the rest of the population. E.g. when I go to the hospital the elevator waits forever in every floor. That makes sense, disabled and elderly need time to reach the open door.
In my building it is much faster, don't the disabled and elderly deserve this in my building too?
Well, they do. But the tenants in my building don't want to wait every time the elevator stops and have a cascading effect on all the floors due to that delay. We can provide localized solutions by holding the door and helping. It's a tradeoff.
> Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille. > More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.
Sure. I'm 100% for the "right" to avoid smartphones and apps. I think every public service and infrastructure should be accessible without them.
However, demanding that it would be in the same price and with the same current level of convenience is problematic as it would impact everyone. I think the analogy you gave is great. Braille on elevators should stay forever when we can. They should also speak, accessibility her...
As someone without a smartphone, I caution you to be very wary about what specifically you mean by "nonsense". If you only mean "tyranny", that's one thing. If you mean it's not a problem until I live little better than a hermit in the woods is another, unable to have real banking, real health care, real education for any kids, unable to order taxi service, unable to pay for parking, unable to refuel, unable to get packages, and so on ... yeah, no, you need some empathy.
> Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.
Here's my handicap, which I've had therapy about. I'm on the internet too much. When it's accessible, as now when I should be working, I find it almost impossible to avoid the urge to check.
My solution is to not have a smartphone with me, to limit when I can be online. I am about to head to the basement, where the wifi doesn't reach, in order to focus on work.
Would you force a teetotaler to drink? Would you recommend that someone trying to lose weight should carry a bag of peanut butter cups with them all the time?
Here is another handicap: there are people who are electrosenstive, that is, they get headaches or have other problems when they are too close to radio signals, so they do not even carry a cell phone.
Now, I happen to believe that is not based on the physical effects of radio signals, but forcing them to use a smartphone will cause them severe mental distress.
There are still others who suffer from anxiety knowing their every action is being surveilled. When I started with therapy, the doctor asked if I thought the phones were listening to me, to see if I had any signs of schizophrenia. He then realized how that connected to the conversation, so had to rephrase the question, because we both know nearly all apps listen to us, one way or other.
Apps cannot solve these issues because smartphone-based apps and the ecosystem supporting it are the issue.
> What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age.
No, what you asked for was a bank that only supports people who decide to use a smartphone which can connect to the Apple and Google app stores, so that you could pay lower rates.
The benefit is that you profit by their ability to exclude people who are more expensive to maintain. Completely legal, of course, as the freedom to live offline is not (currently, in nearly all jurisdictions) a protected right.
That excludes people like me who are "living online" but who do not have a smartphone, that excludes people who use a PinePhone or other smartphone which doesn't run Android, that excludes people who use an Android phone but have not agreed to the Google Store terms of service, as zevv did at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140223 .
And don't forget that one of the reasons we are more expensive to maintain is that you are more profitable for them. Banks can send you ads directly, and know you've read them. McD's can use personalized ads based on your buying habits to induce you to buy more and overeat. And of course many apps have in-app advertising, which cannot be blocked. Uber made $1 billion last year from in-app ads.
Is surveillance capitalism required for the modern age?
> Slowing the elevators for the elderly (of which there are quite a lot) is problematic and probably not what most of us want.
The newer elevators around here, at least the one in government-owned buildings, solve that issue with a flip seat.
Every single time my bank requires me to sign something with a pen, they also provide the pen.
For example, he cannot access his bank account via his desktop anymore. He have to go to his agency in person.
Well we all did that for years so it's just annoying, because he still have the possibility to do it and it's his choice.
But what will happen if all the brick and mortar close ? When will it be mandatory to get a smartphone for his bank app, just to have access to his money ?
And it's just an example...
If you want to do stuff at a physical bank you pay fees for everything, if there's even a branch still open close to you.
Can't even buy bus tickets without an app (tracks your journey with GPS of course), without paying more, even at ticket machines in the busses.
This hasn't been my experience at all in the US. If you need something in-person, going to the bank is the best option since they don't charge fees like a random ATM does.
There may be an online-only bank somewhere in the USA that's app-only, but I wouldn't know. Every bank I've ever encountered has a very functional web site.
The problem here seems to be that people want the free accounts and low fees of app only banks, but still want the costly things they got rid of that make those possible like branches.
I've had my banking app installed on an old Samsung phone running lineageos. I only powered it on when I had to do online banking. At some point I needed to update the app and they started checking for rooted devices, so it wouldn't work anymore. Now I've installed it on a much newer android device that I also use for a lot of other crap and sketchy stuff I don't want on my main phone. Also it's powered on all the time. Whether that's really more secure than what I did before is questionable.
I think the issue is that it is becoming tougher than it was prior to the existence of smartphones for those without them.
Some people might insist that a government monopoly would be worse but here in the UK I've noticed that government web sites are usually less crap than web sites created by the private sector.
We can't afford to have people doing bullshit jobs at bank branches anymore- unemployment is too low.
Limits that in the past 2 decades (of scaling) the people who built these Platforms didn't have to think about. Now they do. And they are coming under serious pressure because they have built out more Supply than there is Demand.
For example, we got the explosive growth of Netflix. Everyone sees that and piles into streaming. When growth slows in one country they immediately move into another and they keep growing until they run out of countries to expand into. So Netflix has been in India (a country advertised as having zillions of consumers) for nearly 10 years now but they haven't found more than 25 million paying subscribers. Learning takes time. And everyone is learning there are limits to growth based purely on the online model.
> haven't found more than 25 million subscribers
There is a metric ton of demand for steaming services in India.. just that amazon prime and hotstar.com took most of the market. Most of this is due to pricing:
Prime: 999 INR/year Netflix: 650 INR/month
Recently they've tried segmenting.. by packaging a single-device 720p-only plan along with the telecom plans, and I'd bet that's the majority of their customer base today since people get it for free. They also have a deal with samsung and other companies that make mid-range phones which most people in india own to have netflix pre-installed. So this + the telecom plans is the way they count them as users.
To be fair, amazon packages theirs with the 1-day delivery service on amazon.in, so it's a bit of an unfair advantage there. But even if you compare with hotstar, they charge 1499/year, which is about 1/6th of netflix's price.
Again to be fair, live cricket streaming is _huge_ here, and people get hotstar for that anyways, so a bit of an unfair advantage again.
Even twitch managed to make price cuts here. I bet netflix can as well. I doubt regional content production is actually a problem for somebody like netflix.
Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?
If the bank had no office it wouldn’t be cheaper.
I prefer using laptops and I prefer doing my banking on my laptop. I'm online a lot. I do have a smartphone, usually an older one, for calls, messaging, playing music and taking photos. I even have an old Samsung tablet, for reading ebooks.
It should be possible to do your banking from a laptop.
I just don't want apps on my phone, because they will track me, I don't like using apps on the phone in general, and banking apps in particular because the bank wants to control what I can and can't do with my own phone. Want a rooted phone? No banking for you.
So, to clarify, there are banks that have their full business value accessible only through mobile, and as a person needing banking but doesn't have access to mobile, I can make an informed decision and not be their customer. But when I create a bank account in a physical office, and then the office gets closed in favour of an alegedly much more accessible mobile application, I feel like there should be some measure protecting me from that. Do you find that unreasonable?
For something so core and critical to society (banking), I don’t think it’s reasonable to leave it up to the private sector and say “well, if some people get left behind—ho hum, thems the breaks”
If we’re talking about a florist, then sure. The market wants what it wants and if you’re not in the majority it kinda sucks. Not great, but probably not a place for government intervention. Banking, though? There should be accessibility guidelines and standards, absolutely.
To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles. This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
Think twice, the obvious solution doesn't always turn out to be the most optimal one.
Just because unanimity is never achieved in respect of some philosophical idea doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration and or it's never put into practice. Utilitarianism has been the subject of much study and debate and it's been widely practiced over several hundred years.
I'm well aware of the debates over utilitarianism and its ethics, any why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do. That ought to have been obvious by my use of the word 'consensuses'.
BTW, I could have made the same argument from a different philosophical perspective but the previous commentator specifically invited a utilitarian-type response by the words he used. That said, no matter what philosophical argument I'd have used someone would have found fault with it.
My main point still stands, which is that obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones. Note, I've deliberately not used the word 'best' for the above reasons.
Since you appear to enjoy a little bit of philosophical discussion, let's break down what you ackshually said:
> To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles.
The "beginning" of ethics hardly begins with Bentham or Mill or even the Enlightenment. Utility is quite a modern concept in ethics. The question of what is "the good" is presupposed in any system of value. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is perhaps one of the more perverse interpretations of human good on record.
> This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
The majority of modern states and cities were most emphatically NOT "founded" on utilitarian models. Most states predate any notion of such post-hoc rationalizations. Cities were largely founded as commercial centers along trade routes or ports, or sometimes intentionally as colonies. States were largely the results of conquest by militarized groups that were certainly NOT utilitarian. Quite the contrary. In the bronze age, they would have simply been warrior bands centered around family/tribal bonds and vassal/suzerainty relationships founded on violence. By the time of the great early empires around the Mediterranean, formal structures of militarism and class privileges won through violence were the organizing forms of society, not "give-and-take" consensus gathering (unless you mean one group giving up the fight and the other either enslaving them or killing them outright).
Maybe you could have argued they are founded on something like Hobbesian social contract theory (certainly not Rousseau's version) but that, too, would suffer from being simply "not true in fact."
The main point that "obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones" suffers from being trivial, condescending, and a non sequitur. The commenter didn't offer a solution as such, but raised the obvious question of why they should have to pay for someone else's choices. Utilitarianism is the worst of all philosophical answers because it entails the most absurdities.
…an(d) why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do.
I'm aware of those issues and omissions for brevity's sake. Also, I would point out that what I said was a passing comment on HN and not meant for a paper in a learned philosophical journal.
BTW, in case you didn't notice, I never mentioned whether I was for or against utilitarianism specifically because discussion about it inevitability ends in arguments that usually remain unresolved. That it was just an example ought to have been obvious.
It would be informative to compare the syllabus content at your philosophy school versus that of mine.
As you say, not relevant to you, but do you think mathematicians generally have some kind of affinity for Utilitarian ethics?
A number would say that ethics and morality are subjective and not objective and thus an attempt to apply a utilitarian metric or measure of "good" along with a (partial?) ordering such as "greatest good" is a doomed endeavour.
Few would deny that from this, that would follow (for some specific values of this 'n that).
There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes it's one's best tutor.
I'm not a mathematician but I've studied mathematics in conjunction with my bread-and-butter subjects science and engineering. It's thus fair to say the analytical philosophers and their ilk have had a strong influence on my thinking—Frege, Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, and G.E. Moore—I can even see my copy of Principia Ethica on the bookshelf on the other side of the room from where I'm sitting.
(BTW, In my world I cannot see any relevant connection between number theory (as mathematicians understand it) and ethics.)
The analytical strand of philosophy is particularly significant for me as formal logic has a direct bearing on some of my technical work (they're closely related). It also led to me electing to take HPS.
Philosophy is a remarkably broad church and its analytical strand is only one section, and in no way do I consider myself pigeonholed to just one or two of its strands; Being and Nothingness, The Social Contract, Leviathan, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (the) Republic are just a few titles from the large compulsory corpus from which I was trained.
I will not delve further into utilitarianism given what I've already said except to say I have neither the talent of Shakespeare nor am I an APL programmer, so it would be impossible for me to present my rather convoluted views on the matter in a short HN post without some part being misinterpreted. To do it linguistic justice and present a watertight case that precisely and accurately explains my view I'd likely require a dozen pages of typed text, and clearly that's not possible on HN.
That's not a copout, it's just fact. Moreover, philosophy taught me long ago that précising and brevity can easily lead to misunderstandings unless one's words are very carefully chosen. I was reminded of that again earlier today when you came on the attack.
I took your handle as a reference to Hilbert. Was it not? Although it might be difficult to a mind shaped very much by analytic philosophy, I do think there is "value", or at least entertainment value, in esoteric number theory (numerology or number magic) in relation to ethical systems. The ancients took it seriously and they were a lot smarter than I am. There is even a vein of mysticism in Wittgenstein. And what is infinity or the continuum? Very strange places to spend much time. Have driven some mad. Plus it's fun to consider the significance of a number. Often there are esoteric attributes attached to familiar and unfamiliar numbers that will blow your mind. Not just the puzzling oddities involving primes or transposed operations, but relating to ethics and metaphysics. If you really want to tempt madness, read up on some of the ancient Pythagorean or Kabbalah number magic. There be dragons of insanity there.
I use those terms in the philosophical sense as distinct from the nonsensical shouting that we witness all too often on Social Media and elsewhere on the Web. That we often do not listen carefully and take time to analyze what others are saying is the cause of much of the world's ills.
I've always prized debates as I've learned so much from having taken part in them. And It's a great shame that these days formal debating seems to have gone out of fashion.
If one cannot explain or logically support one's propositions during a debate (or when trying to teach a subject) then one doesn't fully understand the matter at hand. What's also important to recognize is that there are times during a debate when a protagonist first becomes aware of fallacies and weaknesses in his/her own case and that realization can occur without his/her opponent being aware of the fact.
It's an interesting phenomenon which I've experienced albeit not for quite some while. Moreover, when I've become aware that I've been wrong under such circumstances then learning turned out to be a sharper and more positive experience than other forms of learning (trouble is that these days there's little opportunity to partake in such debates as few are prepared spend the time to take them seriously).
The reason I mention that scenario here is to show that as I'm a bit of a veteran of such discussions and that I'm used to opponents 'clobbering' me during disagreements. If I were to be offended by such criticisms in philosophical debates then I'd have quit long ago.
However, what I do find disconcerting is when I've not chosen my words carefully enough for whatever reason (usually brevity) and what comes out ends up either sounding wrong or that I'm misinterpreted. My earlier comment would likely fall into that class.
I try to avoid misunderstandings by being prolix, that is I'll restate a point using different phraseology but at times even that doesn't work. I'm often surprised how some readers even misinterpret the most straightforward of statements. [Note: I'm not referring to you in the following.] And that just happened yesterday with another of my comments when someone deliberately misquoted what I said. Clearly hide has no bounds when one's actual words are deliberately misquoted just below what one has actually written. I'm curious about the logic that underpins such strange thinking.
(I suppose one shouldn't be a bit surprised these days when the leader of the free world sets quintessential examples for all to follow. By uttering blatant and outrageous lies with a deadpan expression that'd put masters of the art like Buster Keaton to shame then it's little wonder that many are bound to emulate his practice.)
I'm unaware of any correlation between the large decline in the study of liberal arts subjects in recent decades and many of the antics we're witness in politics these days but I'd not be surprised by one iota if something of note were to be found.
Philosophy often comes under that wing which implies that fewer people are studying the subject (well, at lest so on a per capita basis), and I'd posit that's not an ideal situation by any stretch. I'd suggest that skills that philosophy teaches such as the ability to help people think logically and to examine issues from multiple perspectives and to do so from factual evidence are in very short supply at a time when the world desperately needs them.
We need aeridite people who can speak with authority on important world affairs such as Russell and the remarkable historian A.J.P. Taylor used to do, they had the ability to mesmerize just abou...
Relatedly, the "saying" you referenced is actually a slight misquote from Shakespeare's Hamlet that changes the meaning significantly. It comes from a scene where Hamlet is rejecting his schoolmate Horatio's dependence on naturalist/rationalist explanations for the supernatural appearance of old King Hamlet's ghost. Significantly, they were both students in philosophy! The complete quote is "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
As time is running out to post here there are few points I wish to mention.
Your last reply left some issues dangling and it's clear my comments have left you with an inaccurate view about my position about several matters. Note the problem mainly rests with me for shortcutting explanations, also forums such as HN make it difficult to put complex arguments let alone have them resolve cleanly.
Second thoughts made me post this late comment. Earlier, just after your post, I made three separate attempts at replying but aborted them because of their excessive length. Each time I had to shorten what could easily pass as a multipart blog and before it was finished it'd become clear it was too long and would have bombed out if I'd tried to post it—and that's after I'd deleted the largest part which was about mathematics† and its relationship to/overlap with philosophy. (Editing comment so that it's difficult to misinterpret its contents and still keep it short and succinct is difficult—at least it is for me.)
You're probably asking why I would commit so much effort to reply to a comment. There are many reasons and I can't mention them all but I've extracted and précised a few from the longer draft. Perhaps the most significant reason is that whenever I've made a general comment that lacks detail or references there are always those who either misinterpret the message or use its limitations to lever their contrary position.
There's nothing wrong with protagonists leveraging their propositions but in any discussion it makes sense to put one's points as clear and as succinctly as possible. With mathematics and science/technology putting one's case is comparatively straightforward as equations and accepted facts (scientific evidence/the scientific method) provide a solid framework from which to state one's case. In physics, whilst opinions often differ wildly and despite controversies such as the relevance of the Scientific Method and Popper's Falsifiability/Refutability rage on, consensus is often reached even if it takes decades. There comes the realization the properties of nature are immutable, Nature doesn't give a damn about physicists' opinions. Physicists can't argue when Nature says m(e) = ~9.10938371393×10^−31 kg. In the end it's no-contest, Nature's position always wins out.
On the orher hand, things are rather different with philosophy for multiple reasons. With philosophy a wide and diverse range of opinions are to be expected due to its inherent nature and structure. In short, philosophical concepts are usually founded on earlier frameworks which of themselves have no universally-accepted 'truths'. Moreover, with philosophy, linguistics, semantics and even its epistemological underpinnings—the theory of knowledge—continue to be subject of argument. In Principia Ethica G.E. Moore questions the foundations of ethics. One can't put a measure on "good", similarly, one can't explain or convey a sense of "yellow" to someone who's been blind from birth. In his books Language, Truth, and Logic and The Problem of Knowledge A. J. Ayer continues in a similar vein to the effect that sentences about ethics and ethical constructs are more emotional than propositional.
And these issues are still being debated. Simply, if one can't anchor and measure a "notion" or "concept" then one's pretty well stuffed to define it as an axiom. That's not to say we should give up worrying about ethics, as you'd know we don't. You'd also note that arguments about these matters get very messy.
It's clear my roots are anchored in the analytical tradition. And from what you've mentioned, the factors that have shaped your philosophical views are based more on metaphysical lines, thus I doubt you and I would ever fully agr...
It's important for me to stress that I make a clear distinction between the way I comment on HN where I usually take a more flexible position and present a less dogmatic view than I would in a paper or technical report (or when partaking in a formal debate) where structure, accuracy, presentation and demeanor of the written word or what's said are important. Here, gravitas also matters.
Again, that brings me back to the other point you raised about about Book-I of The Republic and why I said what I did. First, the subject matter—that of justice—is important and it needs highlighting. Second, very few on HN are interested in the fine minutiae (points of argument) in the Socrates/Thrasymachus debate) let alone why a person who conducts a modern analysis of Book-I would likely come to different conclusions to those of Plato's contemporaries (clearly philosophical thought has developed and matured over the intervening two millennia, so too the way we analyze and document philosophical concepts).
In a strict reading of Book-I I'd essentially agree with you but there's just too much to discuss to detail it here, although I'd mention that Socrates (Plato) doesn't give a proper definition of justice and admits to being not able to do so. To my mind, Socrates takes a similar position with Justice that's somewhat akin to the well-known quote about porn "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it". Your point about Callicles and justice is well taken, between his and other writings by Plato and others we are nevertheless able to gleen a much more nuanced view of what Ancient Greeks thought about Justice.
My view is we should focus the public's attention on the noble aspects of what Plato was trying to achieve in Book-I and not the points that are only of interest to philosophers and logicians. And I reckon that's damn easy—almost everyone can understand that Justice isn't Thrasymachus' notion of every man for himself and that Justice serve a much bigger more noble purpose. (Similarly, other philosophical concepts must be understood to before they're useful. The public has no difficulty in understanding the concept the greatest good for the greatest number but it couldn't give a damn about the minutiae of utilitarian theory. So let's use it.)
I'd contend the sentiment, import and values expressed by Plato in Book-I are essentially timeless; with some concessions to differences in societal/cultural norms and such, a modern reader's understanding and take on Plato's intention wouldn't be that different to that held by Ancient Athenians. This is what actually matters, and it's why I emphasize it over the minutiae.
I'd back that assertion by virtue of the enormous influence and sway that Greek philosophy still has on Western thought. That this is still true is really quite remarkable given the intervening two millennia. More to point, the reason why The Republic has endured for around 2400 years and that it's still a key document in the philosophical corpus is because across those millennia many have considered what Plato says is important enough to ensure its preservation.
That doesn't necessarily mean everybody agrees with Plato, nor that everything he says is accurate and or logical by modern standards. Nor do we consider or accept the political framework in which the work was written was above reproach, in Ancient Athens slavery was a given, nowadays—at least for most of us—it's an abomination.
On the matter of disagreement, I'd refer you to Karl Popper's work The Open Society and its Enemies—Volume I Plato wherein he indicts Plato on multiple accounts. The Book's title alone tells us of Popper's distaste for Plato's political philosophy.
But put all that aside for a moment, The Republic, especially Book-I, is a sheer delight to read. ...
Yes! There are many things you cannot do without a physical bank location. It is worth paying[1] something to have them. I used to use an online-only bank, but I realized I wanted to be able to walk into a branch at times, so I switched to a new bank.
[1] “Paying” can mean a variety of things, including lower interest rates on savings accounts, for example.
I suppose if I wanted to deposit cash I couldn't but it's never come up.
I need to change all these $2 bills and quarters into $20 bills.
Trivial examples that I have done at my bank. Maybe drbit cards now don't need to be put into a machine to change the pin anymore, idk.
As for the cash stuff, those are things you may need to do if you’re a shopkeeper, but I can’t imagine a reason why I would do that myself. Banks over here will sometimes charge fees for changing cash.
banks here don't charge, as one of their expected roles is to change money in the US.
What annoys me now is the closing of the on-line banking Web sites, which could be used easily and without any problem from any computer or smartphone, and their replacement with apps, which may force you not only to have a smartphone but also to be a customer of Apple or Google, because some banks refuse to provide their Android apps otherwise than through the Google app store.
Has anyone looked at the world lately and thought "hey maybe all these apps aren't the greatest idea"? Amazon, Shein, Temu, AliExpress have all but made history just visiting a mall and browsing.
I know Walmart loved the pandemic, too, because all the mom and pop stores that survived the first 20 years of amazon couldn't survive the local and state and federal government interfering with their commerce.
JoAnns is closing hundreds of stores. This whole subject is on my mind a lot lately.
>Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid
While they don't penalize you, they do make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to go completely off grid. Try putting up your own 'grid', which in IMO should include your own monetary system, and not having to pay taxes.
What's even more confusing/frustrating is that, despite being developed with very elaborate, mature frameworks, they still lack basic UI accommodations, like making clickable elements detectable by add-ons, or allowing you to open up a detail view in a new tab.
I get if Joe Shmoe's cobbled-together app forgets some things, but why wouldn't stuff like that be rolled in as a default, with all the development hours applied to it?
I've provide feedback on multiple occasions, but I don't have high hopes for them to fix anything. If I where running a business and to use the site every day I'd be pissed and threatening to move my business else where.
One of the banks that I am using has terminated its on-line banking service, which I had been using for almost 20 years, replacing it with an app.
That would not have been a problem if they would have provided the app themselves on their Web site, but they refuse to do this and they provide the app only in the Google on-line store, which I cannot use because I do not have a Google account, despite the fact that the app is free.
Therefore I have reduced a lot the number of operations that I do through that bank, redirecting them to another bank, which still has on-line banking on their Web site. Fortunately, for now the bank that has closed their on-line banking Web site still keeps an SMS service, which allows me e.g. to check the balance of my account from my phone and which notifies me about the transactions on my credit card.
Many years ago, I have closed all my accounts at a bank that has annoyed me by updating their on-line banking Web site so that it no longer accepted any browsers except Microsoft Internet Explorer. At that time I have hoped that it will be the last time when I leave a bank because they believe that they can force their customers to also be customers of unrelated third parties, but now this problem with Google has appeared.
I am not a US citizen and the bank is not from USA. I doubt that it can be legal for a bank here in Europe to condition their services by their customer becoming the customer of a foreign entity that is Google. However I cannot afford to waste time and money to determine the legality of their actions.
I was not aware of it, so when I will have time I will experiment with it, to see if it works for downloading the app I need when logging in anonymously.
Hello, it's me from the future, reporting live from Germany. My bank is online only and to talk to a person, I need to call the hotline and wait (I shit you not) 20~25 minutes for the PIN input prompt to repeat itself once too many times and time out, handing me off to a very confused human who is wondering how I'm speaking to them unauthenticated (they're very suspicious and will not answer most questions; it's a pretty useless party trick). Alternatively, you can have the answering machine send you an authentication code by snail mail which you can then use once in the next few days to call them one time
I put up with it because the other bank account I applied for rejected me for not being creditworthy (never had a debt in my life, but also no loan, so there is no credit data and apparently that's suspicious; on the other hand, students get accounts there with no problem, so maybe it's a combination of no credit data and age? Or not having citizenship? They're not saying of course, I can only assume it's an illegal reason because why else not say it). The other bank card I own from a neighboring country isn't accepted in most supermarkets, I'd need to bring cash into the country or pay extra for using an ATM abroad. Single European Market is really lovely, you should try it
SIDENOTE
People need to chill out with the word "tyranny". It's like saying that you are being "assaulted" by a different opinion, or claiming that ordinary platform moderation is "censorship". You are not being terrorized, assaulted, or censored.
There are people in the world who are truly subjected to those things, and you have NO idea what that's actually like.
That said, words can take on different meanings depending on context. We can only imagine the tyranny of being a prisoner of war but we can also complain about the tyranny of noise pollution in modern cities; that doesn't mean I think they're equal. I know some people suffer assault domestically but I can also label some perfumes as an assault to the senses; it doesn't lessen the gravity of the former. And yes, Calvin, you are allowed to think your household is a den of censorship and oppression (https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....).
My problem with gatekeeping words is that it is performative. We can indeed chill out on using these words save for their most extreme interpretations but it doesn't really help anyone suffering from these things and just makes language less colorful for the rest of us. And, once more, nor does their usage dismiss the extent of any of these situations because you don't need to be a genius to know that words can have subtle changes in meaning depending on context.
We should not play the victims. Being without one of those cursed things is a blessing. We get good mental health. We get focus and calm. We get a profound sense of freedom, time to think, to create, to talk to real people, to see the world go by. We learn to enjoy being bored. We interact with other real people. We willingly pay more for freedom and privacy.
What we lose is being tied up in pointless abusive machinations of an already dying "online" culture, one that is over-extended, fragile, dysfunctional, and we dodge much of the abusive enshitified corporate hell that every living being now hates.
Please, big-up your friend instead of painting him as a victim.
Can't say about monthly plans, as that depends on the country.
Privacy is a different matter and always dependent on the technical literacy as opposed to hard costs.
Is the requirement of wearing clothes in public a tax? Maybe.
But today definitely someone can still live without owning a phone, if they have access to a computer nearby (e.g. A library or friend).
But you actually don't need either of those. You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet you get, and access to someone's wifi, which is freely available at many coffee shops, or from neighbors.
I still agree you shouldn't need it, especially if you already have a computer. But it's only "expensive" if you choose the higher tiers.
So no security updates and any app can stop working any moment. And all your data are at Google, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
The cheapest device you can get will be unusably slow - good luck doing anything out and about without inconveniencing everyone else while you wait for your device to load and pray the app opens in a timely fashion. Oh, that is, if your outdated device can even download and run it.
Access to wifi isn't really as ubiquitous as you make it seem either - what if the business you're needing to use the app for doesn't have wifi? Run down the street to the coffee shop?
edit: You can even get a free phone from your community. Possibly a better one than the a53. Most people have a phone or several in a drawer.
https://swappa.com/listings/samsung-galaxy-a53-5g?carrier=un...
A good point, but also a parking spot like that which is also not in range of city wifi is pretty rare, I'd reckon.
https://smarty.co.uk/social-tariff
A cheap but perfectly useable phone costs less than £100 new from a brand like Xiaomi, Motorola or TCL; on any high street, you'll find a shop selling second-hand phones for as little as £30. I cannot think of any object in human history that provides so much utility for so little money.
Almost all mobile apps today are Android/iOS only and require an App Store/Play Store account.
“ The RAC’s head of policy, Simon Williams, says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking. It has been trialled by a number of councils, but a big question mark hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn.
The RAC’s head of policy Simon Williams says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking, and it has been trialled by a number of councils. However, a big question mark now hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn imminently.”
I think the other one was an npr piece posted on HN yesterday? Is there a bug with wordpress or are people just getting sloppy?
[source: grumpy Guardian Weekly subscriber]
I don't currently drive a car, and to be honest, I have anxiety about driving. I could bitch about how US is hostile to people who don't drive, to the point that it's difficult to go to places/get things done, but that's useless. I can 1) move to NYC and never leave the city 2) get a car, work on my anxiety, and start enjoying life or 3) talk to Guardian and complain all day long. 1) is not actually a bad choice, and literally millions of people choose that, but I am working on 2) because that's the sensible thing to do. If I intentionally choose not to drive, not because of a physical disability or not being to afford a car, I bear the consequences.
That's not what we are discussing here.
You can't use whatever irrelevant analogy you like to prove a point that doesn't exist.
Peak security theater: banks (at least in Europe) mandate smartphones as “safe,” yet the device itself is the ultimate attack vector.
- 2FA apps? Single point of failure (SIM-jacking, zero-days, bricked phone = locked out of life).
- Mandatory apps? Swapped phishing for supply-chain attacks + 24/7 location leaks.
- Biometrics? Your face now lives in a corp database that will get breached.
The irony? A YubiKey was objectively safer: no GPS, mic, or app permissions. But we’ve normalized “security” as surrender to surveillance capitalism. Banks want your data, not hardware tokens.
Smartphones manufacture threats:
- AirTag stalking requires… a smartphone to detect.
- Signal/encrypted chat? Tied to a phone number (→ ID → surveillance graph).
- “Find My Phone” = backdoor with a UX polish.
The system isn’t securing you, it’s securing access to you. Every forced 2FA method is another node to map, monetize, and manipulate.
btw. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41310150 - old ASK NH of mine, i still welcome ideas.
I'm not denying smartphone adoption. I'm just giving it 20 years to mature. During which time I can observe it from the outside, and better track dystopian policies that may result from it and slow their progress... by using a desktop computer and advocating for arms-length 'security' solutions, instead of installing apps and losing all control. The opaque app sandbox is just as menacing to the user as to the hypothetical hacker. Currently I'm thinking, why should I EVER decide to use a device for which I cannot easily attain God-Mode? That includes defeating end to end encryption so I can see the plaintext the device uses to communicate. If that itself carries another layer of encryption, I will suspect it to be devious by default, and isn't that rational?
It just seems like Darwin In Action, and my quick adoption would make me the brunt of some cosmic joke. I will never buy a cellphone without an easily removable battery, either. On general principle. Some things are not features, they are curses disguised as features.
Anyways. I took an auto ride few weeks back and an old gentleman picked me up. He did have a tattered smartphone. But he didn't have the UPI app or a QR code (QR is the way here; UPI the instant payment thingie in India). He was not agitated but really looked embarrassed and helpless and told me in broken English he tried a few times but he forgets many kinds of PINs and messes up and his bank account gets blocked and then he has to run around with documents to get it unblocked and then again. I had some cash and I was able to pay him. But it's horrible. There are people for whom cash is the ONLY way. Even going to the bank (or ATM; which anyway is still a difficulty for me) means sometimes half to one day's work gone. Just like that. This has a lot to do with political climate changes. So many people get trampled over without any check and balances because they have the vote without a voice or any real power.
I think a lot of us, and for many of us who tap and pay at a Starbucks as if it's bill there lowest currency denomination in our consciousness, never stop to try and understand this and realise this. This is not merely inconvenience in huge part of this planet - it's a real life pain. I don't think even this article considered such a case/life struggles due to smartphones and everything getting tied to a SIM et cetera.
Then, a few months ago, I finally bought a new phone. I quickly found out that there was no way I could get this one banking app from my home country on the new phone (other than switching my country setting again, which isn't worth the potential hassle right now). Fortunately, I could still do online banking with on my browser...right?
I try to login to my online banking. They say they will send me an OTP on my registered mobile number. Makes sense, and, thanks to the wonders of roaming, I will be able to receive it. Except...instead of just sending me the actual OTP like any sane platform would do, I had to first confirm that I was, indeed, trying to sign-in to online banking by replying "YES" to their SMS prompt. And due to the wonders of SMS roaming protocol, though I could receive their messages, I simply could not reply to them no matter which gods I invoke.
Security design by committee. I curse the manager who though this was a necessary and valuable addition to the whole OTP scheme.
It's not so much a "convenience tax" as in the article but, I guess, a penalty for moving countries. I have no choice now but simply to just settle this when I go on vacation to my home country. There is probably no convenient resolution to this even when I am in the correct geospace.
PS. I have two banks from home country and I was able to install the other bank's app in my new phone without a hitch. I try to avoid cynicism but this simply has the stink of Managerial Software Engineering Best Practices all over it.
> McDonald’s is running a high-profile promotion called Deal Drop, where it offers items at “bargain” prices, such as a classic Big Mac for £1.49 (normally £4.99) and a children’s Happy Meal for £1.99 (normally £3.59) – but all of the discounts are available exclusively with the company’s app.
The article paints a painstakingly detailed photo of the UK's app culture, but fails to explain exactly why app users are entitled to such discounts. What exactly is McDonald's doing with your data that is worth a whopping £3.50 Big Mac discount, and more?? Why is the app so important?? I have never found an article that does more than scratch the surface on this topic. Any suggestions?
That way you both get to take the full price from people whose time is expensive enough that they won't bother with the apps, and also those who wouldn't pay the full price but have enough time to use the apps.
I never eat McD's, but I see the pattern everywhere. If you make between the minimum and average wage in Slovenia and don't own property, you practically can't get by without dedicating 6h per week to grocery shopping in various different 'discount' chains (Lidl, Hofer AKA Aldi Sud, Euro Spin), keeping up with the weekly discount catalogs and using all the app discounts (more recently).
Fairly obviously the discounts are to encourage customer loyalty so you keep going to McD rather than somewhere healthier. Also to get you to come back - if you haven't been for ages they may offer a 99p big mac to get you back in.
As to why apps rather than paper coupons, my closest McD has a typically had group of about 20 people waiting for the 50 items they ordered with new stuff ordered every 30 seconds or so. The last thing the low wage rushed staff need are customers going can you explain this coupon to me an is it valid for extra fries on Friday etc.
Richer customers self-select to pay higher prices without the app as they can't be bothered faffing around to find the digital coupon/deal/whatever combination (you can, of course, only use one of the wide range of deals at a time). Poorer customers will invest the time in finding and using a deal.
They both get the same sandwich, but McD got them to pay different prices for it.
Get more people to use McD's app. When they order, give them a personalized coupon giving you a discount. The discount is different for everyone. Use the response rate, plus information about your buying habit (always buys a family-sized order on Fridays) to optimize the discount.
Raise the non-app prices so the people using the app think they got a deal ... while the overall price is on average higher than if McD's had flat rates for everyone.
People tend to think flat rates are more fair when the services are identical, and get pissed off when they find it isn't.
I still believe it was a tragedy that Microsoft folded their attempt into mobile. To explain my level of desperation, I feel our next best hope here is China.
As for other apps, I just have a couple of simple games and Firefox, which I only use when in waiting an office for am appointment. So far where I am, it is not an impediment.
By tying your service to a smartphone your are basically refusing to provide service if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS. If the app doesn't complain about emulation or something different than Android or IOS you are in luck, but that's not the case with most banking apps. And that's only talking about people who don't have it by choice and have money to buy one.
For me, once, it went beyond: I took my first dose of the Covid vaccine, and the second dose's date would still be announced. I asked where it would be available to the nurse, "On the Instagram page of the <local health body>". "But i don't have Instagram" i said, and the nurse shrugged. It requires both a phone and a social media account with your real info, but since absolute nobody complains about it they just do because it's easier.
This will continue as long people are complacent with it. In some places the government is required to provide you services, by law, by any means available and not depending on 3rd party service, but they do require apps anyway and people stay quiet. Phones as an alternative is fine, it's a tool, but should not be an obligatory device for you to be considered an human being.
Sure, I own a smartphone, it runs just plain android but without any google accounts or services because I do not agree to Googles terms of services. I never did, and as an European citizen especially with recent developments I feel that has been the right choice.
The thing is, without google account there is no play store, and without play store I am not able to install the majority of apps - no banking, no parking, and all the other services people complain about in these threads.
This is my choice, and I stick to it. I'm also pretty vocal about it and complain when needed. Doctors office informs me I only can get medicine with the app? Apparently they can make exceptions when you complain, because I'm allowed to get medicine with a simple phone call. My bank tried to force me to use their app, but apparently they still do have an alternative login method when you complain. Sure, I know it's a fight I will lose in the long run, but I enjoy it while it lasts.
Or if Apple or Google arbitrarily decide that they don't like that customer. You don't have to have done something wrong, they can decide that you're likely associated with someone who did.
"A Dad Took Photos of His Naked Toddler for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal.", https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil...
In India, Google locked an engineer from Gujarat out of his Google account because it contained explicit content potentially involving child abuse or exploitation. The engineer believes it's because the account contain images of him as a child being bathed by his grandmother.
"HC notice to Google India after engineer loses access Gmail, Google Drive, and more over childhood photo labelled 'porn'" https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/hc-...
I use these examples specifically because many in my government want "Chat Control", where snitchware scans messages for child porn and the like, and notifies the police. It will be full of false positives like these, especially if the scanning software continues to be built by puritanical American companies.
Another class is people who the US deems to be a security threat. How long will it be until the US extends its sanctions against the ICC by ordering Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Oracle, and Google to shut down the accounts for the ICC and anyone involved in their genocide investigation, work and personal?
I want my nurse to take care of my health, not to know where I can find stuff. You are misplacing your anger...