> I'm not sure what the solution is, but I wish that smartphones were
not seen as a default necessity for everybody.
They are not. But that mythology, that they are, is central to the
problem. I just posted on almost exactly this point in another thread
[1] that I'll paste here;
> (From OP[1]) Ultimately, if the technology is not serving you, you
have the choice to not use it.
This is worthy of a book or PhD research project in itself. The person
who states this in terms that resonate with me with is Vint Cerf. I
will quote a little but also paraphrase him in my own way by saying;
"At one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a
living. But the important right in that case was the right to make
a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a
right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put
it. Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself" [2]
As I see it, if we are to respect the more fundamental human rights of
"life, liberty and security of person" then the greater human right
may be NOT to be connected to the internet. It is freedom from
technologies at least insofar as we are free to manage our own affairs
and engagement.
Other than the European "Right to be forgotten" and legislation
protecting us from surveillance and tracking, I'm not aware of any
popular formulations of this general principle other than Vint Cerf's.
Right now I think people are being forced to stable horses in their
backyards, at the behest of landowners, and under the false premise
that you need one for work.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31216377