Hacker News Reader

Comment by dantheman | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I get your point, but I don't read OP like they are "forcing" anything on others. It is a fair question if there are still feasible ways to live without a smartphone, and HN is a suitable place for it.

I am happy that such people exist, because I don't have the energy for that lifestyle these days.

It's effectively the government, because the ID-via-your-banking-app system is required to identify yourself online, such as when dealing with government agencies, applying for permits and benefits, etc etc.

Are you Swedish or have you lived there for some time? Do you have a deep understanding of Swedish politics or society? Just asking.

That's a strange way of viewing this. The OP is asking whether there are laws that protect them. If people are happy with Apple/Google, great, but if they are not, there are few alternatives. We should allow people who don't have/don't want smartphones to be able to participate in society.

I disagree fully with this sentiment. A legal solution is maybe the only realistic one.

(Directed at the OP) That said, I don’t think the Swedish government cares much about people like you. I’m not sure how to make them change either. I wish you luck.

I get OP's desire to live without a smartphone and can relate a lot.

But at the same time, at some point it is not feasible to enforce support for non-smartphone by law. You have to realize that your own freedom only goes so far. Society grants you the right to live without a smartphone/car/whatever, but it is your decision, and you can't force the rest of society to put up with it.

Which is why it's a political question of how much control two large American companies should have in daily Swedish life.

For example, I want the courts to be able to step in in case of a disagreement between me and Apple or Google, while the ToS says the company is free to decide.

I want the law to prohibit the collection of user information other than what is needed for basic functionality. The Google Play ToS specifically says they will develop an advertising profile for my phone even if logged out, and I disagree with it.

I also want the ToS for basic use for daily life to not change unless the government has agreed with the changes, similar to how my bank, power, and phone providers are regulated.

I think I could agree to the ToS with those changes. I do not think it is beyond the pale to consider restrictions which are already applied to other services essential to daily life.

> But at the same time, at some point it is not feasible to enforce support for non-smartphone by law.

What do you mean it’s not feasible? We could certainly enforce it if there were legal will. We enforce society to do many things it wouldn’t do if it weren’t for legislation.

Stop using Internet forums to force your views/way of life on others. /s

The issue isn’t the barber who’s asking for Swish. It’s Swish. This is one of those tricky cases where the service is quasi-governmental, a state-sanctioned monopoly service in partnership with the government, but not run by it.

It’s not an unreasonable take to ask to opt-out of smartphone requirements for daily life. Alternatively, as a society make it clear that this is a requirement for commerce, and be explicit about what protections are in place against misuse/exploitation.

It’s not reasonable for a smartphone to be a de facto necessity for life, but then privately controlled and with no discussion around safety, privacy, etc. — Privacy is a human right in many parts of the world. A government that essentially requires compromises to privacy via unconstrained third parties, in order to engage in basic market transactions, at the very least should be open about this requirement and discuss its trade-offs.

Am I wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com