At what point does this constitute a hostile action against the user and what degree of retaliation is appropriate? Open question for everyone.
The second part is the more interesting question to me:
Appropriate reactions would seem to include:
- finding a new doctor/practice/provider. Super hard in practice as they seem to be geographical monopolies a la the cable networks
- providing appropriately hostile feedback to your current doctors — but this is likely only to garner empathy as the docs have little say over this
- stop using smartphones and claim hardship — not sure how this would pan out. Probably not well?
- channeling Luigi and murdering the people responsible for our ongoing dystopia
This is why so many people are content to let the world burn. It ain’t for us anymore anyway.
If you see other options I’d be happy to hear them?
My 95 year-old mother can't use apps on her iphone because she can't figure out the navigation and various modes. Because of this her phone usage is limited to answering incoming calls, making calls to the six icons we've preset on her home screen, receiving texts and replying to the last text she received (because it's still on the screen). Anything else is iffy. And she's not cognitively impaired. She's actually quite sharp for her age and lives on her own within an assisted care community.
Blind people are. At least, insofar as we still have the ADA.
One thing these companies are doing is charging blind people extra. Phrase it that way and you can maybe move some policy levers.
Of course one thing is nobody wants to sue someone because they don't understand something, because they think it means arguing they are stupid.
Feeling helpless is the moment you loose.
This is what happens when you let the bean counters and MBAs a quarter turn around the world with no on-the-ground experience or institutional knowledge make decisions from their spreadsheets to "optimize out inefficiencies".
Let's call it what it is: strip mining.
No, if anything, people buying and running multiple offices are exactly in the business of optimizing the last few percentage points of efficiency and that include amortizing better software across all these offices to make them run with fewer humans in the loop. Causing more people to talk to more humans is NOT what they do.
The issue is lack of care, incompetence, stupidity - exactly the things that will get you fired from these operations. Eventually.
The problem is "eventually". Unfortunately it will take too long for that to happen, compared to the rest of our lives.
Local government politics work. State politics even kinda work.
The fact that murder is on your list but not voting is mind boggling.
To quote George Carlin: “If voting mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it”.
Trump lost in 2024 but took the win because his cronies disqualified enough voters in enough states to win.
So, please, spare me. We’re up to violence already. You’re just well behind the times unfortunately.
Would be really curious to see how this could be proven or at the very least convincingly induced.
Can you provide a source for that data for a specific swing state of your choice?
I would see a point in saying voting is pointless, because no matter who you vote for, all end up on the payroll of the people doing enshitification. But not because your side always loose. Because this then won't likely change when you turn to violence - your side will be still the smaller one and we tried the whole voting thing, to not have all arguments solved with bloodshed.
>So, please, spare me. We’re up to violence already. You’re just well behind the times unfortunately.
There have been nut-jobs saying this and inflicting violence since the beginning of the country. Then there are people who actually affect change. Pick a side.
If you create a technically better app for the users, people still won't be able to use it unless you also are chosen by those higher up, and since there's likely already a strong existing relationship between the executives at the existing company and at the medical compan(ies), that means creating a competitor also will require building a lot of social capital with the decision makers, taking them to dinner and on golf trips, and so on.
It will take years of your life, millions of dollars (since a 1-man company will never be seen as legitimate enough to provide a medical app, you'll need a large company with many employees), and the chance of success is minimal.
I don't see how this is an "appropriate" response to a bad app.
I wish we lived in a world where all these APIs were open, regulated, and everybody could compete on the implementation on both sides... One day, if capitalism survive technofeudalism...
I see the "democrat" and "republic" checkboxes, but I don't see the magical third "Good apps, and also health insurance companies have to cover medical claims without questioning whether my doctor is competent, denying each claim once, and requiring 3 months of arguing on a phone"
I've been voting, and as far as I can tell every option I have ever been able to vote for has been fully in support of crappy apps and crappy healthcare.
Get off your ass and start a ballot measure. If you want to literally vote for a direct regulation that’s the way to do it.
Alternatively, start talking to state legislators and get them to support a bill doing it.
It's not. Unlike voting, it has a nonzero chance of improving the app situation.
In this situation, instead of anything on the list above, I recommend going to press/Twitter and stressing the angle that this bullshit actually ruins people's lives permanently (or kills them prematurely).
for hundreds of years our government and the corporations who bribe them have worked to limit the influence of the average person on the laws and regulations that we live under. After seeing our broken two party system, the gerrymandering and voter suppression, the open bribery, the lack of integrity or accountability, the inability/unwillingness of congress to do their job, and the growing list of laws and policies most Americans support and problems we want solutions for that get ignored time and time again while laws are being passed to appease corporations and industries, I really don't blame people for thinking that their ballot box is not the solution to their problems.
When people feel they don't have a way within the system to get the things they need they'll look for ways to get them outside of the system. Our government used at least put in the effort to give the appearance that working within the system could be successful, but these days they barely bother to do that.
Personally I still like to hold onto hope that voting can make a difference, especially at the local level, but it's a hard sell these days and getting harder all the time.
This is basically what I do now. When someone tells me to install their app or give them my cell phone number I tell them that I don't have a cell phone. Sometimes I do it while holding a cell phone in my hand.
I've told employers that if they make using an app a requirement they'll need to buy me a cell phone.
If people really push on why I won't use an app I'll tell them all about how my buying a phone doesn't make me the owner of one since multiple people at multiple companies have privileged access to the device I paid for far beyond my own level of access which enables them to access/add/remove/modify files and settings at any time and for any reason without my permission or even without making me aware that they've done it. Why would I use a system controlled by an unknown number of others who are only interested in enriching themselves to keep highly personal information like my medical history or banking information? Cell phones are inherently insecure and adversarial devices designed to collect and leak our private information while stealing our attention.
- Switch to paper mail notices
(Here, health insurance "improving" their web site - again - to a useless two-factor auth that loops indefinitely.)
The general public are currently being trained with administrative assistant/clerical skills in order to do this labor for companies unable to support a workforce.
Your card transactions are now your responsibility, not a cashier's. Your menu ordering is in your hands from the cloud, not a waitress you can harass. Your vehicle's vital functions, safety mechanisms, and accessories are all on you, in motion or at rest. All your paperwork is cloud-assisted but you're the secretary and they're going paperless so you'd better have a nice printer, too.
Your mobile apps are living rent-free in your home/pocket and you've got limited authority over their resource usage, especially if a coin miner or botnet is part of your package deal.
Currently I'm struggling with my ISP because apparently the providers in USA are segregating/unbundling Mobile Wireless service and moving toward stricter metering/throttling of data and bandwidth, so it would seem that this Mandatory Smartphone also demands an Unlimited 5G plan to match.
> who is even "the user" here?
The doctors and their patients. If it's as bad as it sounds, it actively degrades the ability of doctors to provide care, so it quite literally hurts actual people.
A crucial part of this approach is to let your doctor know exactly why you're leaving. If they're losing business over it, they'll look for alternatives. And if the EHR company loses money, they'll look to make changes, too.
What recourse does an individual have if they live in a rural area with 1 or 3 doctors that all use the same hostile software?
Should they suffer because they don't have money or the ability to go else where?
Those that do should organize to make their displeasure known. Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes.
If they live somewhere with 1 doc they should vote with their feet by leaving before the town finishes dying around them.
Is this what you're seriously arguing? That people should be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis?
Do you not see how people read this as completely heartless and devoid of empathy towards their fellow man?
The idea that my neighbors and I are gunna go picket the only person within 20 miles that can write a prescription is ludicrous.
Literally already the case and more so care isn't cheaper unlike land so your lesser dollars buys lesser care and no realistic access to specialists
It's not some coincidence that just about every company in every sector is screwing over more and more people. This is all extremely calculated. We've decided that making the most money is all that matters and we're seeing the inevitable results of that choice everywhere around us. If shareholders got richer by providing people with quality healthcare and well designed websites and the freedom to use or not use mobile technology we'd already have those things. No one cares how shitty they make our lives or even how many of us they kill as long as they keep the ability to stuff more money into their pockets this quarter than they did last quarter. The people doing this shit to us aren't incompetent. What we want from them isn't what they're optimizing for. Maybe you haven't noticed the massive amount of consolidation in every industry going on, but consider that voting with your wallet gets harder over time. Consider how many companies you're personally giving your money to right now while wishing you had an alternative that better met your needs. Voting with your wallet is not a real option. The fattest wallet will always win.
And thus it's questionable whenever voting with wallet would work. It works in healthy, free and competitive markets with rational actors, and we probably aren't looking at one.
And he was well aware that I'm a guy whose mental illness can mostly be traced to escaping into screens since the first Family Cathode Ray of 1974 and Clarke Monolith of 1968