It's a bias, an in-bubble illiteracy effect, concerning the perception and analysis of realities (e. g. experiences) outside that bubble, mirroring an in-group's projections about an out-group. It is, in my decades of experience, a very common phenomenon in the IT sector.
> "My Dad doesn’t have one, he has zero-to-no trouble going to the bank and paying his bills and just about every other imaginable thing."
So far, that holds true for me as well (Germany).
> "If there was something he could not do and there were repercussions for it he’d be calling an attorney to rectify the situation."
The crux: the increasing friction brought on by rising technological entry barriers. In Germany you have at least the non-exclusion principle of Teilhabe (lit.: participation) which gives certain guarantees. But such achievements of democracy are continually under fire.
I (also German) have the impression that people who work in the IT sector are often much more critical of surveillance methods (including smartphones) than the average citizen.
No government service can depend on having a product from a private corporation.
No QR-code-only restaurants that i have seen, and i would walk out without a word if that happened (even if i had a device that can do that). Bank does 2FAs second part with an SMS, first part is username, password and an otp code from a paper. Bank login is also a very common way of logging into governmental systems, but those only use the username, password and otp code, skipping the SMS, alternatively i could use an id card with a reader, state provides even Linux software for that.
The housing companys winter car engine heating sockets operate with an app, or alternatively just opening the lid and setting the timer yourself.
Additional data point: my dad, when he was still alive (-2025), had a smartphone but wouldn't use apps beyond facebook, did his banking by mailing in signed bills or at the bank in person, without an appointment.
Practically, you need a smartphone. Engaging an attorney != practical
Both because a dwindling minority of people do old things the old way; and because new things (eg Netflix and Uber) are designed for the new way, even if they don't absolutely require it.
I wouldn't say so: when I go to the bank, I often combine it with grocery shopping, which I have to do anyway. So doing banking the old way is hardly an inconvenience.
In some countries people are willing to fight much harder against being coerced to have to use a smartphone. The message should thus rather be: follow their example.
As long as some younger people stay that course we should be fine. Hopefully we’ll see an increase of dumb phone adoption in a growing cohort younger adults. But the FUD spread in threads like this actually spreads misinformation and makes that less likely to happen
It’s like complaining that it’s difficult to travel to another continent if you don’t want to fly. I want to go from LA to Paris in 12 hours without getting on a plane!