[luckylion]

> but the reality is that over 3/4 of Americans have access to knowledge that people in any other century would have sold their souls for

Some people. Your average medieval serf didn't care for all that in his pocket: he couldn't read and he'd get the whip if he stood around doing nothing, so he would very much not have sold his soul for something that had no value for him.

It's similar today. For you, it's a great asset, but most (and, I assume, everybody some of the time) don't use it that way. For most people, it is indeed 24/7 cat videos. Also, I have my doubts about the importance of carrying it around with you. It's the knowledge and the access that counts (if you're into knowledge), not the "and I can do it while standing outside anywhere in the city". The access would be virtually the same if you had to go to a public library instead of getting your phone out of your pocket.

[NE2z2T9qi]

> Also, I have my doubts about the importance of carrying it around with you. It's the knowledge and the access that counts (if you're into knowledge), not the "and I can do it while standing outside anywhere in the city".

I would have to disagree strongly with that. There's a fundamental difference between the knowledge being extraordinarily democratized vs. available only through gatekeepers. Imagine having to go to a library to get directions for a short daytrip or book an Uber a day in advance. The frustration that would cause and time it would waste is enormous.

And importantly, you can't separate the "productive" and "non productive" aspects. The fact that you can FaceTime your friends or waste time on the devices is what makes them universally available. How many people in a poor neighborhood would shell out for a knowledge-only device or spend hours after a hard day shlepping down to a library? The fact that you can do fun stuff and mindless stuff with a phone is why the phone is in your pocket when you suddenly want to learn to do something difficult or find out the solution to an obscure problem.

[luckylion]

You're certainly right that few people would pay as much for the device if "all" it could to is serve as a gateway to human knowledge. I don't believe that the knowledge part is an active ingredient in the equation, but I don't disagree that it's a nice bonus.

> Imagine having to go to a library to get directions for a short daytrip or book an Uber a day in advance. The frustration that would cause and time it would waste is enormous.

I grew up in a time when that was quite normal (well ... day trips to somewhere unknown? that's rare!), and it wasn't so bad, and certainly didn't feel frustrating. It's hard to believe, but we managed to traverse the city (and even the country) without navigation assistants too ;)

> How many people in a poor neighborhood would shell out for a knowledge-only device or spend hours after a hard day shlepping down to a library?

Workers in Germany used to organize voluntarily in educational organizations some 150 years ago to advance their knowledge and social situation. Since it was forbidden to do so before the revolution of 1848 by the ruling elite, they got together under the guise of singing or sports to share knowledge (and socialism). They'd happily spend hours at the library had they been allowed to.

I'm not arguing against your point, but I do believe that it's class-dependent. If you're educated, you're likely to use your phone for information and entertainment. The lower the class, the larger the entertainment part grows. The idea of social liberation through knowledge is a noble one, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't believe that the availability alone will help for large parts of the population, and we shouldn't rely on that to advance their circumstances.