[devney]

The main point to remember is that the fones we carry aren't for us. They are data-gathering tools for various spy enterprises. Any utility we get out of our fones is largely incidental, or at best it's bait to get us into the trap.

It's interesting that most of the replies here focus on the children aspect, while the same spy-device paradigm applies as much or more to adults.

The bottom line is I just don't get enough utility out of my devices to justify spending all that privacy on them. Plus ads make the internet unusable on them. I'll just use my laptop because it's more convenient.

[gordaco]

I hate smartphones mostly because of this (although there are more reasons), and I wish I could stop using them altogether, but there are too many people out there who only communicate using text applications (WhatsApp and Telegram, mostly. Which are about the only things I've installed aside from Firefox, which I also use only rarely). So in the end it's basically a choice of eschewing your social life or eschewing your privacy, at least partially. I've managed to convince a grand total of 0 people to use other means of communication such as email. There are also some services that I use (and some that I'm forced to use as part of my job, although these go to the company phone) that just plain refuse to offer a web interface and I can only use them as a fucking app. Who knows which data might it gather.

Windows users are also suffering a similar problem because of the smartphonisation of the desktop (side note, I hate that people still use that meme about "one version of Windows is bad and the next one is good". W10 still has most of the problems of W8, and some of them are even worse. I don't think we're ever going to get a "good" Windows ever again). We need to choose between being able to run old, trusty software or being actually in control of our computer (in terms of privacy, updates and so on). Then again I suspect that I have only a few months left of personal Windows usage.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The replies focus on the children aspect because that strips away the most challenging counterargument: why shouldn't adults be able to decide, as many if not most do, that they do get lots of utility out of their phones and don't much care about being spied on incidentally? It's hard to tell a story where smartphones are more dangerous than smoking, and despite being completely illegal for kids we mostly let people do it once they're old enough.

[Epiphany21]

>why shouldn't adults be able to decide

The majority of consumers are not tech-savvy enough to make informed decisions when it comes to electronics and their own freedom because the tech stack is just too complex, and even if they wanted to learn about it, most of the hardware and software is closed source and nearly impossible to modify. Most smartphone users don't even know that they're being spied on. To compound the problem, the companies that make the phones put out deceptive advertising claiming that these devices are private, and your data stays in your pocket. They're lying, and even the ToS agreement you click through during a new device setup says as much.

I reject the notion that a majority or even a plurality consent to this garbage.

[nisegami]

The majority of people aren't capable enough of making meaningful decisions about their political stances, but they can still vote.

[Epiphany21]

That isn't true at all. Citizens in countries without puppet governments have no problem informing themselves and contacting their legislators to drive real change.

In a place like the US, you get the illusion of choice. It's quite literally red team and blue team, and proponents of this system treat it exactly like a sporting event. The average American has zero ability to get any law changed or enacted.

A great contemporary example is the right to repair activism. Most people are sick of the "throw it away and buy a new one" mentality, and a lot of them are becoming very vocal in their support. This could be an easy way for politicians to boost their popularity and get reelected while doing real good in a bipartisan manner. Instead, these politicians pay the crowds lip service, sit on their hands and drag their feet while making up any reason not to do it. They know full well that their continued enrichment is contingent on the bribes they take and the connections they have, not your votes.

[TomSwirly]

> why shouldn't adults be able to decide

Because the average adult is completely uninformed on this matter. And this is no fault of theirs - life is far, far too complicated and busy to become experts on the thousands of things we participate in.

Luckily, we can rely on regulation. We plug in a new appliance and it doesn't blow up. Our cars rarely catch fire on the highway due to defects, and if they do, regulation and the legal system forces recalls.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Sure. The original piece isn't proposing that social media just needs a couple regulations, though - the author says they're convinced social media is bad even without the effects of being monitored.

[web007]

My phone is for me, whether or not FAANG et al gets some value out of it.

I get more utility out of my tech interactions on my phone than I give to "various spy enterprises". I use many services to their maximum, IMO negating most of the benefit they gain from loss-leader products that are their bait for me-as-a-product.

You _are_ being tracked and monetized. Your devices _are_ fingerprinted, and your demographics are tabulated and collated. The modern web doesn't have an effective opt-out (Ye Olde Web didn't either), so you may as well go all-in and extract as much value of your own as you can from the system.