[account42]

> I can drop windows and switch to linux, but I don't think everyone could.

Honestly, most people could if they really wanted to. People come up with all kinds of reasons why they can't but ultimately it just boils down to not wanting to be inconvenienced.

Your other examples are a lot harder to do something about but that doesn't mean you can't do anything. Do you really need a smartphone at all? Third party data harvesting is bad and should be regulated out of existence but you can limit how much those companies affect you. Broadband does work a bit better in some parts of the world where the last mile cables are considered common infrastructure so go campaign or heck you could start your own ISP or support someone else that does. Can any single person fix all of this on their own? No. But you can resists wherver possible. You can choose better companies where they are available even if that means paying slightly more. You can get involved politically, especially locally. You can say no to services that are not really essential.

You CAN say no even if that has a cost.

[the_overseer]

Yes. I need a smartphone. What is it with so many antiprogress people on HN? Do you really need cooked food? Like reaaaaly need it? Yes ffs... Windows with ads is a much smaller inconvenience than completely changing my work style to fit with linux lack of support of a million useful things.

[JohnFen]

You may need a smartphone. That's fair. But the majority of people really don't. The want one. That's a different thing.

> What is it with so many antiprogress people on HN?

There aren't a great deal of antiprogress people on HN. There are a bunch of people who may disagree about what counts as "progress", though.

[the_overseer]

Most people need a smartphone at least for google maps. Do you really believe people will go back to using paper maps for orientation? Or fixed phones?

[YellOh]

Paper maps aren't that hard to get. Whether people will use them has no bearing on whether people can, and therefore they want the convenience of smartphones but only need verbal/paper directions when trying to get somewhere.

It's hard to say something is a "need" if it has existed for only 18 years and still has viable alternatives. That doesn't mean it should automatically be discarded, but it's disingenuous to act like it's actually necessary.

[vetinari]

No, you don't really need a smartphone. You want one. Slightly different thing. Nuance, you know.

Sure, you can have it, nobody is going to tell you that you can't. But be honest to yourself; nobody ever died of hunger for not having one.

[autoexec]

I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that many many people have died who wouldn't have if they'd only had a working cell phone on them at the time. A cell phone could very well save a person's life. It's a pretty useful thing. Increasingly, the expectation is that everyone will have one and a growing number of products and services require the use of an app. In fairness, I've personally managed to avoid those so far, but it's already at times required companies to go out of their way to provide me with alternatives and it's not hard to imagine that they will only grow more reluctant to provide those costly accommodations in the future.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to limit their employment options, risk their safety, and increasingly cut themselves off from normal society just to avoid the harms of owning a cell phone, when those harms are impacting everyone at little or no benefit to the public at large, and when the worst offenses could be mitigated through regulations.

[CRConrad]

vetinari: > > No, you don't really need a smartphone. You want one. Slightly different thing. Nuance, you know.

autoexec: > I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that many many people have died who wouldn't have if they'd only had a working cell phone on them at the time. A cell phone could very well save a person's life.

Emphases added.