[mothballed]

I don't own a phone, but the most shocking revelation came when my child's school required us to use an app to specify how our children will be picked up or ride the bus.

So far I've been able to avoid using apps for pretty much anything, but when the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time, that puts you in a real fucked up situation.

[rhines]

We've reached the point where people without devices or common online services are so rare that society no longer accommodates them. It's similar to how we need legislation to ensure that disabled people have accessible infrastructure, except I doubt there will ever be legislation mandating offline/off-app accessibility.

[adiabatichottub]

File it under faulty assumptions organizations make about their clients or customers. If you live in a rural area in the United States it is still quite possible to have:

  * No cellular service
  * No landline service
  * No postal delivery to your property, and a physical address that isn't in any database
  * No public utilities

It can be very frustrating to deal with services that assume you have the ability to receive SMS messages, and almost anything requiring identity these days demands a phone number.

[wilg]

I don't think its unreasonable for private companies not to bother to offer their services to these people. Why should they have to? Many services require nearby physical infrastructure. Electing to live in the woods is not really a disability. Plus you can just get internet out there if you want and thereby receive SMS.

[adiabatichottub]

You're right, it's not a disability. However, it's also not always elective. Sure, a private business has no requirement to serve people outside of the market they want to serve, but what if that business is providing a service that is de-facto required in order to access government services?

[wilg]

It's the government's role to serve everyone generally, so they should provide reasonable accommodations for people. I suspect there are such accommodations, but it's hard to say without looking at a specific, real scenario.

Also, not always elective? I'm not so sure about that. You decide where you live. If you're a minor, your parents decide where you live. That's elective in a meaningful sense. You might have reasons you are personally weighing that make sense for you to live in a certain place, but accessibility of services should be part of that calculation, and ultimately it is still up to you.

The government isn't obligated to pay for your gas or provide you a car to get to the nearest post office to pay your taxes, for example. If you choose to live in such a way where it is difficult or impossible for you to comply with the law, there is not much the government can or should do about it.

[bigiain]

But further up this thread you're responding to it says:

> the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will "call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time"

Is it reasonable for a school to "call CPS and have your kids seized" because the school couldn't "bother to offer their services to these people"?

[conductr]

I think this highlights the two extremes. The grey area requires human interaction, such as, talking to the school leadership and explaining your phone-less situation. I guarantee they will accommodate some other solution. Like, “pickup for you is 3:15 every day” and just get used to your face. It’s a rare situation they likely didn’t consider, but it by no means is insinuating that if you don’t own a phone then your kids will go to CPS. It’s saying if you fail to pick them up they will, but if you fail to show up just because you can’t check in via app, that’s absolutely your failure and you’ve been warned about the consequences.

[wilg]

Maybe. Is it a public or a private school? Is this something they could or should have reasonably known? What is their duty to accommodate you? Is OP accurately describing the situation?

Let's say they let you fill it out with pen and paper, but you have a moral objection to using pen and paper. Perhaps you don't like the environmental cost of paper or the policies of all the existing pen companies. Is this reasonable? Where is the line on what should be accommodated? The government really only has an obligation here under ADA. Private firms have no real obligation. Not wanting to use a certain technology is not a disability, it is a preference. If you want your preference to become the law, there is a mechanism to do it, but it involves convincing a large number of people that you are correct.

[fauigerzigerk]

Yes, but to me there is a very big difference between being forced to adopt a class of technologies (online services in general) along with the rest of society and being forced to contract with a handful of specific companies that impose extremely one-sided contractual terms on everybody, touching almost every aspect of life.

[eMPee584]

Yes, but both permutations of digital coercion suck, right? ^^D

[fauigerzigerk]

General technological progress may well suck in some cases, but it's not coercion.

[mitthrowaway2]

This is how it happens that the appearance of a new option, which you are free to voluntarily choose or refuse (eg. buy a smartphone and an internet connection, maintain a Google account, accept everyone's ToS contract) gradually morphs into something mandatory if enough other people choose it.

[thaeli]

Well, many areas have banned app-only payment requirements (along with card-only) so it’s possible we’ll get some mandated alternatives.

[fsflover]

This is not even about having a device but about forcing you into the duopoly with no choice, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45092669

[W3zzy]

I work for some local governments in Belgium and with every system they put in place I keep insisting on a analogous version. Online forms? Great but if anyone chooses the should be able to send in a paper form or get assisted by someone who fills in the online form for them.

[lvspiff]

As the spouse of someone blind it's becoming increasingly difficult to get accomodations from doctors and govt things. Surprisingly so much so that even making ada complaints goes nowhere. Very few offices are willing to sit and fill out paperwork nor willing to provide an accessible version.

The only saving grace has been be my eyes and other apps that allow for some level of access without needing another human available. It really sucks though as back in the early 2000s strides were being made for the blind community but now it feels like things have regressed because of technology and basic human dignity and kindness has lost out.

[stock_toaster]

I'm sure the app is perfectly ADA complaint too. /sarcasm

[1over137]

What country is that in?!??

[eloisant]

CPS is in the US I believe

[bigstrat2003]

That's pretty fucked. It should be utterly illegal to put parents in a triple bind like that. You have my sympathies.

[etherealG]

I think I might enjoy the CPS scenario... let them call CPS, and wait for CPS to arrive, and then discuss with CPS who is endangering the child, the parent or the school. I'm pretty sure a judge will quickly decide whether their rule makes sense or not, and I think judges in child protection cases are going to quickly side with what's important for the child.

I HATE this kind of nonsense, and threatening you as a parent is only making things worse. Why not offer a way to handle this on a simple website? It would have lower cost to the school and be more accessible to anyone with any device able to access websites. Nonsense.

[conductr]

Spoken as a non-parent? No parent I know would be willing to test fate in that manner.

[mothballed]

Well the judge will likely rule the app is bullshit, but in the meantime CPS will argue they need to go into your house, look to see if you have a dirty dish, or the wrong proportion of snacks to vegetables, or maybe take notice your child is playing independently outside while they come around. Then they will portray that in the most insane way possible, and since it is a civil and not criminal process their is no requirement anything is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's also the problem that once they have your kid, the tables are completely turned, rather than them showing why they should take them, now you have to show why you should get them back and that is a process that can be dragged out for over a year.

Unfortunately CPS has wide latitude, secret courts, and the ability to unendingly fuck with you, so it's better just to not "invite" them in your life if you can. And if they do manage to snatch your kid, note they give so little fucks for the kid that their contractors will leave a kid in a hot car to die because apparently that's safer than being with their parents.[]

[] https://abcnews.go.com/US/3-year-dies-hot-car-custody-contra...

[asyx]

Damn. When I had a child in Germany, our version of CPS came over and told me what fun things the city offers for children and asked me about my plans for day care and how I can get help to get a spot.

I once called them because the day care lady of a friend‘s kid is a bit of an idiot and kinda scared us about mass closure of day care centers and it was probably the nicest interaction I’ve ever had with a government agency.

But from what I’ve heard, America in general is a whole other beast both regarding expectations for parents, trust in the kids and the trouble you can get in for minor things.

[akk0]

I wouldn't be so quick to equate differences in personal anecdotes with stark country-level differences (though it's plausible that everything is worse in America as usual)

I grew up in a low income neighborhood in the Netherlands and many times saw people be utterly terrified of CPS. In many cases these were households where outside help could've been really useful, but even in the worst cases where heavy CPS involvement was the only option (real "take the child away" cases), the child's situation often unfortunately hardly got better, just different. In less intense cases CPS involvement often just seemed to thrust a compliance burden on households without offering much real support, mostly just leaving people feeling guilty and stigmatized. Overall still better for them to exist than not, and budget cuts and restructuring really hurt the situation later, but still an organization with very real odds of making the situation worse, sometimes catastrophically worse.

[etherealG]

I'm so sorry that's the situation in your country. Another answer to your message from Germany is pretty close to my experience in France, child protection is way less combative and genuinely invested in what's good for children.