[dijit]

why is this flagged? (maybe Theo? I don’t know this person).

Its absolutely a good argument against fragile IoT devices that have no local/offline mode and the ever increasing lurch of internet requirements for our daily life.

I’m not sure my phone does much of anything without an internet connection. Yet it is my primary banking and authentication method (via BankID).

EDIT: Theodore Kaczynski is the unabomber… well, thats an odd name to drop and maybe not an ideal candidate for life advice.

[IAmGraydon]

It's getting downvoted because (1) this person is suggesting the answer to governments taking away our ability to freely communicate is to stop freely communicating (2) he's giving life advice from a terrorist mass murderer.

Yes, you're not at risk from being cut off from the world if you're not connected to it in the first place. That's not a state most of us want to exist in. Ted Kaczynski lived in a small cabin in the woods away from humanity.

[ffuxlpff]

The solutions requiring constant internet connection are pushed by states and companies because they help cutting costs and gathering information. However, the users are often more vulnerable to the risks if the technology fails but have relatively little say.

The solutions that do much the same but require internet connection only once a day or even once an hour would be much more resilient and safe but currently there are few incentives for providers to develop and offer them.

The extreme situations like war or dictatorship are good awakening calls but it is easy to see there are lots of risks involved even if things would go rather smoothly otherwise.

[blueflow]

> this person is suggesting the answer to governments taking away our ability to freely communicate is to stop freely communicating

You equate comms with internet. Maybe you should talk to people IRL more often.

[IAmGraydon]

No one in their right mind believes that you can accomplish widespread, high speed communication via "talking to people IRL" like you can with the internet. It has become a very important way that we share information broadly, deal with emergencies, and stay informed. Going back to the stone age is not a good option at this point. But you know that, and you're just posting nonsense to have an argument.

[blueflow]

> No one in their right mind believes that you can accomplish widespread, high speed communication via "talking to people IRL" like you can with the internet.

Nobody claimed that. I'm not sure whether this sort of comms is meaningful at all or whether "staying informed" is just the dopamine thing in effect.

> Going back to the stone age

Its actually 20 years ago. That's less than the median age.

[IAmGraydon]

You think the internet started in 2005? Are you sure you belong here?

[blueflow]

Third straw-man in a row. get lost, troll.