[Ucalegon]

The problem with this argument is that forcing people to use technology, without proper training and against their will, introduces them to risks as well. Anyone with older parents/family can tell you the harms that come with phishing and other fraud scenarios that cost more than just accommodating people not using technology, both at the micro and macro level. Insulting people and bullying them into technology adoption when there are relatively simple fixes to the problem seem better than increasing risk exposure for no reason other than 'I believe that people who don't use technology are somehow lesser'.

[daedrdev]

Im going to be harsh, sorry.

In this case nobody is forcing them to buy a dodgers ticket. It’s a completely optional and absurdly expensive luxury good that is purely for leisure. They can simply not but a ticket if they don't want to accept conditions of sale.

[tracker1]

Yeah... I mean, who says I should have to put in wheelchair ramps for my ballpark that seats tens of thousands? I mean, so few people use/need them, I should just be able to refuse service to those people. Right?

/sarc

[pc86]

I don't want to blow your mind but choosing not to have a smartphone and being in a wheelchair are not remotely comparable.

[tracker1]

So, you want to force people to give money to specific, monopolistic, corporations? Why would I want a smart phone if I'm blind... how am I expected to use a smart phone when I am blind, exactly?

[Ucalegon]

Because quality of life doesn't have a value in of itself. Especially for the elderly, they should be excluded from enjoying the end of their life simply because no wants to think of a solution to the problem that doesn't require them to introduce massive amounts of risk into their life which, also, negatively impacts their quality of life.