[zzalpha]

Eh, by that reasoning, you could equally live without electricity or running water.

Technology is leveraged, not because it's strictly necessary, but because it's useful. After all, the very website we're having this conversation on isn't necessary. You could get by just fine without it.

But it's useful, isn't it?

Frankly, I don't think quietly opting out solves anything. Would it have helped if some folks opted out of the industrial revolution, content to sit on their farms eking out a living? No. It was those folks participating in the system, but determined to change it, who ultimately lead the charge and catalyzed change.

This technology is here, and it's enormously powerful and useful. But that necessarily means it's also enormously dangerous. The solution isn't to attempt to convince people to abandon that technology and somehow roll back the clock. The solution is for folks to understand the good and the evil these technologies can enable so that we can have intelligent conversations about their use and abuse; conversations that can ultimately inform a new generation of law makers, business owners, and citizens, so that we can realize the advantages of these technologies while minimizing the downsides.

Fortunately, things like the NSA leaks may be just the thing necessary to start those conversations.

[thaumaturgy]

I disagree that living with a flip phone instead of a smart phone is in any way equivalent to living without electricity or running water.

You're more than welcome to fight the good fight -- good luck to you -- but I'm not convinced that I'm so right that it should be my mission to change others' minds, and regardless the advice I gave is a good first step for anyone that is interested in changing others' minds.

[nitrogen]

I don't think the parent comment wants you to get people to downgrade. I think the intent is to get people to demand better protections from abuses of technology.

[thaumaturgy]

Maybe I'm not imaginative enough, but I can't figure how that would happen.

Who could be trusted to safeguard privacy? The government? The services that depend on advertising revenue, which these days is most of them?

Downgrading and opting-out has been the only option that has made sense to me. (But I'm probably weird.)

[hamoid]

I think it's a poor comparison. You need water to stay alive and to not stink. Electricity is easier to avoid, but why do that? Electricity and running water don't disturb me with notifications, are not as addictive as social networks, don't make me waste time, don't track me (as much as a smartphone).

I find that having no TV, no smart phone and no facebook reduces the noise. I don't miss them.

[adrianN]

There are always trade offs. Sure, you can live without electricity or running water and I'm certain some people argue that this has many benefits. For the average person however, the downsides outweigh the benefits by a huge margin.

Not owning a smart phone also has downsides and benefits. Many people however aren't really aware that downsides exist, so the benefits, however small they may be seem like a justification to buy one. I think it makes sense to be critical of the things you use and spend some time thinking about whether you really think that they benefits are worth the costs.

[throwawayaway]

personally i like the amish approach, before you make decisions on some technology, watch how others use it and take time to understand it before adopting it yourself.