[failed_ideas]

These aren't even logical arguments. I've presented use cases where voice recognition may be the only feasible way to interact. Is a voice recognition server's security as secure as my banks? Seriously, I'm done arguing with someone who fails to rebut logical arguments and just doubles down on a fairly ignorant position.

[imgabe]

Just because you don't seem to understand the logic, doesn't mean it's not logical.

[failed_ideas]

Marginalizing an entire group of people simply because it doesn't fit with your narrative isn't logical, it's ignorance.

[imgabe]

If you're just going to make up your own things that I said, there's not really much point in me saying anything. How am I marginalizing anyone? I never said anything about voice recognition not existing or not being used. In order for it to work, it needs to transmit data to a server owned by the company providing the service. That's just a simple technological fact. If they're going to use it, they need to weigh what I think is a vanishingly small privacy risk against the benefits they get from the service. Just like you have to do for literally every online service in existence.

People can use the service and come to terms with that fact or they can not use it. If they choose not to use it, they need to live with the consequences of that decision. If it means they have no other way to access some service, then that's something they need to take into account. I can't think of any service in existence that can only be accessed by voice recognition instead of having an phone representative, physical branch, or other options. If you really, really need to access your bank account, there are plenty of options aside from speaking to your smart TV. Nobody is getting marginalized here.