People without smartphones face increasing disadvantages in daily life as essential services like banking, healthcare, and parking increasingly rely on app-based access. Campaigners argue this digital exclusion unfairly penalizes vulnerable groups, including the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals who may not be able to afford or operate a smartphone. This "app tyranny" limits access to basic services, creating a two-tiered system and exacerbating existing inequalities. They call for alternative access options to ensure inclusivity and prevent further marginalization of those without smartphones.
The blog post "Money lessons without money: The financial literacy fallacy" argues that financial literacy education is largely ineffective because it fails to address the fundamental problem of insufficient income. Teaching budgeting and saving skills to people who barely have enough to cover basic needs is pointless. The post contends that focusing on systemic issues like wealth inequality and advocating for policies that increase wages and social safety nets would be far more impactful in improving people's financial well-being than traditional financial literacy programs. It uses the analogy of teaching dieting to starving people – the issue isn't lack of knowledge about nutrition, but lack of access to food.
HN users largely agreed with the article's premise that financial literacy education is ineffective without practical application and access to financial resources. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes reinforcing this point, describing how abstract financial concepts became meaningful only after encountering real-world financial situations. Some argued that focusing on systemic issues like predatory lending and wealth inequality would be more impactful than financial literacy programs. A few dissenting voices suggested that basic financial knowledge is still valuable, particularly for young people, and can help avoid costly mistakes. The discussion also touched on the importance of teaching critical thinking skills alongside financial concepts, enabling individuals to navigate complex financial products and marketing.
This article profiles Golden Gate Park ranger Lisa Wayne, who takes a compassionate, individualized approach to helping the unhoused people living in the park. Instead of simply enforcing rules, Wayne focuses on building relationships and connecting individuals with resources like housing and mental health services. She recognizes the complex factors contributing to homelessness and emphasizes the importance of treating each person with dignity and understanding, believing that lasting solutions require more than just moving people out of the park. Wayne's work highlights the effectiveness of a more humane approach to addressing homelessness, one focused on personal connection and access to necessary support.
HN commenters generally express skepticism about the effectiveness of the highlighted ranger's approach, questioning its scalability and suggesting it's more performative than impactful given the scope of the homelessness problem. Some doubt the sincerity of the city's efforts, viewing them as public relations moves rather than genuine attempts to address the root causes. Others point to systemic issues like housing costs, mental health support, and addiction treatment as the core problems needing attention, arguing that individualized approaches can't solve such widespread issues. Several commenters criticize the city's policies and spending, advocating for different strategies. A few offer personal anecdotes about similar situations or express sympathy for both the homeless individuals and the ranger.
Summary of Comments ( 252 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137488
Hacker News commenters largely agree that over-reliance on smartphones creates unfair disadvantages for those without them, particularly regarding essential services and accessibility. Several point out the increasing difficulty of accessing healthcare, banking, and government services without a smartphone. Some commenters suggest this trend is driven by cost-cutting measures disguised as "convenience" and highlight the digital divide's impact on vulnerable populations. Others discuss the privacy implications of mandatory app usage and the lack of viable alternatives for those who prefer not to use smartphones. A few argue that while some inconvenience is inevitable with technological advancement, essential services should offer alternative access methods. The lack of meaningful competition in the mobile OS market is also mentioned as a contributing factor to the problem.
The Hacker News thread discussing The Guardian's article, "The tyranny of apps: those without smartphones are unfairly penalised," contains a robust discussion with various perspectives on the increasing reliance on smartphones for everyday tasks.
Several commenters echo the article's sentiment, highlighting the exclusionary nature of app-dependent services. They point out how basic functionalities like parking, accessing government services, and even banking are increasingly migrating to app-only platforms, creating significant barriers for those without smartphones, particularly the elderly and low-income individuals. Some share personal anecdotes or stories of family members struggling with this digital divide, reinforcing the real-world impact of this trend. The discussion touches upon the loss of choice and autonomy for those who prefer not to use smartphones or cannot afford them. The idea of "digital redlining" is brought up, suggesting that this reliance on apps disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.
Conversely, some commenters argue that smartphones are now ubiquitous and affordable enough that this isn't a significant issue. They contend that the benefits of smartphones and apps outweigh the inconveniences for a small minority. These commenters suggest that adapting to technology is a necessary part of modern life, and that resisting this shift is impractical. A few point to the increasing availability of low-cost smartphones and data plans as evidence that the barrier to entry is minimal.
A middle ground is also presented, with some acknowledging the problem while suggesting solutions. These include advocating for alternative access methods alongside apps, such as web-based interfaces or phone-based systems. Others propose regulations that would require businesses and government services to offer non-app options. The discussion also explores the potential role of feature phones or simpler devices that could bridge the gap without requiring full smartphone adoption.
A recurring theme is the concern over data privacy and security, with some arguing that the push towards app-based everything increases the collection and potential misuse of personal information. The trade-off between convenience and privacy is discussed, with some expressing skepticism about the motivations behind the push for app-only services.
Finally, some commenters offer more nuanced perspectives, suggesting that the issue is not solely about smartphones but about the broader trend of technological advancements leaving some behind. They argue for a more inclusive approach to technological development that considers the needs of all users, regardless of their access to or comfort with the latest technology. The discussion also briefly touches upon the environmental impact of constantly upgrading smartphones and the potential for e-waste.