Author admits smartphones are ubiquitous, and doesn’t at all consider, in a hypothetical situation where everyone unanimously agreed to stop using them, where all this e-waste will go?

Pretty much every single smartphone in use right now will be ewaste 20 years from now, and most of them will be within 10. So we have that disposal problem already regardless. Hypothetically, if everyone were to get rid of their phones, we'd at least stop creating even more future ewaste.

Because luddism is good. But this article aint it.

So you used to hang out with your friends and share articles and comment on them in person then upvote/downvote and moderate? ok sure whatever you say...

No it isn’t. Technology is the evolutionary adaptation of humanity. It would be like a tiger cutting off its claws, or a rabbit breaking its own legs.

This left wing Luddite attitude is simply fueled by fucking tribalism because it wasn’t really anywhere to be found until the tech bros turned republican.

Current smart phones will become e-waste either way. On that front, the benefit would be forcing all manufacturers to stop creating more e-waste for the future.

So you used to hang out with your friends

Yes

The stone age = any time before 2005 apparently

I've been able to turn off notifications for anything on my phone. Only the few apps I choose to allow still give me notifications.

I am fortunate to have a job that does not require a cell phone, I can leave it behind for hours at a time without affecting my work. I know this is not the case for everyone, but it should be an option.

At the very least, a phone required for work should have a separate phone number and email account, and should turn off automatically after the employee clocks out for the day. Some countries already have laws about this stuff, we should do that more.

Ban social media and advertising/marketing. Smart phones are just a small computer.

I am trying so hard to not just make snarky comments but Jesus fucking Christ can you actually read the quote you posted and think about what they may be talking about?

I'm not on twitter and never have been. That significantly impacts the information that I recive and I am usually getting news a day or so later than people that are on twitter. That has social consequences and means that I am less able to talk about recent events. That's just one example on how you can not separate yourself from the information economy without negatively impacting your socialization.

You understand that social media helps create and reinforce those things right? Social media has lead to the fall of America into fascism. It might have if social media didn't exist but this rise in fascism is directly related to social media and the way that it fucks with peoles heads.

I’m in the US, we have advertising for everything. I haven’t thought about this to be honest. Because advertising medicine feels wrong to me, but at the same time I don’t have much of an issue with advertising alcohol or even tobacco. I think I would allow them with the caveat that for every dollar invested in their advertising the companies also have to invest in a fund for advertising responsible drinking etc. makes it expensive to advertise, but not illegal nor difficult.

I’m for banning or regulating the alteration of products in such a way that they become more addictive than they would naturally be, but in terms of things themselves I don’t think anything being illegal or heavily regulated to the point it is almost illegal solves any issues. So for example smoking being prohibited in public spaces makes sense because you are forcing others to smoke with you; but who exactly is harmed by gambling except the one gambling? Will they stop gambling if it is illegal? Probably not. So for me the historical evidence tells me that prohibiting the supply of anything while the demand exists simply causes black markets to pop up, which cause infinitely more issues than the thing itself being legal. So I’m pretty much against making any of these things illegal.

Limit the age to which the thing is accessible and put some taxes on it that fund awareness of addiction and programs to help people recover from addiction.

In terms of social media I think the regulation should be that by default the algorithm is simply “chronological “ ie it shows you everything posted by everyone you follow in the order they posted it. Then there can be a discovery or suggestion algorithm as a separate feed but it should be fully open so that anyone with the technical know how can pin point exactly what signals it is using to suggest content. I think that would go a long way.

1-800-collect

The problem is with planned obsolescence and capitalist drive to always make more. The device itself is not inherently bad, it's a glorified calculator.

Battling anything is built of two parts, making it immoral, and making it illegal. Making it illegal makes it easier to argue that it's immoral, because many people take cues for their morality from legality, but if you want to keep it illegal you have to maintain the cultural belief in its immorality. Each reinforces the other.

There is no other economic system.

If lemmy.ml could read this, they'd be very upset.

classic lemmy

Hey David, can you guess how many people are reading your article from a smartphone? Convenient, isn't it.

Want to complain about smartphones? Write a book... or something that can be published on fucking paper.

Me who has a disability which prevents me from speaking and hearing people and renders me bedridden.

“Okay, guess I’ll die then”