Skip to content

For All That Is Good About Humankind, Ban Smartphones

Technology
89 51 1.5k
  • Social media, algorithms and echo chambers they create are 80% of the problem degrading societies.

    You mean it's not the genocide, exploitation, imperialism, etc? It's just social media? Peak capitalist apologism.

  • 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?

    Also, how do you disillusion the millions of people that use them religiously?

    I get the sentiment, but only a significant technologically literate society would really appreciate the need for greater control over their devices and actually possess the skills needed to modify and configure them.

    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.

  • Why is the left so intent on becoming Luddites? What the fuck is this timeline?

    Because luddism is good. But this article aint it.

  • You realized I said "replaced"?

    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...

  • Because luddism is good. But this article aint it.

    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.

  • 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?

    Also, how do you disillusion the millions of people that use them religiously?

    I get the sentiment, but only a significant technologically literate society would really appreciate the need for greater control over their devices and actually possess the skills needed to modify and configure them.

    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 and share articles and comment on them in person then upvote/downvote and moderate? ok sure whatever you say...

    So you used to hang out with your friends

    Yes

  • And then what? Go back to the stone age?

    Kids waiting to get picked at school and their parents have emergency, how are they gonna inform the others to get picked up? Are they gonna just let that kid suck it up and wait for hours, just like the good old times?

    The stone age = any time before 2005 apparently 🙄

  • I agree, except that we are legally not allowed to control the software on our phones in lots of cases. Notifications, ads, upgrades, etc. are all controlled by the manufacturer and it's illegal to override their software on the device you own.

    Add to that that specific pieces of software are becoming increasingly necessary to function in society, and you start to see that it's not really a matter of individual choice, anymore than people shopping at walmart can be blamed for buying processed, sugary foods when that's 90% of what walmart stocks (And all they promote), and walmart is the only affordable option in their community.

    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.

  • This post did not contain any content.

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

  • It’s not a trick. Just like eating sugar, or drinking alcohol etc. you need to have the self awareness to say “hey I’m indulging too much in this and this is not good for me, let me take a break”.

    I think my first post on lemmy was about the necessity of limiting algorithms on social media. So I’m in favor of that. But even before social media people were getting addicted to online interaction, like I have met people that have told me they were addicted to chatrooms in the 90s and early 2000s. So even if you do limit the power of the algorithm you’ll still have people glued to their screens scrolling for hours.

    We land on somewhat different sides of the neoliberal fence, I think.

    The substances sugar, alcohol, tobacco, sure. Potentially harmful but not malicious. As long as we're talking about adults I mostly agree (although there are many regulations around them in all parts of the world. Smoking in public places, drinking when operating machinery and so on.) A company trying to manipulate people with ads to consume more of these substances: different story altogether since now there's at the very least neglect of societal responsibility involved- can and should be regulated. I can't think of a single reason why ads for alcohol should be allowed, for example. Here in a middle European country advertising spirits or nicotine products is illegal, while ads for beer/wine are legal under certain conditions. Slot machines and similar gambling are illegal while casino games like Roulette and Black Jack are very strictly regulated but legal. What's the situation in your corner of the world and what's your take on it?

    What to regulate and to which extent is not trivial of course, but especially when it comes to social media we're so far removed from "too much regulation" that I don't think it's worth going into it here. Banning Smartphones is obviously not the answer either way.

  • Many of us want to disconnect, but we can’t do so alone — not without losing touch with the world around us. Disconnection, today, carries real social and economic costs. Until such time as smartphones and social media can be democratically governed or nationalized — liberated from the imperative to profit off our attention indefinitely — a ban may be the most realistic path to reclaiming our lives.

    If the author can't stop using whatever website he's upset about without requiring everyone else to have their smartphones banned, that sounds like a him problem.

    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 mean it's not the genocide, exploitation, imperialism, etc? It's just social media? Peak capitalist apologism.

    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.

  • We land on somewhat different sides of the neoliberal fence, I think.

    The substances sugar, alcohol, tobacco, sure. Potentially harmful but not malicious. As long as we're talking about adults I mostly agree (although there are many regulations around them in all parts of the world. Smoking in public places, drinking when operating machinery and so on.) A company trying to manipulate people with ads to consume more of these substances: different story altogether since now there's at the very least neglect of societal responsibility involved- can and should be regulated. I can't think of a single reason why ads for alcohol should be allowed, for example. Here in a middle European country advertising spirits or nicotine products is illegal, while ads for beer/wine are legal under certain conditions. Slot machines and similar gambling are illegal while casino games like Roulette and Black Jack are very strictly regulated but legal. What's the situation in your corner of the world and what's your take on it?

    What to regulate and to which extent is not trivial of course, but especially when it comes to social media we're so far removed from "too much regulation" that I don't think it's worth going into it here. Banning Smartphones is obviously not the answer either way.

    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.

  • And then what? Go back to the stone age?

    Kids waiting to get picked at school and their parents have emergency, how are they gonna inform the others to get picked up? Are they gonna just let that kid suck it up and wait for hours, just like the good old times?

    1-800-collect

  • This post did not contain any content.

    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.

  • Ban smartphones makes about as much sense as ban drugs or ban guns. It does nothing to address root causes and will do little to change anything for the better. Societal issues take more than “make X illegal”.

    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.

    And "greed" isn't really the problem with capitalism. It's more about the violent deprivation of human needs in order to exploit people for the extreme privilege of a tiny minority. Etc.

    There is no other economic system.

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

  • smartphones are one of rhe hundreds o things that would probably be just fine and good if it weren't for capitalism

    classic lemmy

  • This post did not contain any content.

    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.

  • 466 Stimmen
    68 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    O
    It wasn't a direct reference, but definitely inspired by Dr. cox.
  • Elon Musk's X slams French criminal investigation

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    51 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    141 Aufrufe
    B
    Actually there was just yesterday a story about Corning (The maker of Gorilla glass), that was accused by EU for anti competitive behavior, where Corning entered in positive dialogue, and stated they intended to work fully within regulation. https://lemmy.world/post/33255689 Corning, the US-based manufacturer of Gorilla Glass, has successfully avoided potential European Union antitrust fines of up to $1.25 billion by agreeing to a set of legally binding commitments that address concerns over its exclusive supply agreements for specialty glass used in smartphones and other handheld devices. So yes Musk is an ass, also compared to other companies. And his reaction is confrontational, which is not normal behavior.
  • 4 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 302 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    132 Aufrufe
    J
    Really?!
  • 1k Stimmen
    556 Beiträge
    6k Aufrufe
    H
    Just give us cheap Chinese phones for fucks sake.
  • 191 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    243 Aufrufe
    A
    I wish everyone could read your comment right now. Spot on
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    427 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • The AI-powered collapse of the American tech workfoce

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    4 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    roofuskit@lemmy.worldR
    The biggest tech companies are still trimming from pandemic over hiring. Smaller companies are still snatching workers up. And you also have companies trimming payroll for the coming Trump recession. Neither have anything to do with AI.