In my comments here over the years, I have occasionally mentioned how I don't do business with certain companies or use certain sorts of products because I find the companies objectionable.

What I find interesting/hilarious is how often someone will reply to me saying that my life would be so much easier if I just gave in and used them anyway, or (worse) how I'm being wrong in some way by being selective about who I support with my money.

That borg-like "you will be assimilated" sort of commentary is fascinating, disturbing, and goes far to illustrate how there are ordinary people who absolutely don't want you to exert your economic authority.

> That borg-like "you will be assimilated" sort of commentary is fascinating, disturbing, and goes far to illustrate how there are ordinary people who absolutely don't want you to exert your economic authority.

I've learned not to underestimate the extents to which people will go to rationalize their cognitive dissonance. In person, my tactic has just been to self-censor more - I guess I'm tired/lazy and don't want to be bothered unnecessarily.

>I've learned not to underestimate the extents to which people will go to rationalize their cognitive dissonance. In person, my tactic has just been to self-censor more - I guess I'm tired/lazy and don't want to be bothered unnecessarily.

I couldn't agree more. As someone with decades of infosec experience, I stopped trying to get my family members (especially those who don't have any technical background) not to use abusive products/services, especially on their smartphones years ago, because I got sick of having to hear about how wrong I was from folks who wouldn't know good security hygiene if it came up and bit them.

It just wasn't worth the argument.

As in most situations (not just tech/infosec), some lessons can't be learned from others, the mistakes must be experienced personally to actually get it. Those lessons are different for everyone, but are pretty ubiquitous. I've certainly been there myself.

Edit: Corrected prose to actually make sense.

It's fair enough if you don't want to make evangelism your life mission but if you don't point bad things out to people at all then you are limiting your impact as much as those that have given up and submit to those things. Sometimes people are receptive to being nudged towards responsible behavior.

>It's fair enough if you don't want to make evangelism your life mission but if you don't point bad things out to people at all then you are limiting your impact

What makes you think I don't? Check my comment history, that should disabuse you of that notion.

>Sometimes people are receptive to being nudged towards responsible behavior.

That's often true. But I've banged my head against that particular wall too many times already. You did catch the part where I said "family" right?

> Users should learn to say "no" to companies.

This assumes that consumers have a choice to say no. I can drop windows and switch to linux, but I don't think everyone could. I want a phone that doesn't come with Google's software and won't severely limit what I can do with it like apple would. Could most people find and afford one? Some surveillance companies like facebook and Experian don't give you any choice at all. They collect (and leak) your data even if you never sign up for anything with them. If I only have one option for broadband in my city it's unreasonable to expect me to go without functional internet access, even if I hate the one company available and know they'll sell my browsing history.

At a certain point people are basically forced to use companies or are at their mercy even if they'd rather not be.

> I can drop windows and switch to linux, but I don't think everyone could.

Honestly, most people could if they really wanted to. People come up with all kinds of reasons why they can't but ultimately it just boils down to not wanting to be inconvenienced.

Your other examples are a lot harder to do something about but that doesn't mean you can't do anything. Do you really need a smartphone at all? Third party data harvesting is bad and should be regulated out of existence but you can limit how much those companies affect you. Broadband does work a bit better in some parts of the world where the last mile cables are considered common infrastructure so go campaign or heck you could start your own ISP or support someone else that does. Can any single person fix all of this on their own? No. But you can resists wherver possible. You can choose better companies where they are available even if that means paying slightly more. You can get involved politically, especially locally. You can say no to services that are not really essential.

You CAN say no even if that has a cost.

Yes. I need a smartphone. What is it with so many antiprogress people on HN? Do you really need cooked food? Like reaaaaly need it? Yes ffs... Windows with ads is a much smaller inconvenience than completely changing my work style to fit with linux lack of support of a million useful things.

You may need a smartphone. That's fair. But the majority of people really don't. The want one. That's a different thing.

> What is it with so many antiprogress people on HN?

There aren't a great deal of antiprogress people on HN. There are a bunch of people who may disagree about what counts as "progress", though.

Most people need a smartphone at least for google maps. Do you really believe people will go back to using paper maps for orientation? Or fixed phones?

Paper maps aren't that hard to get. Whether people will use them has no bearing on whether people can, and therefore they want the convenience of smartphones but only need verbal/paper directions when trying to get somewhere.

It's hard to say something is a "need" if it has existed for only 18 years and still has viable alternatives. That doesn't mean it should automatically be discarded, but it's disingenuous to act like it's actually necessary.

No, you don't really need a smartphone. You want one. Slightly different thing. Nuance, you know.

Sure, you can have it, nobody is going to tell you that you can't. But be honest to yourself; nobody ever died of hunger for not having one.

I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that many many people have died who wouldn't have if they'd only had a working cell phone on them at the time. A cell phone could very well save a person's life. It's a pretty useful thing. Increasingly, the expectation is that everyone will have one and a growing number of products and services require the use of an app. In fairness, I've personally managed to avoid those so far, but it's already at times required companies to go out of their way to provide me with alternatives and it's not hard to imagine that they will only grow more reluctant to provide those costly accommodations in the future.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to limit their employment options, risk their safety, and increasingly cut themselves off from normal society just to avoid the harms of owning a cell phone, when those harms are impacting everyone at little or no benefit to the public at large, and when the worst offenses could be mitigated through regulations.

vetinari: > > No, you don't really need a smartphone. You want one. Slightly different thing. Nuance, you know.

autoexec: > I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that many many people have died who wouldn't have if they'd only had a working cell phone on them at the time. A cell phone could very well save a person's life.

Emphases added.

Just say no to Nestle. Cook your own food! Same goes for piracy, if they feel violated by me not being customer, dont go to the government and its laws as company. Just try to exist without the could-be-customers. Boycott the pirates, by doing nothing.