> That would basically ban normal cell phones. You can't do calls without access to the network.
I get your point but making calls is no longer the principal reason to own a smartphone. I have made no calls in the last two months and have received just one. But I have spent hours on Skype via WiFi, recorded tens of hours of video and taken hundreds of photographs, as well as read lots of books, sent and received money for goods that I have used the phone to list for sale online. Not to mention email and dozens of other applications.
Almost none of my use needed the cellular network.
> when was the last time you sent (or received) an e-mail outside of the context of work, or to interact with a company?
This morning, a few hours ago.
> apple and google make the phones! my network provider is also a private company, too, they have no requirement to provide me a phone service.
No, there are plenty of other phone manufacturers besides Apple and Google. Just as there are plenty of phone service providers, both mobile and VoIP. If they are all blocking/refusing you service, that would be quite a story, and I might change my opinion, but I've never heard of that happening.
> millennials (my generation) aren't great at spontaneity in this regard. gen Z are even worse.
I'm a older/early millenial (Xennial to some people). I agree with you but I don't see how you'd ever be completely blocked from using a phone.
> private social media isn't the problem (although it is a problem). i'm saying that so much of our lives are very tightly embedded with a handful of private companies, and them having control over that isn't a great way to be.
I agree with you 100%. The way to regain control is not to use the government to force them to provide a platform to racists, it's to ensure that you disentangle yourself from their systems as much as you can. Make sure you have a plan for what to do if your Whatsapp or iCloud account is banned by an algorithm with no recourse.
Are irreversible algorithmic bans the best way for companies to operate? Clearly not, it sucks. And maybe there's room for legal solutions to mandate open appeals processes, etc. But the alternative of forcing companies to give everyone a platform is way worse, IMHO.
>If you're going to tell me that all these apps are the communication method of choice...
I can't remember the last time I used my phone to actually make a call. In fact, in 2012 making a call was only the fifth most-used feature of the average smartphone, following after internet, social media, music, and games. I'm guessing that in 2016, with the plethora of messaging apps and the huge push by Facebook and others to drive adoption of those apps, making calls is even less of a priority for people.
> What is your life like to where you think not having a cell is impractical.
In the 90s it was inconvenient to be out and about if you were expecting a call. You might be able to check your messages though, by dialing your answering machine from a payphone.
Payphones barely exist anymore, so it would be even more inconvenient. If you need to be reachable at all (nowadays by email/sms), a cell phone is nearly a requirement. If you do not need to be reachable, you still put yourself at a significant disadvantage by not carrying one.
What is your life like where you would not be inconvenienced by not having a cell phone?
> What kind of real person uses the phone nowadays?
Tell me you have no kids without telling me you have no kids.
> Normal people use FaceTime, WhatsApp, Messenger, Zoom, etc.
What? No. Just call me on my phone. The actual phone, landline. You can call me on my cellphone but I'm not answering, leave a message. I might check it someday.
You will never reach me on these proprietary third party walled-garden apps. I don't do proprietary.
>Just wanted to point out: that's certainly not true for everyone.
Very true. I use email for almost all my communication. It's not because I refuse to use anything else. I'm very much open to better solutions. But messengers linked to phone numbers can never be that solution for me.
Phone numbers come with way too many strings attached. They are country specifc. They can only be linked to one SIM card and one device at a time and that is almost never the device I want to use for written communication. They are subject to onerous contractual agreements and restrictions imposed by phone companies. By default, they allow everyone to call me. I don't usually want to be called on the phone.
> Different phones have different capabilities, what's there to explain?
That your definition of ‘phone’ is meaningless. If phones can have any capability you like, then ‘phone’ doesn’t mean anything.
Once you are playing that game you may as well just declare that social networks can be regulated because they are a ‘capability some things that can also communicate with phones have’, and phones are already regulated.
> If people need to get a hold of me instantly, they call… like normal people.
Just as any communication mean phone calls are abused to no end. 95% of the calls I receive are spam, the rest are from VIP registered numbers (family, school etc.).
It’s anecdotal but I see more and more people just filtering all non VIP calls and checking every now and then voice mail or messages.
I’m not sure people heavily relying on phone are still “normal” people.
>Me making it difficult to be reached does not mean they’re not my friends.
Is phone and SMS considered 'difficult' now? Everyone I know simply uses SMS and phone calls.
I suppose if you have globally distributed friends groups, this could be difficult, otherwise I don't see why. You give up a few features and it's not the most secure but it's a viable alternative almost everyone has access to.
No, I have another phone (Nokia basic) just to handle calls.
> What does that look like?
It may look like, you are loosing trends and info (FOMO), but you'll be fine in time.
> Do you feel isolated from your friends/family, or do you have some other more traditional way of keeping contact? Do you think it's beneficial to you?
Tell em, that they can reach you on 5PM-6PM [your own time frame].
> The phone forces me to call people more often as it is tedious to text on its interface which is a good thing
Most folks I know don't really use calling anymore. If one of my friends called me, I'd probably pick up because I assumed it was an emergency. If they just called to talk, I'd tell them to text me.
YMMV here but younger crowds seem to shun voice calling IMO.
surely you must recognize that you are likely in the minority of e-mail users?
> Just as there are plenty of phone service providers
two or three, really. and many areas in the US are limited to one or two.
> If they are all blocking/refusing you service, that would be quite a story, and I might change my opinion, but I've never heard of that happening.
didn't trump's twitter platform get banned from all the common cloud providers? is it that much more ridiculous to think that they would be unable to colo with anyone?
to be clear, i'm personally happy that it doesn't exist, and this isn't the same thing. but just because i don't agree with it... i know it's not the same thing as what we're talking about, but i don't think you don't need to squint too hard to see the parallel and the precedent.
> but I don't see how you'd ever be completely blocked from using a phone
indeed, i'd still be able to use my nokia 3310, and predictive text my way around social life, but it would be an incomplete existence (these days).
in any case, you don't need to be blocked from using a phone. you need only be blocked from using the various platforms that people use today.
Nah, it really doesn't when compared to something like getting banned from facebook.
I make way more video calls with people than I make phone calls. And probably around 50% of my communication is done over FB message.
It would be way less of a problem to get banned from making phone calls for me and for many other people.
reply