Skip Navigation
Hacker News @lemmy.bestiver.se
RSS Bot @lemmy.bestiver.se
BOT

'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

www.theguardian.com

‘The tyranny of apps’: those without smartphones are unfairly penalised, say campaigners
Smartphone Required 📱(digital exclusion of people without smartphones) @lemmy.sdf.org
mox @lemmy.sdf.org

‘The tyranny of apps’: those without smartphones are unfairly penalised, say campaigners
Ask Android @lemdro.id
ladfrombrad 🇬🇧 @lemdro.id

‘The tyranny of apps’: those without smartphones are unfairly penalised, say campaigners
Technology @lemmy.world
nahostdeutschland @feddit.org

‘The tyranny of apps’: those without smartphones are unfairly penalised, say campaigners
5 comments

  • It’s when we treat apps as a necessity rather than a convenience that things go very awry. Menus at restaurants that are only available via QR code makes sense for the owner, but is a pain in the ass for the patron. I’ve also had multiple times tried to go to events where a ticket couldn’t be furnished due to my phone battery dying unexpectedly or even being out of service so the app needed for check in was non-functional.

    I don’t buy the enhanced security argument this article floats either. It seems every couple of months some tech company is getting hacked and leaking our info anyway.

    • If I have to scan a QR code to look at the menu I'll be eating somewhere else.

  • Whenever the interest rate is higher on the app, or the price is discounted or whatever, I assume the price difference is being made up by harvesting and selling my data. This is reinforced by the fact that most apps are designed like total shit, offering a worse experience than a web browser. Therefore the only reason I can speculate they made an app at all was because apps offer a larger hole in our integument through which they can sneak.

    I don't buy the security argument at all, it's all just "rot economy" nonsense. I am old enough to have deposited paper checks physically to a bank teller. They would scrutinize the details and more than once I was challenged over minor discrepancies. This was less convenient than electronic processes but it no way was it less secure. Info moved with difficulty then, but that included theft. Laws regarding warrants and surveillance were very clear cut and relatively strict compared to their digital equivalents. I don't think people who lived before the surveillance age realize just how much privacy has eroded. There was a time when having all your private data stolen was a huge deal. Now I've lost count of how many court-ordered "Identity Protection" services I've been offered by companies with terrible security practices, many of which I never directly did business with at all.

    I haven't totally chucked apps like the dude in the story but I get it. FOSS apps are my compromise.

  • It would be nice to see laws preventing app-only offers, just as we have laws preventing card-only charging

  • Some of the best savings rates are offered by app-only providers – made up of banks and “electronic money institutions” (EMIs), which do not have their own banking licence, but put your money in a bank that does.

    Well. They're supposed to