Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
en:philosophy:against_enforced_digitalization [2024/06/18 13:04] throgh [Differentiation - What is digital compulsion and what is not?] |
en:philosophy:against_enforced_digitalization [2024/06/18 13:52] (current) throgh [Conclusion] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
If a certain service can only be offered in this form for technical reasons, one cannot speak of digital compulsion. For example, an account (bank account) is of course necessary for online banking, but not any other service-account. Therefore, one can only speak of digital compulsion in the second case. As long as analogue access to the bank account is still possible (and on an equal basis!), one can speak of neither account compulsion nor digital compulsion. However, the boundaries can be fluid as we already stated before. And that's another major issue: Missing forms of competence as the way digital services form and develop further is not equal side by side to the knowledge needed and people would also need to have for their own assessment and evaluation of that service offered. | If a certain service can only be offered in this form for technical reasons, one cannot speak of digital compulsion. For example, an account (bank account) is of course necessary for online banking, but not any other service-account. Therefore, one can only speak of digital compulsion in the second case. As long as analogue access to the bank account is still possible (and on an equal basis!), one can speak of neither account compulsion nor digital compulsion. However, the boundaries can be fluid as we already stated before. And that's another major issue: Missing forms of competence as the way digital services form and develop further is not equal side by side to the knowledge needed and people would also need to have for their own assessment and evaluation of that service offered. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Please remember here that all is in a form political, it is the essential point of politics to be part of the living of human beings and their deeds. But the outgrow of complexity, the on-going ignorance on the one side and the missing on the other side leaves more beings helpless or even become victims of those so-called " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== The mobile device (smartphone) is not “commonplace” ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The argument that mobile devices (smartphones) and the common repositories restricted to them (app stores) are " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Gateway to digital violence, hatred and harassment ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We have already described the outgrowing imbalance of knowledge forms. Exactly this is another very important point why digital compulsion and enforced digital services and processes on people is a very bad and destructive concept. It is clear to see that with more services and the growing complexity of needed infrastructure and dependencies we will loose the same time participation. People are and / or will get overwhelmed over time, while younger generations perhaps are direct suited for a possible span of time until they will also be confronted with the outgrow. This concept includes a gateway to digital violence and discrimination. And this includes even to be amused by the ignorance and lack of information, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Conclusion ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Is it just a luxury problem to worry about surveillance? |