We used to carry paper pieces called 'bank notes' or 'bills' and round metal disks called 'coins' in a small leather pouch in our pockets called wallets. They were pretty effective for payments without much of an infrastructure. Even banks worked using paper documents and books.

I know this sounds a bit too condescending. But that's honestly not my intention. I just couldn't help it! Jokes aside, it's true that we often forget that these things can be done and were done without the internet. But more importantly, there are 2 dangerous implications for our over reliance on the internet for our financial activities. The first is that the government or a non-state actor can easily disrupt our commercial and personal activity unintentionally or as a retribution. We have effectively surrendered our financial autonomy to multiple powerful players.

The second major problem is if we ever face a post-apocalyptic situation with regards to modern technology. We already have only a few fabs that can meet the global demand for advanced ICs. We have already seen our vulnerability to one of them when a flood there caused supply chain disruptions and a slump in even automobile markets. HDD and SSD manufacturers have similar weaknesses. Meanwhile, DRAM manufacturers are placing all their (gambling) chips in the AI hyperscaler market, threatening to disrupt every market from smartphones, laptops and consumer appliances to military and commercial jets, ATC, shipping, railway signalling, telecom infrastructure, etc. The technology apocalypse isn't that farfetched and we are extremely vulnerable to it.

Depends where one lives. In my location there is zero dependency on the internet. It's just a convenience thing and the growing number of miscreants on the internet is negating that balance for me personally. Sooner than later I am going back to a landline and ditching the cell phone.

Sure, but it does not mean it is not possible as OP notes.

More to your point though, even if it does, maybe it should not realy on it.

The solutions requiring constant internet connection are pushed by states and companies because they help cutting costs and gathering information. However, the users are often more vulnerable to the risks if the technology fails but have relatively little say.

The solutions that do much the same but require internet connection only once a day or even once an hour would be much more resilient and safe but currently there are few incentives for providers to develop and offer them.

The extreme situations like war or dictatorship are good awakening calls but it is easy to see there are lots of risks involved even if things would go rather smoothly otherwise.

> this person is suggesting the answer to governments taking away our ability to freely communicate is to stop freely communicating

You equate comms with internet. Maybe you should talk to people IRL more often.