> Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone.

In my country right now there's a lot of hand-wringing about the impact of social media and smartphones on teenagers' mental health and education. We've got schools banning phones, and the government wanting to introduce age checks for social media. Infinite doomscrolling in your pocket, endless brainrot short-form videos, it's not healthy and we need to get smartphones out of the hands of the young.

So there are good reasons people might choose not to get a smartphone.

Then exactly the same government also proposed people wouldn't be allowed to work without a 'Digital ID Card' - making smartphones (and google/apple accounts) mandatory.

▲

raw_anon_1111 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No there isn’t a good reason for the nanny state and giving the government more power over your life

	▲	sapphicsnail 44 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How are nanny corporations any better?
	▲	_DeadFred_ 40 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		1980 wants it's republican talking point back. It's 2026, we've seen that free speech absoluters don't actually care about protecting all speech. We've seen 'small government' and 'no government power over your life' supporters suddenly just fine with it when women's right to choose is taken away by the government. Or when the government wants to decide/legally enforce gender their gender definition. We've seen the 'less government' people do nothing as the Feds trample local laws, illegally seize voter roles (voting is a states issue), attempts to inject federal requirements into elections and attach what is a large cost for some people to the right to vote. So we're going to need more nuance than a disengenuous 1980 platitude on the topic.