I am not certain but I think you missed my point.

I am not saying that those things have no value. The opposite is definitely true. However, you are accepting a lot of baggage by reinforcing the systems that bring those conveniences. Now, you MUST have a cellphone or you are a Luddite. You MUST have a cellphone or you can't read a menu at a restaurant, unlock the door to your hotel room or access your bank funds.

You now have lost digital sovereignty to large corporations because you need to be able to get a hold of your kids within seconds.

All conveniences come with costs that you and society must bare.

▲

Grombobulous an hour ago | parent [-]

Last two sentences of your first paragraph are definitely not the sort of thing I was trying to say is okay.

I also don’t think some of the conveniences I talked about have much of a cost. My kids having a cell phone with basic phone and texting capability isn’t a digital sovereignty issue.

And I’m not sure if digital sovereignty matters if the alternative is digital abstinence.

That’s like saying “When you buy a Toyota Camry your life is beholden to Toyota, you should just walk to your destination.” The trade-off isn’t really even, is it?

	▲	Zambyte 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Car dependency is an excellent parallel. People buy cars on the promise that they should expect freedom of movement, but then they arrange their lives so they can only go where roads have been paved, and arrive where buildings have been demolished for parking lots. They become financially dependent on oil extraction in the Middle East. They become incapable of getting anywhere alone when they lose the ability to drive, due to ailments or age. So why do we do it? Because we can't imagine living without the convenience of our phones.