The other side of this coin is that not everything about the past was better.

I’m struggling to see how having anxiety about losing your children is better. I’m struggling to understand how knowing where they are would lead to having fewer rules.

I struggle to figure out how my friends being more available to text is a negative. What was character-building about calling them on a landline or losing contact with them entirely as an alternative?

I got chicken pox as a kid, that doesn’t mean my kids should get it.

I’ve had arguments like this with my parents about urbanism. When they grew up, the city was dirty, crime-ridden, etc. They also grew up during a time when the automobile was like the tech industry of their day. It was an innovation that changed their lives for the better in their opinion and lived experience. Their house got bigger, their car got bettter and lasted longer and their neighborhood got cleaner and safer, in their eyes.

My parents feel like trying to use the car less and switching to public transit or cycling more is like denying progress. What was the point of all that innovation and progress if we are “going backwards” in their eyes?

The end result of these discussions isn’t that I don’t believe in urbanism anymore, but I’m now more accepting of their point of view on the subject. I see their viewpoint as more valid than I used to. There’s nothing horribly wrong about their way of life even though I don’t necessarily want to adopt many aspects of it.

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.

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?

> My kids having a cell phone with basic phone and texting capability isn’t a digital sovereignty issue.

Of course it is, the first version of Twitter was a texting platform. You can't draw some line and say that this is the end of the baggage that comes with this convenience because that is not how the world works. The inevitability of social pressure means "keeping up with the Joneses" so your kids need to communicate with others, not just you.

Just because it doesn't come in the form of an app doesn't mean it is safe or come without risks.

Telecoms (calling and texting) are literally regulated utilities. I’m confused at where the baggage is.

I’m failing to see how Twitter is relevant.

I’m failing to see the “keeping up with the Joneses” factor here. I am talking about basic cellular service not a $1,000 iPhone loaded up with brain rot apps.

> literally regulated utilities.

Regulated in what way that is relevant to the concern about digital sovereignty or privacy?

> I’m failing to see how Twitter is relevant.

My point is that voice and text ONLY (dumb phones) isn't some significant change from apps in terms of the concerns I am raising.

> I am talking about basic cellular service

If you and your children can maintain that situation, great, it doesn't change that society has NOT accepted that. That society sees you as unusual for not conforming. Which is the entire point of my argument. The pressure to conform doesn't yield because of a single person's choice and many use the arguments you are using to maintain their children's access to a $1,000 iPhone loaded up with brain rot apps.

I gotta be honest I don’t care enough about this subject enough to keep going lol

I am really just not in any pickle and don’t lose sleep over any of this. That was my original entire point is that sometimes it’s acceptable to allow things to be convenient.

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.

And similar to a phone, I don’t usually think that the answer is to just not own one at all.

I’m all for reducing trips and being more mindful about car dependency but I’m not personally going to sell my car because I can afford it and it makes my life better.

Are you imagining a modern society that developed without cars as being more of a burden to live in, or are you imagining the current society, developed with cars, as being more of a burden to live in when just getting rid of cars? Because yeah, getting rid of a car is going to make most people's lives harder. That's kind of what makes it a dependency.

When cars became popular, a lot of urban areas were developed under the assumption that all destinations would be reached by car from that point in time onward. There was no need to consider the idea that someone might not be able to or want to reach a destination without one.

I’m fine with cars being a beneficial convenience, an attainable luxury for the masses, but I think that any area with sufficient population (which isn’t very much) can support the idea of families being able to reach a significant percent of their daily destinations without a vehicle, and perhaps even preferring to do so.

It also saves a tremendous amount of resources and cost of living to reduce car trips per week per person by even a small amount.

When smartphones became popular, a lot of social functions developed under the assumption that all participants would have a smartphone, and have it with them at all times, connected. There has been no need to consider the idea that someone might want to participate without one.

You're arguing that car dependency is fine (for you). I'm arguing that car dependency is a good analogy for phone dependency.

I'm not a parent and a bit autistic so excuse the unemotional reply but surely there are other ways not to have anxiety about your children surely?:

Teach independence/self-defence/street smarts, encourage weight lifting for older kids, therapy/meditation for yourself (some anxiety is natural of course!), move to a safer city, have more children (easier to pair them up on adventures, plus less subconscious physiological fear of losing your one and only child), distract yourself and stay busy, go with them to places the first few times to assure yourself then take off your training wheels. Or just say no to certain things.

It doesn't seem to me a special case of anxiety that can only be addressed by spy apps and knowing you might be able to instantly contact them.

Knowing where they are isn’t necessarily “installing spy apps,” it can just mean being able to call them or text them.

“Move to a safer city” is a lot more expensive than a phone plan. A lot of people don’t have that luxury.

I agree that all the things you talk about are life positives but the way I see it, giving a kid who is old and mature enough to use one a cell phone is like a $15/month cost proposition for an outsized benefit of being able to contact them.

lol, have my kids carry a phone or have more kids so the can be paired up.

That’s a wild thing to say out loud. And absolutely doesn’t solve the problem. Kids need to have their own friends and own social circles if you want to teach independence.

I said /easier/ to pair up and I didn't say they shouldn't have their own friends.