First and foremost: I'm sorry for you. Living in a participation-dictated-by-app hellscape sucks. But most people only realize this when the magical one or two steps happen that force them to "touch grass".
With regards to specific points that match with my reality:
> "My fiance's office badges are smartphone-based. You cannot enter otherwise."
I worked for a company where that was a thing. Easy fix: They issued me (and others) a smartphone for that. And that slab never left the workplace either; I fetched/returned it before/after my day by notifying the security desk.
Everything else on your list is either irrelevant or unnacceptable to me, or simply illegal where I live.
You would be PIP'd next week today. Nobody is dealing with that anymore. Is it suppressing our rights? Yes. Absolutely. And it will get worse. And no, people will not revolt. And you will be left behind, on the other side of the gates, after all your team has gone through. Happy to do it? Rich enough to do it? I'm not ...
It's a bias, an in-bubble illiteracy effect, concerning the perception and analysis of realities (e. g. experiences) outside that bubble, mirroring an in-group's projections about an out-group. It is, in my decades of experience, a very common phenomenon in the IT sector.
> "My Dad doesn’t have one, he has zero-to-no trouble going to the bank and paying his bills and just about every other imaginable thing."
So far, that holds true for me as well (Germany).
> "If there was something he could not do and there were repercussions for it he’d be calling an attorney to rectify the situation."
The crux: the increasing friction brought on by rising technological entry barriers. In Germany you have at least the non-exclusion principle of Teilhabe (lit.: participation) which gives certain guarantees. But such achievements of democracy are continually under fire.
> It's a bias, an in-bubble illiteracy effect, concerning the perception and analysis of realities (e. g. experiences) outside that bubble, mirroring an in-group's projections about an out-group. It is, in my decades of experience, a very common phenomenon in the IT sector.
I (also German) have the impression that people who work in the IT sector are often much more critical of surveillance methods (including smartphones) than the average citizen.
And hopefully it stays that way in Germany. A state and its essential-to-life institutions and businesses (which includes cultural participation) need to be accessible to everyone. That includes people who don't own a smartphone, for whatever reason.
Nordic, works just fine, i only have an HMD 'Nokia' non-smartphone (i detest capacitive touchscreens, and my previous ungoogled qwerty android phone broke,
waiting for my next one to arrive in 2026-12 or thereabouts).
No QR-code-only restaurants that i have seen, and i would walk out without a word if that happened (even if i had a device that can do that). Bank does 2FAs second part with an SMS, first part is username, password and an otp code from a paper. Bank login is also a very common way of logging into governmental systems, but those only use the username, password and otp code, skipping the SMS, alternatively i could use an id card with a reader, state provides even Linux software for that.
The housing companys winter car engine heating sockets operate with an app, or alternatively just opening the lid and setting the timer yourself.
Additional data point: my dad, when he was still alive (-2025), had a smartphone but wouldn't use apps beyond facebook, did his banking by mailing in signed bills or at the bank in person, without an appointment.
Geiz-ist-geil-healthcare is, according to many election results anyway, what most US citizens want; everything else is communism/socialism/woke/leftist/[...].
The craft is obviously there, but it still looks rather tacky to me, mostly because of its lacquered finish, a look I generally can't stand. Or in American vernacular: "it just doesn't speak to me".
> Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to affect foreign or domestic affairs, as a more peaceful and rational alternative, or as a less benign adjunct, to warfare.
The parent is musing on the impossibility of Google being held accountable, as the government largely assents to this plan and will ostensibly use it for social control during times of protracted warfare (eg. right now).
> "I kind feel this might be good. [...] Going back to the real world were you can trully believe on what you see, and enjoy the tone, look and scent of of our fellows humans beings."
No, it isn't anywhere near good. One doesn't throw out the baby to get rid of fouled-up bathwater. Online communities are just as valid as offline ones; it's just that many people a) don't want to be deceived, and b) don't want fakery (slop) all that entails. Easy.
> "Online communities are just as valid as offline ones Hilariously false."
No, it evidently isn't. Online communities connect people, and other communities, in ways that are impossible or undesirable to realize in meatspace. Bizarre to treat this as a zero-sum game.
> "Nothing, nothing substitutes for real human contact in the real world."
> "The only effective punishment/threat that I saw work on my bullies at school was the threat to remove one of them from the football team and prevent him from playing for the school. He turned it around and was ok after that."
Now you only have to deal with that group of bullies who slowly build up resentments, and might end up paying your school one last visit.
> "The problem is that most schools don't do that, [...] and also probably spend a fair amount of resources and time on relatively ineffective bullying prevention."
There's also the civil litigation-heavy system to keep in mind, where teachers and lower-ranked admin workers get burned by superiors who have to please parents.
> "Who says the person who got bullied relentlessly doesn't show up to pay one last visit?"
Exactly! In both (the bully/the bully who once was bullied) cases, you'd still have to deal with these threats, as evidenced by relevant case histories. People are just a little too comfortable to jump to conclusions or create false dichotomies.
> Now you only have to deal with that group of bullies who slowly build up resentments, and might end up paying your school one last visit.
Very american concern, albeit not completely unique to that place. With that kind of logic, nothing ever gets done because of endless stream of what-ifs.
> "[...] nothing ever gets done because of endless stream of what-ifs."
This "endless stream of what-ifs" often enough translates to systemic "peculiarities" (e. g. ineffective bureaucracy, accountability diffusion, symptom-focus, political gaming, etc.) that result in exactly that: "nothing", let alone positive, ever gets done.
> Now you only have to deal with that group of bullies who slowly build up resentments, and might end up paying your school one last visit.
Someone that decided to shoot up a school, because they got kicked off the football team, when they could’ve just improved their behavior (and maybe demonstrated effort to improve their grades) - that kid’s reasoning is deeply flawed (even for a kid). Such kids are probably (hopefully) very rare, and I suspect they would’ve found some other reason to shoot up the school.
> There's also the civil litigation-heavy system to keep in mind, where teachers and lower-ranked admin workers get burned by superiors who have to please parents.
There should be more civil litigation for schools that allow bullying, and generally allow misbehaving students to disrupt others. If behaving kids aren’t learning because the teacher isn’t running the lesson because they’re dealing with a misbehaving kid whose parent threatened lawsuits, the behaving kids’ parents should team up and threaten the school (and maybe the misbehaving kid’s parent) with their own lawsuit.
Then maybe states can intervene and make frivolous lawsuits harder. Alternatively, they can effectively pay the parents (because they own the public schools who lose the lawsuits) to enroll their kids in private schools.
With regards to specific points that match with my reality:
> "My fiance's office badges are smartphone-based. You cannot enter otherwise."
I worked for a company where that was a thing. Easy fix: They issued me (and others) a smartphone for that. And that slab never left the workplace either; I fetched/returned it before/after my day by notifying the security desk.
Everything else on your list is either irrelevant or unnacceptable to me, or simply illegal where I live.
reply