A lot of my smart phone usage lately seems to be around managing how much attention my phone can grab from me. I let very few apps send me notifications on my phone. I check it enough without it making noises at me.
And if an app doesn't let me disable notifications then I just uninstall it. Facebook Messenger was awful about this, when I saw there was no "Disable notifications", only a "Turn notifications off for 24 hours" option I immediately uninstalled it. Facebook was even worse, ostensibly you could turn notification types off individually, but whenever they added a new type of notification you'd have to go in and turn that off too, or it'd just forget what other notifications you had turned off and you'd start getting them again. Amusingly uninstalling the Facebook app gave me a nice battery performance boost too.
Another thing I've found handy is in my IM app I have notifications for everyone turned off by default, and only allow notifications for close friends and family. Why should any random person on the internet be able to grab my attention like that?
One regrettable casualty of this is that I've noticed that almost everyone I know is super unresponsive to texts now. I'm not expecting a fully-interrupt-driven ability to grab someone's attention at any time, but ive even seen cases when you're actively in conversation with someone about something concrete (eg details of a plan) and they drop off in the middle of it. I still think this is pretty rude, but its understandable given that they haven't bothered to make their notifications higher granularity (for my part, I've disabled notifications at the Android level for most of the abusive apps, like Facebook)
> Another thing I've found handy is in my IM app I have notifications for everyone turned off by default, and only allow notifications for close friends and family.
I figure the next step in the evolution of norms will be this understanding of granularity filtering down to the non-tech-savvy masses.
Call me old school, but for conversations relating to something concrete and time sensitive, I prefer to do a voice call. I don't trust any text based medium for that.
I use a hierarchy when it comes to prioritizing communications and notifications: Voice > sms > work im/email > personal im/email
Based on that hierarchy, I have different sets of rules as to the types of notifications I get and when I get them.
Sure, there's no accounting for preferences. But for many, a voice call taking the place of every text conversation is a lot _more_ intrusive (albeit in a time-limited, focused way). Shooting off a couple of texts to nail down the details of when you're meeting up for prearranged plans is convenient for calls because it doesn't have to be fully synchronous: send the text, and if the other person responds when you're free, then you can have a synchronous conversation. There's no real analogue with phone conversations other than playing phone tag, which seems like a lot more mental load.
I have an android phone, but it allows you to long-press any notifaction for an app and turn that apps ability to notify of. That is a system feature, not an app feature.
And I know you can permanently turn notifications of for any given contact because I have done so for one who didn't understand that messenger is not for long conversations that should have been on email, just because you typically get a quicker reply.
Indeed, that might be a good fit for the networking layer. So it could be an ActivityPub server/client built on top of WordPress. Quick, someone give me $50M to build a product with zero monetization options.
Yes, the Equifax breach is one of the reasons I included "severe" as a qualifier. It has been demonstrated that even fairly serious breaches will be ignored by the general public. It needs to be something that makes people genuinely fear for the safety of their finances, possessions, and/or health
That seems to redirect me to the same page linked earlier in this thread (https://myaccount.google.com/security). Taking a look in my admin console, it looks like "Allow users to turn on 2-step verification" is unchecked, so presumably 2-step verification is not enabled for this account. That's exactly what I want, but it seems Google is failing to abide when they think I'm a "hacker". Other people have had the same frustrations[0][1] but there is apparently no way to stop Google requiring additional verification at their whim. Ultimately that means Google controls when I can and can't login to my account, so it ceases to be a usable product for me.
So under-represented or disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to meet the education standards don't get to vote? Education requirements can very easily become a proxy for race/class.
> So under-represented or disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to meet the education standards don't get to vote? Education requirements can very easily become a proxy for race/class.
Easily become a proxy for race/class? They already were used to disenfranchise people:
> From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.
Of course it’s an unrealistic proposal. I’m just saying if we couldn’t enforce something like that, then asking billionaires to solve world crises is like asking a professional basketball team to win the gold in synchronized swimming.
