When I said "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?" I didn't have a problem with complaining. I had a problem with the hyperbole and the fact that this nonsense is on HN. People always complain about everything which is what we do. I'd expect more from something on the front page here. This was a you at HN audience in general.

> So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US?

Not an American but that's generally a tradeoff yes. My main bank closed the branch next to me. They are not app only, that's what they do. That's why we have regulators (sorry Americans) to make sure a level of service exists.

But regulators shouldn't "break the market". I use two banks. One does have branches and I use it for my business accounts. Another is app only and far cheaper. A regulators job is to make sure both have room to exist and compete on a level playing field.

Will that mean branches closing? Maybe. The alternative is more cost to the shareholders/customers.

> Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not.

That's a straw man argument. Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.

I live in a small country. We have 5 banks. If all are forced to have branches everywhere a 6th bank will never form since the cost/time to build up a bank becomes prohibitive. Thus no competition. Indeed we hadn't had a new bank for 50 years or so. Until we allowed an app only bank which gives much better rates.

This isn't different in the states, competition is difficult when the big banks can crash you and the public is afraid to step into a smaller bank. That means you need to build accessible branches to service a community that will never set foot there. You're effectively saying: "make the barrier of entry so high that no competition can happen".

> The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere?

That's fair. You 100% have the "right" to live offline. I agree with that and I'm very much against a cashless society.

But this isn't that. What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age. That's a very different thing from "able". Progress always meant some things went away or became harder to do as a result, this is no different.

> We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.

Because having Braille on the elevator or having the elevator say the floor we're on doesn't impact the rest of the population. E.g. when I go to the hospital the elevator waits forever in every floor. That makes sense, disabled and elderly need time to reach the open door.

In my building it is much faster, don't the disabled and elderly deserve this in my building too?

Well, they do. But the tenants in my building don't want to wait every time the elevator stops and have a cascading effect on all the floors due to that delay. We can provide localized solutions by holding the door and helping. It's a tradeoff.

> Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille.
> More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.

Sure. I'm 100% for the "right" to avoid smartphones and apps. I think every public service and infrastructure should be accessible without them.

However, demanding that it would be in the same price and with the same current level of convenience is problematic as it would impact everyone. I think the analogy you gave is great. Braille on elevators should stay forever when we can. They should also speak, accessibility here is free and doesn't impact people who don't need it. Slowing the elevators for the elderly (of which there are quite a lot) is problematic and probably not what most of us want.