> I had a problem with the hyperbole and the fact that this nonsense is on HN.

As someone without a smartphone, I caution you to be very wary about what specifically you mean by "nonsense". If you only mean "tyranny", that's one thing. If you mean it's not a problem until I live little better than a hermit in the woods is another, unable to have real banking, real health care, real education for any kids, unable to order taxi service, unable to pay for parking, unable to refuel, unable to get packages, and so on ... yeah, no, you need some empathy.

> Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.

Here's my handicap, which I've had therapy about. I'm on the internet too much. When it's accessible, as now when I should be working, I find it almost impossible to avoid the urge to check.

My solution is to not have a smartphone with me, to limit when I can be online. I am about to head to the basement, where the wifi doesn't reach, in order to focus on work.

Would you force a teetotaler to drink? Would you recommend that someone trying to lose weight should carry a bag of peanut butter cups with them all the time?

Here is another handicap: there are people who are electrosenstive, that is, they get headaches or have other problems when they are too close to radio signals, so they do not even carry a cell phone.

Now, I happen to believe that is not based on the physical effects of radio signals, but forcing them to use a smartphone will cause them severe mental distress.

There are still others who suffer from anxiety knowing their every action is being surveilled. When I started with therapy, the doctor asked if I thought the phones were listening to me, to see if I had any signs of schizophrenia. He then realized how that connected to the conversation, so had to rephrase the question, because we both know nearly all apps listen to us, one way or other.

Apps cannot solve these issues because smartphone-based apps and the ecosystem supporting it are the issue.

> What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age.

No, what you asked for was a bank that only supports people who decide to use a smartphone which can connect to the Apple and Google app stores, so that you could pay lower rates.

The benefit is that you profit by their ability to exclude people who are more expensive to maintain. Completely legal, of course, as the freedom to live offline is not (currently, in nearly all jurisdictions) a protected right.

That excludes people like me who are "living online" but who do not have a smartphone, that excludes people who use a PinePhone or other smartphone which doesn't run Android, that excludes people who use an Android phone but have not agreed to the Google Store terms of service, as zevv did at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140223 .

And don't forget that one of the reasons we are more expensive to maintain is that you are more profitable for them. Banks can send you ads directly, and know you've read them. McD's can use personalized ads based on your buying habits to induce you to buy more and overeat. And of course many apps have in-app advertising, which cannot be blocked. Uber made $1 billion last year from in-app ads.

Is surveillance capitalism required for the modern age?

> Slowing the elevators for the elderly (of which there are quite a lot) is problematic and probably not what most of us want.

The newer elevators around here, at least the one in government-owned buildings, solve that issue with a flip seat.