The QR-society is ending, but the smartphone society remains
Is there such a thing as “digital inclusion”? Or are all things digital exclusive by definition? I can’t help but see parallels between the growing role that smartphones play in our lives and another recent technology: digital Corona entry passes.
Near my house there is an overpass on which someone spray-painted “QR gaat te ver” (“QR goes too far”).
It’s a clear protest against the Corona pass: a QR code in the official Dutch government app ‘CoronaCheck’, which you have to use as proof that you have been vaccinated, to get into restaurants and other public places.
While I don’t agree with the statement by the graffiti artist, I can still empathize with this person. Vaccinations are not mandatory in The Netherlands, but life has been very much restricted for people who chose not to get a QR-code. Many people took to the streets to protest against “the QR society”. Myself, I got vaccinated, so I got a QR-code. I understand the measure, but I never really enjoyed having to show it. Now it seems like this temporary measure is coming to an end in The Netherlands.
But even when these digital entry passes are no longer necessary, we have already reached a point in society where you need digital technology to be a full member of society. It’s not the QR-code, it’s the smartphone itself that is our ‘entry pass’ to society. Because without a smartphone (or some internet connected device), life in The Netherlands is becoming increasingly difficult. You need it for practically everything. Smartphones are replacing many physical things in our lives. From newspapers to bank cards and from paper letters to human cashiers.
Personally, I welcome the digitalisation of these things. I have a “digital-only” subscription on a newspaper, I read e-books, I use my Apple Watch to pay at the store. Hell, I’m writing a big part of this blogpost on a smartphone… one of my four (!) iPhones. So I absolutely cannot say I’m not a fan of digital interfaces.
But I also understand that this is not true for everybody. Not everyone loves smartphones. Sure, in my country pretty much everyone between 12 and 75 years old has one, but that doesn’t mean everyone likes to use a smartphone for everything, all the time. There is a large group of people (who are definitely not all elderly citizens) who really struggle with using a smartphone for daily things, like banking, government services or shopping. But they are more or less forced to learn how to use it, because their other options are slowly but steadily disappearing.
Not only that, I expect that life for people who don’t (like to) use a smartphone will become more expensive as well. My digital-only newspaper subscription is much cheaper than a “regular” paper subscription. In The Netherlands, we are already seeing that using cash is becoming more expensive than paying electronically, as the costs of using ATMs are increasing. What if people will also have to start paying for a physical bank card? What if customers of companies will have to pay more to receive letters instead of email? What if groceries in a physical store get priced higher than in an online supermarket?
It can go even further. What if your health insurance becomes more expensive if you don’t choose to track your health with your smartphone? What if your car insurance becomes more expensive, if you choose not to have your driving tracked? What if your home insurance becomes more expensive, if you don’t have an internet connected alarm system?
This is not sci-fi, it’s already happening. When digital becomes the norm, the bill for the physical alternative will be paid by the not-so-digital customers and citizens. And they tend to be the ones who are already struggling financially. Is that really fair? I sometimes wonder why this is not in the news more. Perhaps if it was, more people would be protesting against “the smartphone society.”