Tools are what you make of them. You cannot assign morals to them.

As a Linux user for a little more than a decade, I am familiar with communities associated with free open source software, privacy advocates, and, to a lesser extent, free speech absolutists, as well as their arguments. I should clarify that my introduction to Linux was based on a need to play Minecraft with more frames per second, as my laptop at the time was unable to run the game adequately on Windows 7. I was never drawn to Linux for its free open source nature or privacy, in fact, I only found out what that meant AFTER I had begun to use Ubuntu 12.04. All 12 year old me knew at the time was this operating system would not have the Windows bloat and give me the extra FPS to play Minecraft.

For a large part of my teenage years and young adult life, I had been chronically online, and as such, I adopted strange ideas that only now, when becoming more active in society and in the real world, I realise as such. I've interacted with different people who are very knowledgeable in electronics and computers, far more than I, yet at the same time, they use products and services from Google, Microsoft and other mainstream tech companies.

In discussing with them, and taking a step back from technology, which has allowed me to evaluate the tools I use without any bias, I realise that tools are what you make of them, they cannot be good or bad. For example, let's take smartphones, one side will say smartphones are amazing, they have facial recognition as their unlocking method, they have all their bank cards and bank applications on their phones, and store all photos in the cloud. On the other hand, there is one side that will say phones of any nature, even cellphones, should be avoided because you can be tracked by the government, and they are consumerist devices.

I, especially after having interacted and learnt from people in the real world, realise there is a middle option. Use the smartphone only when it is necessary. Why adopt a contrived lifestyle where, if you go outside, nobody will be able to contact you, even if it's for the most important reason? "Because, so then the government cannot track me!" But that's an immature mentality, at no point in history has anybody been untraceable, even in the most primitive tribes. Right now, the members are tracked by their neighbours, the village elders, etc. In a primitive tribe, the "government" isn't a man in a suit, it's the village elder who's munching on peanuts, and if he wants to know where Abba Too'eh the Blacksmith is, he can go to his hut and ask his family where he is, to which they might say he has gone out to the river to collect water, or is climbing up the tallest tree for berries, etc. In the West, the government doesn't need to ask anyone, but you're also one of millions of people and therefore not as important to the government as Abba Too'eh is to the village elder.

So forget this notion of privacy, in fact, if you're so concerned about privacy, purchase a black sheet and drape it over you as they do in some parts of the Muslim world. However, you might find you're attracting more attention to yourself because your effort to seek privacy has made you stand out even more than if you simply acted as those around you and blended in.

It's "funny" to point at "normies", laughing at how oblivious they are about technology. But this can be applied to anything, we're all "normies" in something, in the kitchen we're "normies" in front of chefs such as Gordon Ramsey, or how about in playing music in front of skilled musiciains? We are not better than one or another, we simply have different pirorities in certain fields and interests.

For me, my smartphone is not a "consumerist" device, it is a tool of productivity. I can contact my friends and family to arrange meet-ups, I can use the phone to take a significant amount of photos, I can take notes, or find my way using GPS if I'm lost. What is it to my concern if somebody out there is using their smartphone to binge-watch YouTube videos, scroll through social media, play games, etc? That is on them, if it wasn't for smartphones, it would be something else, because it's not the smartphone itself that's the problem, it's their PERSPECTIVE. If I replace their smartphone with a pack of cigarettes, they'd be smoking that, if I replaced it with a radio, they'd spend their entire day glued to what the hosts have to say.

Sure, you can say smartphones are more addictive, but it's only because you've ALLOWED yourself to become addicted. Ever since I started to go outside more often, and make real-life friends, as well as real-life hobbies, I have found myself to have less of a desire to go on the internet and on the computer. It's not the device, it's the way you're conducting your life.

Some privacy advocates might say, "Okay, if you're fine with Google having your data, then share your data with the public!" But that's a silly argument, the "public" isn't benefiting me by knowing where I'm currently at, and I have to exert energy to compile my data to give to them. I'm okay with Google Maps knowing where I am, because they are providing me with an essential service, helping me to navigate, so it makes sense as to why they would collect my data. So WHAT if they knew I was at Woodgrange Park Cemetery on the 7th of December 2025? That's the point, they HAVE to know this because otherwise how can they recommend me the exit route (it was a large cemetery)? "But they're going to keep the data?!" SO WHAT!? What's going to happen? Are they going to think I went there to shop for a place to bury a relative of mine and recommend me advertisements for a casket? Oh no, how terrible (I have AdBlock, only because I find them distracting, I WISH adverts recommended me what I actually want to buy at a good deal). People who are concerned about privacy to an extreme extent have an ego, they think Google, the government, or hackers care about what shampoo they buy or what coordinates they were at 4:43 pm on Saturday.

"But society would be better off if we got rid of X."

But you're not the representative for society. For example, in the past, I thought Windows was a useless operating system, but after meeting people who rely on the operating system for their livelihood because the software they use only works on Windows, who am I to say what is best and what is not? Before, I used to think "cars are evil, let's get rid of them!" but I was acting on emotions, because I looked at traffic, parking restrictions, etc and came to that conclusion. However, what about the advantages of cars? The ability to go from Point A to Point B in a warm box protected from cold and rain? The ability to transport a large amount of food and items? Or to travel to a greater distance and explore new parts of the country? "But car accidents and pollution!" Nothing in life is perfect, there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. I could also say, without cars, how would we be able to transport people to hospitals promptly? Without cars, how can we sustain a world that so many people depend on? The difference is, we do live in a society where cars exist, so we must work with it.

By focusing on "what's best for society", you're running from yourself, because you can just recommend solutions that you know nobody will adopt, and then you can justify your own shortcomings because society isn't adapting to how you want it to run.

Ultimately, you have to focus on yourself and stop assigning morals to tools, and instead look at how you use the tools. Phones are not inherently bad, nor are proprietary software, or even tracking devices.