A recent post on the WordPress blog led me to Fight for the Future where I read the following:

Will every kid growing up in every developing country have access to every book ever made, as soon as they get a smartphone? Or will the books cost $12, an impossible expense for a poor kid?

When an argument is poorly presented how many people not only stop supporting but in fact go the other way? This particular one annoyed me enough to end up posting here!

The statement suggests it’s fine for a society to expect children to afford a smartphone (together with their associated running costs) but not that they should be able to afford a selection of $12 books! Should the same argument be applied to “I own a PC but I can’t afford to buy music so I expect to be able to download it all”? The ability to perform a task should not be used to argue that it’s the right thing to do. Unless we get to the 24th century Star Trek TNG ideology and have a society without a reliance on money, we are obliged to compensate others for their services and/or products!

I’m “old school” in that I still buy items that are now readily available in digital form – such as CDs, DVDs, books and games. Perhaps the younger generation trade items digitally without any regard as there’s nothing physical involved?!

I’m not suggesting the overall message isn’t appropriate more that this particular argument [from my perspective] didn’t win them any support.