Let people get the services they need for daily life on the same terms, even if they do not use digital tools
Steps to make it happen
- The government decides which services are essential to daily life, such as city hall paperwork, banking, and hospital appointments.
- For those services, providers always keep a way that needs no phone or internet, such as a counter, a phone line, or paper.
- The rules ban higher fees or long waits for people who do not use the internet.
- Offline methods do not ask for more personal information than needed, such as a name or address.
- Stores and transit keep a set number of places where people can pay with cash.
- Before a new online system starts, officials check whether anyone would be left unable to use it.
- Each country sets up a help center, separate from companies and government offices, where people can report problems.
- Living safely becomes normal whether or not a person has a smartphone.
Water so far 💧 3
The proposal in detail
This proposal sets a principle: whether a person uses digital tools must not decide whether they can get the services they need to live. It covers services that daily life depends on: government procedures such as proving identity, receiving benefits, paying taxes, and registering to vote; booking and receiving medical and nursing care; basic financial services such as deposits and transfers; utilities such as electricity and water; public transportation; and school enrollment. It covers not only government but also private businesses above a certain size. Here, the same terms means that people who choose the offline method are not charged extra fees, are not made to wait much longer, and do not lose out on benefits or discounts. Offline methods include help from a person, such as a counter worker operating the screen on someone's behalf. Offline methods also must not require creating an account or giving more personal information than the procedure needs. As exceptions, services whose content is itself digital, such as video streaming, and small businesses below a certain size are excluded, and temporary suspensions during disasters and similar events are allowed for a limited time. When a new system is introduced, the provider must assess and publish how it affects people who cannot use it, and complaints go to a consultation body that is independent of the businesses and can recommend improvements.
BenefitsLosing the ability to connect no longer means losing basic rights
With this principle, fewer people would lose basic rights of daily life, such as benefits, medical care, and access to their own money, because they cannot own a smartphone, cannot operate one, or do not want one. People who are already at a disadvantage, such as older people, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and people in rural areas, would be protected most. Also, because offline methods do not ask for extra personal information, people keep some room to choose how much of their information to give away, which makes this a practical way to protect privacy. When the internet stops because of network failures, disasters, or cyberattacks, counters, paper, and cash remain as another path, so society as a whole is less likely to come to a halt. Since providers must check the effects before adding a digital system, the people who build it become aware of those who cannot use it, and as a result the online systems themselves can be expected to become clearer and easier to use.
DrawbacksRunning two systems costs money and may slow improvement and change
The strongest objection from the opposing side is about cost and opportunity. Keeping up counters, paper procedures, and cash handling means paying continuing costs for staff, buildings, and transport. In the end, everyone pays those costs through taxes and fees, including people who use the internet, and the burden falls on low-income people too. Some argue that in countries and regions with little money to spare, it would be better to spend limited funds on building networks and teaching people how to use them, because that would reduce the number of people left behind at the root. The worry is that keeping offline paths open indefinitely could take away chances to learn and lock inequality in place. Protecting cash use also makes it harder to trace tax evasion and illegal money flows. For private businesses, launching new services becomes a heavier burden, and technological progress and competition could slow down. It is also hard to draw the lines: what counts as an essential service, and how far the same terms extend, and these questions could become a source of disputes.
Learn the background
All over the world, government procedures, shopping, travel, and medical appointments are moving quickly online. Many people find this more convenient, but others are slowly being shut out of services they need to live: people with no way to connect, people who cannot afford data fees, older people and people with disabilities who find screens hard to use, people who have trouble reading, writing, or the language, and people without ID. Some people also choose not to use apps because they do not want to hand records of their activity to companies or governments. As bank branches and station counters disappear and more shops refuse cash, digital is changing from a convenient path people can choose into the only path they are allowed to take. Also, because most surveys and calls for opinions now happen online, the troubles of people who do not use the internet are hard to see. When networks fail, or cyberattacks or major disasters knock out the internet, everyone is put in that position for a while. Who may be left behind, and how far, should not be left to the flow of technology. Society needs to decide it as a shared promise.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes