computer as choice
This strategy is about evaluating the use of computers starting from a position that the uptake of a computer program is not inevitable, and that it is a matter of choice. In order for there to be consent (next strategy) there must be choice. The approach to computers to date has been highly non-consensual and pressurized because their use has been conflated with notions of the future, a sense of "this is just the way things work now", and lack of choice.
If we look at the history of decision-making processes that were developed in recent history, the environmental assessment process offers one piece of modern structure aligned with inclusiveness, choice, and consent. Environmental assessments are processes that help decision-makers explore the consequences of major infrastructure projects. Think about building a bridge, and the impacts this would have on natural environment, wildlife, traffic, pollution, and so on. When one of these assessments is undertaken, there is always an option to "do nothing". As in, leaving things as they stand is an explicit choice on the table. In this case, the bridge doesn't have to be built if that scenario (not doing it) ultimately makes the most sense for the health of the environment and surrounding community. These types of processes are far from perfect, but the singular way they force some attention on leaving things alone/as they are that aligns with small-scale democracy and consensus-building.
In the case of talking about computer use, the choice to not use the computer program often immediately falls off the table. All attention becomes focused on how to use it, not if. This looks like hyper-focus on privacy protections, security, transparency, and governance - generally bypassing any discussion about whether or not to use the computer program at all.
Being able to choose about computer use is particularly important in the context of efficacy conversations. Just because something "works" as designed does not mean that anyone likes it or wants it.
Some examples of choice:
Redundancy in public service access and delivery
While some people are very happy to be able to access government services online, such as a document renewal or access to programs, some aren't. As a result, the government generally works to offer redundancy in its service offerings. A government is aware of the equity impacts of accessing its services, and so it operates from a different set of incentives than private sector service delivery. All the same, the idea of having a choice as to how to access a service is transferable to a range of contexts, institutions, and ways of doing work. Offering parks and recreation services and programming so that those signing up online do not have an advantage over those doing it in-person requires intentional design. This is an example of choice that large cities have been grappling with since the rise of the internet.
Menus and QR codes
The pandemic accelerated the use of QR codes, which some people enjoy using at a restaurant, while others don't. Most restaurants (not all) still have some hard-copy menus on hand if requested. This example helps us think about the consequences of keeping a website and a printed menu up to date and the same.
Events and tickets
Some venues that host sports or entertainment events have shifted to mobile app only access to enter the venue. Sometimes, with some effort, there can be a work-around, but sometimes not. While larger apps and companies have figured out how to help people transfer or share tickets, this is different than being able to print them off or pick them up at the box office.
Rental properties and access apps
There are rental properties that now mandate the use of a mobile app to open the front door of the property. If you don't want to use the app, you can't choose to rent at that building.
Whether in our personal, professional, or civic lives, there are differing levels of choice available to us when we make decisions about how we exist together. Being on the receiving end of this situation can be tiring, and in some cases, quite close to non-consensual (if not actually non-consensual). Depending on the context of the conversation, and options on the table for computer use (or not), it can be extremely generative to begin the discussion with a frame of options that include do we do this, yes or no, and if yes, how. This reorganizes the common frame of inevitability that quickly skips over the yes/no question and gets mired in the details of the "how" of something that many people might prefer not to do at all.