I mean yes but that is a case of the slippery slope fallacy: the existence of a future possible decision does not affect whether a current decision is a good one.

If they try to move in that direction, we can protest it then. Denying ourselves a useful capability now doesn't stop it from happening anyway, nor make it more likely.

When a pattern is repeated many times, it is not a fallacy to recognize that pattern at the begining.

If I see a tiger crotched in the bushes, is it a fallacy to gather my children and head back to the cave?

Pattern recognition is not a fallacy.

When has this happened before? Presumably you have several examples near to hand since it's "a pattern".

I personally live in a country with a large religious population that rejects the smartphone, so thankfully I personally have not encountered a situation where needing a smartphone is vital. However we've seen many people right here on HN mention how some specific vital service - often government or banking - does require a smartphone.

In my HN Threads feed, the very next item is another HN user mentioning how they have difficulty paying for parking spaces without a smart phone, from this very page. Search "and sadly accept the cost of our principles" on this page to find it.

But I have no interest in winning internet arguments. You win, the cookie isn't worth it to me.