Mobile phones, sure. Smartphones? That's a bit more debatable. At the very least, a cheap smartphone is probably fine for most "economic" needs. What we need less of is idle high-noise-low-quality content consumption, which is also the thing that's most supported by advertisement.
Smartphones, cheap or not, are not a problem. The core benefits they bring to poor people are mobile data connection, web browser, phone connection and IMs bundled in a single device. None of that is "supported by ads". The problems of smartphones (that are beyond mobile phones) start with the application ecosystem, completely disfigured by the cancer of advertising.
Fair point. Most of us here on HN don't require smartphones for that, but I take your point. Everything you list as a key benefit for poor people doesn't require an expensive smartphone, or at least, wouldn't if adverts weren't sucking up the compute and battery power when using a web browser ;) More seriously, though, beyond those basic capabilities, which we (ie not poor people) have had as long as I've been using the internet and while crappy adverts have always existed (punch the monkey and win a prize!) online, the amount of low quality content we consume has increased substantially, largely due to social media imho, which is supported by ads and is what I'm arguing against. I don't disagree with what you said here at all.
I know for myself a huge amount are gained, or saved. Being able to check email, keep in touch on Teams and SMS, track my meetings, etc save me a handful of hours every week. They're some of the most valuable hours too.
