Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considered the opportunity cost? Or would any annoyance justify any solution, whatever the downsides?
What opportunity cost? Why is it impossible for me to conclude that possessing a smartphone does not cause me any harm? There is a persistent rhetoric among online technologists that people are wrong for making different value judgements. Some people don't like that their phone stores a record of their movements. That's fine. But people who disagree can do so for reasons other than ignorance.
Yes, and here's the key: they might still be wrong.
I'm not saying this is the case. I'm saying that this is a possibility. "I took an informed decision which is not due to ignorance" doesn't mean the decision can't still be wrong.
Not to mention that most people just adopt shiny new stuff, hardly pausing to indeed make informed decisions...