cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4262252
A combination of good high-speed internet coverage, high digital literacy rates, large rural populations and fast-growing fintech industries had put the Nordic neighbours on a fast track to a future without cash.
[…]
But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and a subsequent rise in cross-border hybrid warfare and cyber-attacks blamed on pro-Russia groups have prompted a rethink.
[…]
The Swedish government has since completely overhauled its defence and preparedness strategy, joining Nato, starting a new form of national service and reactivating its psychological defence agency to combat disinformation from Russia and other adversaries. Norway has tightened controls on its previously porous border with Russia.
[…]
[Norway’s] justice and public security ministry said it “recommends everyone keep some cash on hand due to the vulnerabilities of digital payment solutions to cyber-attacks”. It said the government took preparedness seriously “given the increasing global instability with war, digital threats, and climate change. As a result, they’ve ensured that the right to pay with cash is strengthened”.
[…]
The moment you start using this argument you become a tinfoil hat money laundering thug. Being afraid of putin is more socially acceptable.
Can you clarifying. The sarcasm in first sentence doesnt make sense in context of the second.
I refer to comment sections under news about going more cashless, for example. Commenters saying it’s bad for privacy get downvoted a lot because it’s not socially acceptable to say so.
Same in face to face social setting. If you want to take a stand against cashless, it’s good to say something else than the privacy mantra, or people stop listening to you.
It’s because you’re taking a stance against cashless, which sounds paranoid and weird to most people.
Take a stand against VISA and PayPal. Then the bad guy isn’t “our” government, it’s corporations everyone already hates. And it references problems people already experience.
It’s much easier to explain how the situation is already bad than it is to argue how it “could become” bad.