This is true in the same sense you don't need to own a pair of shoes.
Technically, sure, but there are jobs that require you to have a phone (at many different career points too), colleges that expect it, and more. And while there may be workarounds, they are often workarounds at someone else's expense, such as asking someone else to check the class schedule or work schedule.
So yes. You don't need to own a smart phone. And you don't need to own shoes. Both will get you (understandable) looks from general society. Both will limit what you can do. Both are somewhat understandable as having become a default, expected thing that people WILL have.
I think you are misunderstanding my comment. I'll add some context that may help.
The discussion centers around automated tools to detect infringing content. These tools are not 100% accurate and may cause false positives. I am of the opinion that issuing takedowns on false positives should come with consequences.
If an artist wants to enforce their copyright on every case of infringement, no matter how minor, they're welcome to do so. Where I take issues is issuing takedowns because an automated, unreviewed system flagged the content, and no manual review took place.
Automated review puts the onus on the secondary content creator to prove that their work is not infringing in response to bogus requests. They must take on the cost in time and energy to do so. The cost should be on the copyright holder, and if that means automated reviews are not economical, so be it.
Automated review doesn't need to be 100% accurate. You don't actually need to automatically stop 12 year Olds from using your music in the background of their minecraft video to turn a profit.
Manually review cases where it's actually worthwhile.
Don't defend theft/fraud based for billion dollar corporations. It's not a good look.