A thought that’s been at the back of my mind: technology specifically designed with the poor in mind (as opposed to stuff just getting cheaper as it rides cost curves to commoditization) inevitably ends up being technology designed to keep them poor.
Conversation
Replying to
This is a hypothesis. I don’t know if it’s true or how to rest it.
3
7
Replying to
Not saying it's necessarily an example of successful tech, but what about stuff like OLPC? Might break down along "people need this to live, so exploit their need & claim to benefit them" and "this is actually meant to benefit them" products
What examples do you have in mind?
1
3
Replying to
That’s actually the example I had in mind. Patronizing tech basically.
1
3
Show replies
Replying to
Almost as if the people funding the tech VC firms don't want to help poor people at all 🤔
1
1
Replying to
Most tech “designed for the poor” tends to be by well-intentioned nonprofit or public sector efforts. The private sector stuff tends to be either outright predatory like payday loans, or high-grading driven. VC money rarely directly targets low-income markets.
3
1
5
Show replies
Replying to
What’s the dynamic that “keeps them poor”? For OLPC, is it training on the wrong software ecosystem? Or taking the place of some other kind of product? Something else?
3
Replying to
I don’t have a theory or argument yet. That’s why it’s just a hypothesis.
2
1
Show replies
Replying to
I’ll argue that “technology specifically designed” has less correlation than “with the poor in mind”. Example: cheap food, free news, low cost housing, etc.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
Not trickle-down, cost-down. Entirely different economic dynamics that don’t rely on good intentions.
1
Show replies




