This is a hypothesis. I don’t know if it’s true or how to rest it.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Almost as if the people funding the tech VC firms don't want to help poor people at all

-
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.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Not trickle-down, cost-down. Entirely different economic dynamics that don’t rely on good intentions.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Housing, Education, Medicine. What more proof do you need?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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?
-
That’s actually the example I had in mind. Patronizing tech basically.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You got me thinking. What about fintech in the developing world (ie M-Pesa)? Are digital wallets smoke and mirrors that only reinforce value consolidation in the hands of the few?
-
M-Pesa was just a fancy layer on top of the fact that people already used airtime as a means of payment. I don't know if it counts as 'designed for the poor'. Digital wallets are almost always smoke and mirrors. They're like the currencies of company towns. Bank-to-bank is better
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.