Conversation

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.
13
47
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
I can certainly see it as patronizing tech, but if it's also actively designed to keep its owner poor, it would arguably be worse to have it than not - not sure I see that angle (or if that's what you're hypothesizing), but could be convinced
1
1
Replying to
I’m not saying it’s actively designed that way but inevitably ends up that way. Kinda like Booker T. Washington vs WEB DuBois views on segregation in black education. Maybe “unintended segregationist tech” is better
Replying to
That makes sense, and I agree that e.g. commodity Android phones, where it took some time for scale effects to allow them, are more egalitarian tech
1
Replying to and
Almost have to invent a new category to get best of both worlds: cheap tech for everyone that's also premium at launch. Otherwise, bifurcation in either time or quality
Replying to and
I think inevitably is too strong - some do end up that way, but it depends. I think the segregationist aspect is more important than whether it's for poor people. Tech that doesn't end up that way tends to be adapted to local circumstances, and locally maintanable and extendable.
1
1