How about we stop building apps for refugees and top up their phones instead? | Hacker News Reader

How about we stop building apps for refugees and top up their phones instead?

medium.com

104 pointsdanielfoster45 comments

Well, building BS apps for refugees gives you a lot of nice PR for solving non-problems.

Actually helping them does not.

Or extend to anyone with a mobile an automatic line of credit they can use in emergencies or at will. PayTM in India is expanding on consumer credit and lending services at the "auto-rickshaw" level and for the micro amounts we are talking about here (>$100 per month) it seems more a question of distributing the phones than the wealth. Further if feeless peer to peer transactions via Digital Gold or cryptocurrency become ubiquitous, analagous peer to peer lending would also be universal.

The interesting case is in Puerto Rico after Hurrican Irma when all cell towers are wiped out. You have the common scenario of a CNN reporter with a sat phone relaying messages on behalf of stranded locals who just want to let their relatives know they are alive.

Deployment of Iridium Next with cheap sat phones with integrated digital payments could work wonders.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/DeLorme-InReach-Explorer-Sate...

Why not just give them some money and let them decide where to spend? I doubt phone top ups are critical for a refugee.

Why not let them issue their own mobile crypto currency to help each other?

And not just refugees but villages. Helping the unbanked.

And they could use it to order meal kits to be delivered by drones /s

The unbanked use this amazing new innovation called cash.

I almost upvoted this, but then I realized, with dawning horror, that you might actually be serious.

Actually... https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/blockchain-against-hun...

Aha!

Maybe now you'll upvote me.

I definitely agree with this, there seem to be an aversion to giving people money directly. I guess this comes from a sense of knowing better, most people feel they know how to better look after people rather than letting others define and satisfy their own needs. Most refugees would find a decent, personal, use for money.

They are refugees, but like the rest of us have needs we can't always fathom.

I think one big reason to avoid giving out money is to try to avoid fraud. There are a number of people who are not refugees who would certainly find ways to get at the cash if it were being given out. So the refugees may all be great, honest folks but you have to think about other ways programs can be subverted by people who aren't honest.

That happens anyway. The Hillary Foundation and the American Red Cross have come under fire for doing just that.

True, but you also have to avoid spending more money preventing fraud than would actually have been lost to fraud. This is a huge problem in, for example, welfare/public support programs, e.g. Reagan's fear of imaginary "welfare queens".

Sad but true, I wish people weren't so shit :(

Not such a strange idea! See how GiveDirectly works, and how they measure impact [1].

[1] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directlyhttps:...

UNHCR already give cash directly to registered refugees:

"For the individual refugee, it also empowers them by giving them the choice over how to meet their most immediate needs. Freed from having to queue or travel to receive one-size-fits-all aid, people can buy their own food, fuel, clothes, medicine or pay the rent based on their personal priorities. In this way, refugees contribute directly to local economies and foster positive relations with host communities."

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/briefing/2016/12/5853b3ed4/unhc...

It's almost like if you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling.

Thank you for saying almost, which acknowledges that this isn't always the case.

I believe that was a sarcastic addition to a sentence considered obviously true. Also seen in phrases like "it's almost like refugees are people!"

My point probably wasn't clear but is easier to make now....one of these sentences is always true, the other is not always true (but people like to pretend it is):

"Refugees are people."

"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling."

Well yeah but I wouldn't say the rate that occurs is so awfully different from when people earn money. And both activities stimulate the economy so...

Plus I'm more addressing the ingrained idea (in the USA at least) that poor people are all addicts, druggies, alcoholics, unemployable, or terrible with money. Many addicts run the course of their addiction while holding down a job (otherwise they can't feed said addiction). At the same time, the fastest route to the streets in the US is medical costs, either by way of some kind of accident or acquiring a chronic disease or condition, or hell, even breaking a leg and not being able to work for a month.

Most people, and I'd say a large majority of them, if just given money not in the form of EBT stamps or some other patronizing ass "here, we'll help you out, but here's a catalog of rules you need to follow because you're obviously incompetent" method would lead to more people getting out of poverty.

The state of discourse in society on this topic is "not great", for the reasons you correctly point out, but what is not appreciated is the impact saying feel good things that are not true has on the thinking of those in opposing camps.

"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling." is not a true statement, and I assert that saying things like this can result in people on the "other side" of the political spectrum forming the opinion that you and your side is intellectually dishonest, because in fact, it is.

Feel free to say this is "irrelevant", but meanwhile politics in the West continues to become more and more polarized.

> "If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling." is not a true statement, and I assert that saying things like this can result in people on the "other side" of the political spectrum forming the opinion that you and your side is intellectually dishonest, because in fact, it is.

I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success, which is the closest current thing to replacing the American social welfare systems with "just giving people money." Their results are mixed, and likely will remain so as they are extremely desperate from one another to such a degree that you can't really form a consensus.

> I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success....

The issue here though is the implication, and even with some people the genuine belief, that it is true always. On average you are correct, yes, but if you consider that averages are not spread evenly, there are subsets (US states would be only one example) where the reality is very much different than the national average reflects. So, when you say "if the government does <x>, <y> WILL happen", and people KNOW that to be false (because they have seen past attempts fail), this is at least in part where part of the rift between political camps begins to form, or contributes to the overall problem. Furthermore, these "minor" differences of opinion can then be exploited by opportunistic politicians to have far more impact than they would otherwise.

A not terribly great illustration of this imho can be seen above - downvotes of this idea with no rebuttal illustrating it's wrongness. In the majority of the IRL & internet discussions I've been involved in, a rebuttal is never provided because "the left" considers this discussion to be over. They are correct, full stop. They do not need to address opinions different than their own, because they are wrong. To my mind, this is a very dangerous mentality, and leads to the very political climate we are seeing today.

Politics always has been and always will be a battle of ideas. Abandoning logic and resorting to force, mob rule, and covering ones eyes and ears does not lead to a successful outcome.

It is really hard to give money directly.

often, those in need will refuse money, because they are too proud to take it.

on the other hand, many organisations will happily take money on behalf of those in need, but you have no way to see how much actually ends up with the intended recipients.

if you pay someones phone bill, you know you are helping someone...

Depends where you are talking about. In some countries, phone credit is used as a (primary) currency and trading platform.

I thought the same and this video [1] changed my mind. It demonstrates that smartphones and internet connectivity are essential tools to navigate international borders, remain in touch with family, access legal aid, find camps, food, shelter etc.

[1] https://youtu.be/m1BLsySgsHM

Or how about this, let's build fewer apps in the US and more infrastructure. We spend so much time on software but our connectivity lags well behind developed countries, not to mention not building enough roads and houses.

How much does it cost to be smuggled from Afghanistan to Belgium? Exactly.

Emotional story. I feel for refugees. Its too bad how economic migrants are giving them a bad reputation.

Remember watching a documentary about two kids being stuck in Greece. Even European streets are not safe for eleven year old boys and girls.

> Its too bad how economic migrants are giving them a bad reputation.

Racist propagandists are giving them a "bad reputation".

Tacitly reinforcing it helps the racist propagandists.

Maybe don't do that.

No, people who are afraid for their own economic circumstances and safety are responsible for that reputation. Pretending that the problem is a few vague high status racist talking heads that have the masses brainwashed is just a scapegoat for the reality that by in large we're nimbys and aren't as charitable as we believe we are.

I can sit at my desk and post empathetic tweets that loudly proclaim my support for refugees safe in the knowledge that either way the situation won't affect my life in the slightest. I haven't been tested -- and so I'm reluctant to throw stones at the people who have because I'm can't say whether I would pass myself.

> people who are afraid for their own economic circumstances and safety are responsible for that reputation

It's not "economic circumstances and safety" that makes people invent hordes of dark-complected rape gangs out of whole cloth (that would be Pegida, a neo-Nazi group who invented the "Cologne rape gangs" and other similar swill). And the people casting racism as "economic insecurity" are themselves racist propagandists, my dude; it is air cover for bad shit. They do not deserve your buy-in or your charity.

Thanks for saying this so clearly. Anti-Immigration hate has nothing to do with „economic insecurity“. That‘s just something people say because they desperately want to find a somewhat rational reason for xenophobia. But there isn‘t.

For some reason, all the people I know that complain about immigrants are actually pretty well off. I think they don‘t have any real problems in life, so they just come up with some imaginary threat.

The people who actually suffer from economic hardship don‘t worry about immigrants – they have enough problems of their own to worry about.

Not sure if my observations are representative, though.

> For some reason, all the people I know that complain about immigrants are actually pretty well off. I think they don‘t have any real problems in life, so they just come up with some imaginary threat.

I can't speak for everywhere, but Donald Trump's supporters in the United States certainly did trend well-off, majority/white, and male. My theory is that it's not immediate problems gripping them--it's that they see other people catching up, and the idea that it's zero-sum has permeated the game.

Yet another argument for free telecommunications for all.

I myself would prefer we give out free food for all, rather than "free telecommunication". We should put food-ration centers all across the country where people can go to get their daily rations. Like public schools.

How about we stop building apps for refugees and help our local poor who at least have contributed in the past to the local economy instead?

If the criterion for helping someone is "has contributed to the economy", doesn't that exclude children, the handicapped, the unemployed in recession areas, and many other groups without work history?

because a good samaritan helps anyone in need, regardless of how they ended up there?

How about giving them good equipment and organise hackathons, so they can build the things they need for themselves, while having fun. There are a good chunk of developers among them with awesome ideas. Nothing beats a product built by someone, for him/her self.

I dunno, I imagine more refugees are illiterate than have app development skills. These efforts may be useful further down the line, when you are trying to build community and sense of progress, but when a mother and child are sleeping in a park in the French countryside, the needs are different.

A lot of people have this strange image about refugees. These people fled from a war zone, not because they don't have any food or are illiterate. In fact, a majority of the refugees are here because they have money which they spend on the journey to flee their country. Among them are doctors, physicians, engineers, etc.

>In fact, a majority of the refugees are here because they have money which they spend on the journey to flee their country. Among them are doctors, physicians, engineers, etc.

Not only.

These doctors, physicians, engineers very likely belong to a subset of literate/educated people that are more adventurous, risk prone, courageous and flexible/adaptable.

Fair point alright, I guess I was thinking more about the youth population, if you had a 12 year old arriving from Syria with their mother, there is a very real chance that kid has had little or no formal education due to the disruption of the last 6 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com