Hacker News Reader

Comment by ComposedPattern | Hacker News Reader

It's funny how people in this thread keep saying "well if you're going to complain about people being penalized for not using apps, you might as well complain about people being penalized for not using telephones/cars/internet"... and yes, I am going to complain about all of those things. I imagine that many or most homeless people don't have reliable access to any of the above. I have an anxiety disorder that makes it hard for me to drive or talk on the phone, and I'm sure there are many people with more extreme conditions for whom it's impossible. There are people like Richard Stallman and members of certain religious communities who have strong moral objections to using certain technologies. Society should accommodate all sorts of people and all sorts of ways of living.

View on HN

To quote something from a favorite fiction-series, where someone has traveled to a relatively backwards planet:

> "Poor?" said Cordelia, bewildered. "No electricity? How can it be on the comm network?"

> "It's not, of course," answered Vorkosigan.

> "Then how can anybody get their schooling?"

> "They don't."

> Cordelia stared. "I don't understand. How do they get their jobs?"

> "A few escape to the Service. The rest prey on each other, mostly." Vorkosigan regarded her face uneasily. "Have you no poverty on Beta Colony?"

> "Poverty? Well, some people have more money than others, of course, but... no comconsoles?"

> Vorkosigan was diverted from his interrogation. "Is not owning a comconsole the lowest standard of living you can imagine?" he said in wonder.

> "It's the first article in the constitution. 'Access to information shall not be abridged.' "

-- Shards of Honor (1986) by Lois McMaster Bujold

In the 39 years since this was published, I would have hoped our real society would have advanced a bit more in that direction.

Thanks, a bit of nostalgy from my youth. I read it in Russian, in 200x, though

It took me a short while to understand that "200x" probably means a year between [2000,2010), and not that you listened to it at a speed of 20000%

> I imagine that many or most homeless people don't have reliable access to any of the above.

In the US there is a specific government program called "Lifeline" that provides cell phone service to low income people, https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-cons... (whether it gets DOGEd remains to be seen...) And where I live there are a bunch of programs that provide free cell phones to homeless people.

It's not a panacea because lots of homeless people have other problems that make it difficult to keep a cell phone and not lose it. But that's really a separate issue - not having access is really not much of a barrier for the homeless, at least in the US.

You cannot receive Lifeline benefits without an address in most states.

Immigrants are often left out for various reasons, such as not having the right documents, having an unsupported kind of passport, not having an address they can register as their home, not having an app store account in the right country, not having a local payment method, and a variety of other issues.

IMHO at some point it makes sense to start requiring the internet, it makes a lot of things easier. But when we do that we need to ensure that everyone is supported. For example ensuring that people have ready internet access at public libraries. Providing government-provided email inboxes for receiving government communication (lots of homeless people get locked out of regular free mail providers). Train support staff at these libraries (or whatever institution provides these services) to help people who need assistance though the government processes, including doing it on their behalf when required.

Sorry to hear about your condition, and while I think society can decide to accommodate to some conditions, I disagree with that idea that it "should accommodate". It is a common decision, and sometimes the answer will be "no, we don't accommodate for that, sorry". In the end, everything has a cost (being it effort, resources, time, etc.).

Regarding the article, there are many cheap smartphones (<100eur) so I wonder if it isn't just fear of the new that stops people using them. I keep a smartphone around 4-5 years and my 10 year old phone still works ok. If people just don't want to change or learn new things, I would found that much more worrying...

In your world, people in wheelchairs would be housebound. But I guess we shouldn't accommodate them by requiring wheelchair ramps or curb cut-outs. They are lesser than us.

The world is not what you or me want is what you can convince enough people to do. In the country were I choose to pay taxes, people in wheelchairs are well accommodated.

But you know what that also means? That the same resources used for the ramps are not used to help someone that maybe starves to death somewhere else. I can't say I know which of the two I would choose, but I will not imply that the ones making a choice think "some are lesser than us".

Probably you will say "we can do both", "why choose", or something similar. But practically, all resources I know seem to be finite (time, energy, people). If you have infinite resources that I am not aware of, please fix all the problems.

> Sorry to hear about your condition, and while I think society can decide to accommodate to some conditions, I disagree with that idea that it "should accommodate". It is a common decision, and sometimes the answer will be "no, we don't accommodate for that, sorry". In the end, everything has a cost (being it effort, resources, time, etc.).

This falls apart when you realize this isn't just a consistent percentage of the population. It's a large portion of the population at different portions of their lives. It's something like 90% of adults will be disabled in their lives.

How many times have you lost your phone, or broken it without an immediately available backup?

I've heard in the US adults spend >10% of their life sick or otherwise incapacitated.

I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was much higher than I would have expected the mean to be.

Your argument is of course predicated on the assumption that "society" doesn't fail to accommodate you...

Requireing purchase of a private companies product, and accommpanying service, to access merdical or government services should be illegal...

Apple or goggle don't speak for me...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com