5 ms·

Wtf Calling homelessness a "niche" .. peak apres moi le deluge

esperent 4y ago
Exactly. The word people should be looking for is "vulnerable". They are not a niche category, they are a vulnerable category, and need protection, not dismissal.
- Kalium 4y ago
  You're absolutely right. Now let's talk about how much effort and what level of resources it's reasonable to expect a commercial entity to invest in extending protections to vulnerable people in need who happen to not be customers. Perhaps we're asking the wrong entity to address this problem? This seems more like a public service infrastructure problem.
  - alexiaa 4y ago
    Google is a multi-billion dollar company, they barely have to lift a finger. They simply have to provide an option to opt out of 2FA. Add a bunch of warnings if you must. Even if Google was a small startup it would be trivial for them to do this.
    - Kalium 4y ago
      To be clear, your answer to vulnerable people needing protections is to lower the minimum level of security for everyone using Gmail. Do I understand correctly?
      - WithinReason 4y ago
        No, please reread.
        Kalium 4y ago
        Ah! Then the problem is solved, I suppose.
    - WithinReason 4y ago
      There is already an option to opt out of 2FA: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203
      - crooked-v 4y ago
        If you turn off 2FA, it will still force you to add a phone number and use an SMS verification code sent to it whenever the big machine feels like it.
Bakary 4y ago
This is the sort of performative response that is the problem. Let's say we force Google to switch off 2FA. Now we have exposed millions of people who don't know any better to phishing attempts and financial loss. And the group we are trying to help isn't really better off. There are so many other questions we could be asking. Why are they directed towards picking Gmail by default? Why is the system to give a replacement phone every 12 weeks instead of investing in a dedicated device that's much harder to damage or lose? Why is keeping the same number a hassle? Why are we tackling the problem with caseworkers instead of something more ambitious, that would ironically be less costly in the long run? There are so many angles we could go for, but instead we are stuck on this performative nonsense that gets retweets. It's pseudo-empathy at best, because it's not oriented towards a real solution.
- Edman274 4y ago
  > Why is the system to give a replacement phone every 12 weeks instead of investing in a dedicated device that's much harder to damage or lose? Why is keeping the same number a hassle? If you're homeless, you're getting robbed. It doesn't matter that a yubikey would be worthless to a person mugging you, they'll take everything including the worthless stuff. Or you're being picked up by an ambulance and taken to a behavioral health center after a mental health crisis and when they do that they take your clothes off and stuff goes missing, even if it's worthless. Keeping the same number usually requires paying into an account which requires being able to make consistent payments, which is not easy to do. Or a credit card or bank account is required. You are maybe unbanked in this scenario. > Why are we tackling the problem with caseworkers instead of something more ambitious, that would ironically be less costly in the long run? Caseworkers make practically nothing. Does your solution get rid of human beings to act as agents for people who sometimes lose touch with reality? Will there be an AI assistant to guide someone through a schizophrenic break and get them to a hospital and help get them reoriented after they regain contact with reality? That's what's necessary and you're treating actually understanding what they're going through as if it's virtue signalling.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    The downvotes are strange to me, because absolutely pointless thefts absolutely do happen in urban spaces, even for the non-homeless. Why would someone smash a car window just to steal a pair of prescription sunglasses that would be completely useless to 99.9% of people? I have no idea, but it happened to me.
everforward 4y ago
In the US, they are a niche at 0.2% of the population. Vegans are an order of magnitude larger at 2%. They are a vulnerable niche, but a niche nonetheless.

Exactly. The word people should be looking for is "vulnerable". They are not a niche category, they are a vulnerable category, and need protection, not dismissal.

Kalium 4y ago
You're absolutely right. Now let's talk about how much effort and what level of resources it's reasonable to expect a commercial entity to invest in extending protections to vulnerable people in need who happen to not be customers. Perhaps we're asking the wrong entity to address this problem? This seems more like a public service infrastructure problem.
- alexiaa 4y ago
  Google is a multi-billion dollar company, they barely have to lift a finger. They simply have to provide an option to opt out of 2FA. Add a bunch of warnings if you must. Even if Google was a small startup it would be trivial for them to do this.
  - Kalium 4y ago
    To be clear, your answer to vulnerable people needing protections is to lower the minimum level of security for everyone using Gmail. Do I understand correctly?
    - WithinReason 4y ago
      No, please reread.
      - Kalium 4y ago
        Ah! Then the problem is solved, I suppose.
  - WithinReason 4y ago
    There is already an option to opt out of 2FA: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      If you turn off 2FA, it will still force you to add a phone number and use an SMS verification code sent to it whenever the big machine feels like it.

Bakary 4y ago

This is the sort of performative response that is the problem. Let's say we force Google to switch off 2FA. Now we have exposed millions of people who don't know any better to phishing attempts and financial loss. And the group we are trying to help isn't really better off. There are so many other questions we could be asking. Why are they directed towards picking Gmail by default? Why is the system to give a replacement phone every 12 weeks instead of investing in a dedicated device that's much harder to damage or lose? Why is keeping the same number a hassle? Why are we tackling the problem with caseworkers instead of something more ambitious, that would ironically be less costly in the long run? There are so many angles we could go for, but instead we are stuck on this performative nonsense that gets retweets. It's pseudo-empathy at best, because it's not oriented towards a real solution.

Edman274 4y ago
> Why is the system to give a replacement phone every 12 weeks instead of investing in a dedicated device that's much harder to damage or lose? Why is keeping the same number a hassle? If you're homeless, you're getting robbed. It doesn't matter that a yubikey would be worthless to a person mugging you, they'll take everything including the worthless stuff. Or you're being picked up by an ambulance and taken to a behavioral health center after a mental health crisis and when they do that they take your clothes off and stuff goes missing, even if it's worthless. Keeping the same number usually requires paying into an account which requires being able to make consistent payments, which is not easy to do. Or a credit card or bank account is required. You are maybe unbanked in this scenario. > Why are we tackling the problem with caseworkers instead of something more ambitious, that would ironically be less costly in the long run? Caseworkers make practically nothing. Does your solution get rid of human beings to act as agents for people who sometimes lose touch with reality? Will there be an AI assistant to guide someone through a schizophrenic break and get them to a hospital and help get them reoriented after they regain contact with reality? That's what's necessary and you're treating actually understanding what they're going through as if it's virtue signalling.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  The downvotes are strange to me, because absolutely pointless thefts absolutely do happen in urban spaces, even for the non-homeless. Why would someone smash a car window just to steal a pair of prescription sunglasses that would be completely useless to 99.9% of people? I have no idea, but it happened to me.

everforward 4y ago

In the US, they are a niche at 0.2% of the population. Vegans are an order of magnitude larger at 2%. They are a vulnerable niche, but a niche nonetheless.