So what? Natural language is complicated, because a) It does something very complicated, and b) it is the result of a complex process.
Yes, many words have more than one meaning. That's one of the many reasons why we need formal, context-free, specialized languages to communicate our will to machines effectively.
But humans are not machines. We can do context, and we can use words that mean more than one thing. We can also deal with misunderstandings much better than an automaton.
And this newspeak even fails at the goal of providing an unambiguous: Unless context is provided, a person who makes 6 figures a year is "financially disadvantaged" when compared to a billionaire. But noone would mistake someone earning 6 figures with someone who is poor.
Are you seriously asserting when people say "poor people", they do so in a non-poverty manner and use it instead to describe people as inferior?
Also, people in poverty should be deserving of sympathy and charity. Is that now suddenly offensive that people should want to help others that are less fortunate than themselves? If you are in a position where you need help, part of your responsibility is to humble yourself and let people help you (while not eradicating you're personal responsibility either). Someday you may be the one to give charity, and it's also just as insulting and disheartening when your charity is rejected out of pride.
In German the word for poor ("arm"), while there is some connection to pity like in English (one can be "arm dran", "poorly off"), can't be used to describe bad / undesirable quality.
It was still replaced with "sozial schwach" (literally "socially weak", but actually means financially weak, people who don't have much money) in many contexts, especially by politicians and journalists.
(Thankfully, there is a push against "sozial schwach", to use "arm" again - it's a horrible phrase)
Yeah, they spoof local numbers. I haven't lived in the city my area code is from in a long time. Occasionally I'll answer calls from there when I'm bored and it's always a scammer.
What's even more disturbing is that I'm now getting calls from people talking in Hindi. I answer in English but they ask me to switch to Hindi. (I'm from Pakistan and speak Urdu which is mutually intelligible with Hindi). I'm guessing it's to build familiarity/trust.
They want to pay off my phone, electric and other bills and in return I pay them 50% of the amount. I give them fake info and try to keep them on as long as possible... asking them to repeat multiple times. Sometimes I'll tell how thankful I am that they came to me with this 50% off offer because I'm facing financial troubles. Not once did any of them fell bad about trying to scam a poor person. Their response is usually something like "This is exactly why we are offering this service, to help people like you".
Eventually they get frustrated and hangup. This way I can hurt their ROI just a bit.
Similar to the Facebook outage earlier. Apparently everything is managed through Facebook accounts so employees could not get access to fix the issues.
All of that is totally fine and not what people are upset about. If your entire app is just a web browser that renders your website, that should be fine too.
The problem is when they render external websites and unsuspecting users think they are using the phone's web browser. That is something Apple/Google can have rules about without banning/restricting web views.
Apple and Google have guidelines about what apps are/aren't allowed to if they want to be on their app store.
"Protecting the user" is supposed to be one reasons they take a 30% cut of all in app purchases. Apple even uses this as an excuse to not allow side loading apps.
Ads and tracking aren’t inherently linked, it is possible to have one without the other. That’s allegedly what Apple is doing, so it doesn’t clash with the privacy commitment.
Even so, I disapprove of Apple’s forays into ads and wish them swift and hard failures in the area.
Google isn't blocking this because it would be a silver bullet to FTC for aiding Youtube. Apple isn't blocking this because they are beholden to China.
The second and third definitions I get from define:poor on Google are:
- worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality.
- (of a person) considered to be deserving of pity or sympathy.
I suspect these might be why the term is discouraged.