Microscopes are crucial for diagnosing infections but can cost millions of pounds, making them entirely inaccessible for many people across the globe.

Good article but this stood out as a massive exaggeration. They can cost millions, much like a car can cost millions, but I can pick up a microscope sufficient for most clinical laboratory work for around $200-300. A cheap epifluoresence microscope can be acquired for around $2k.

Still an inaccessible amount for many, but it's several orders of magnitude cheaper.

Love how it highlights that big tech (much to capitalism's fault, TBH) can only drive innovation if the tech has a moat around it, if no one else can, or would, copy it and deploy it at a lower cost.

Which is... the argument that people use to defend capitalism? That capitalism drives innovation and makes it accessible to everyone at the lowest possible price.

I like the frugal tech idea as much as I like degrowth.

Too bad this doesn't really mention the Fediverse or open-source software. Seems a next logical step

This is a pretty good article. Something I try to stress to my students. Technology is a major driver of culture and society, and understanding that complexity of relationships is important. It’s not developed in an isolated bubble, nor is any technology neutral or value-free.

I like that the article highlights community engagement. That is so very true. Otherwise some good-intended deployment can quickly become technological colonialism when the users might not be able to do system upkeep or it solves the wrong problem