[mwyah]

>In the United States, these users are mainly made up of economically disadvantaged individuals, who are disproportionately black and Hispanic.

I mean you could say the same thing about everything. This affects poor people, and those are "disproportionately black and Hispanic". It's like the writer is trying to trigger someone.

[nullc]

Race, gender and age enjoy stronger legal and social position as protected classes than economic standing, political orientation, or education does.

As a result one way to fight for justice for the economically disadvantaged is to make use of the racial correlation.

The fact that an issue disproportional impacts the poor and as a result disproportionally impacts people of particular races can also contribute to race-specific second order effects. For example, evidence strongly suggests that some race are treated particularly harshly by the judicial system in the US, leading to increased rates of convictions and harsher sentences-- so having backdoored phones is quite possibly a double whammy, causing additional harm that another population with the same devices wouldn't experience.

Ideally we'd also protect the economically disadvantaged from things like this without needing to reference a particular subset of victims, but when someone advocates for the welfare of others they do it in the world we actually live in, not the world that we would ideally have.

[Angostura]

If you look at the data its about race, income educational attainment and age. But race and income are two of the examples with the obvious disparities. Them's the facts.

[Jonnax]

The person that got triggered is you.

[mwyah]

It's more like the writer was saying "nobody cares about poor people, but hey, if we say the victims are blacks and latinos... that's going to get some support from someone". Which is rather sad since being poor is bad for everybody, no matter whether you're black white or green.