And no, it isn’t just “simply supply and demand”. This has to be the most ad absurdum reductio I’ve ever read in my life.

Just because enough people can pay $2,500 per month for a studio doesn’t mean the people who can’t deserve to be homeless.

I say nothing about who deserves it.

I'm talking about the headline, which makes it sound like rents being past people's breaking point (0) is something that could happen to the population at large, and (1) hasn't always been the case for some.

See, the legal system has this thing called “intent” and courts are decently adept at figuring it out. If you actually did fat finger something, you could probably prove that. Maybe you only connected once for a quick second. But if you connected multiple times over several days, and forensic evidence showed you deliberately downloaded things, well, that’s intent.

I see this all the time in technology: people come up with contrived counterexamples to expose some non-existent flaw in the legal system that they get really defensive about. The legal system isn’t like a computer. If you really did make a mistake, that should become obvious in the ideal case.

Actually, exploiting the poor is a rather lucrative business for the rich: check cashing, rent-to-own furniture, trailer parks, etc. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2013/09/17/maki...

Don't forget about using collection agencies to collect local government fines. Like, how a $30 parking ticket eventually turns into $1000 and ruined credit.

Oh for sure. That’s where the intersection with the court system comes in. Harsh laws and court minutiae are extremely harmful to the poor and help keep people in the cycle of poverty.

You are both right. They exploit the poor by extracting from the middle. Meanwhile, the rich have moved their assets offshore or into anonymous properties.