Does the computing industry have an obligation to address income inequality?

The idea of an entire industry having an obligation to do some sort of social good is interesting to me. How can you trust it to actually have the public good in mind? I know that if the cable or oil companies unveiled some grand scheme to alleviate poverty, I would be extremely suspicious. So how can we expect the computing industry to be free of these same biases? The entire point of companies is to make money. Sure, software companies market themselves as more altruistic, but are they really? What makes them better than every other industry?

Perhaps their incentives are better aligned. Oil and Cable companies aren't really positioned to do much about poverty. They provide their service, and that's it. Computer companies, however, are more poised to experiment. For example, Google makes cool things because Google's revenue is entirely based on advertisements, which means the more people that use Google stuff, the more money Google makes. That's why they can make free things like Google Maps and self-driving cars.

It's tempting to think something along the lines of "Google so loved mankind that it gave them Google Maps. What else can they do for humanity?" But Maps was created with the goal of creating revenue, not improving society. Down this line of thinking, we really shouldn't expect the industry to address income inequality (or some other societal issue) out of the kindness of their hearts. Industries and corporations don't have hearts, and shouldn't. Their job isn't the welfare of the public, and it shouldn't be. That should be left to nonprofits, individuals, and the government.

Overall, there's two main points here. The first is whether industries should be obligated (or even trusted) to attempt societal or political good. The second is whether the computing industry has sufficient technology to make an impact.

For the first point, as outlined above, I don't think they are obligated (or should be trusted) to impact society on their own. The government, however, can provide motivation.

But what about the second point? Does technology exist that could fix some major issues? I think so. For example, I think that access to education for all is a great step forwards, like Khan Academy, MIT's OpenCourseWare, and even stuff on YouTube like SciShow and CrashCourse.

But I think it could go further. Some software giant could probably create fantastic educational software, if they dedicated the resources to it. But, getting back to the first point, this shouldn't be the industry's job. The government or a non-profit can hire the industry to do that task. But the possibilities should be examined so that the powers that be can decide what software projects are the best investments.

Y Combinator decided to examine one such possibility: Universal Basic Income. They're running an experiment to see if UBI could make sense by giving 100 families free money, and seeing what happens.

I think this is how the industry should approach societal issues. Consider a possible software approach, run some preliminary tests, then pitch the idea to a funding body. That body can then run some more research, and possibly fund the company. This puts the incentives in the right place, coming from some funding group with society's best interests at heart, not from the industry itself.