That being said, there's a rotating list of "badnesses" that are in the zeitgeist and I agree that it's annoying to see them flogged at every opportunity (often w/o much insight).
The statement is at best extremely misleading, and at worse, mostly false. It also represents a juvenile, immature, and myopic perspective on reality.
I would suggest reading "Wealth, Poverty, and Politics" or "Discrimination and Disparities" by Thomas Sowell. He has been debunking the "inequality of outcome therefore racism" logical fallacy for decades.
B) Even if it were simply physics at play, requiring the use of a system known to have physical constraints against darker skin causing failing grades purely on that metric is still pretty racist.
I wanna pull this apart a bit because I think it's a good opportunity to talk about how systemic bias gets started. Digital sensor evolution is path-dependent. Technologists developed photo-sites that have "enough" dynamic range for most uses before moving on to increase the resolution on a sensor. What exactly is "enough" depends on your test data.
The sensor on a webcam is only "so big" as you say - but how that sensor balances resolution and photo-site count depends on what conditions they consider acceptable. We could build web cams that would see more pigmented faces better - there is no fundamental limitation in the technology itself. It's that a series of decisions have been made over years of development, generally without people thinking specifically about race at all, and we've arrived at a status quo that has adverse outcomes for people with different skin tones.
There was a similar process that happened with film photography[1]. Not that film, as a technology, is unable to capture dark skin - but that the development standards that were tested and distributed were designed for lighter skin.
Like, I agree that the webcams we have aren't intentionally 'racist.' But I do think that the status quo that has led everyone to accept this balance of dynamic range and resolution is reflective of valuing people with lighter skin more.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/lens/sarah-lewis-racial-b...
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/a-century...
It seems like you're reading a specific thing I said about a specific scenario and universalizing it in a way you imagine I might universalize it. I'd love to hear a critique of what I actually said, or we could talk about our views of society in a wider way, but I can't respond to this combination of generally dismissing what I said and attacking what you imagine I might think.