Google wants to run cities without being elected. Don't let it
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
"They have no permission to build anything," said Coun. Paula Fletcher, who has been heavily-involved in plans to redevelop the nearby Port Lands.
Fletcher says she's looking forward to seeing the ideas Sidewalk comes up with following a year's work and a series of public consultations, but warns they'll be held to a high standard. "It has to be good enough for Toronto. And it has to meet certain standards as far as jobs and land use are concerned," she said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sidewalk-labs-toronto-...
As a Toronto resident: I guess this means begin construction and then don't do any work for 5 years, all while burning through city funds.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/10/17/google-fir...
I've attended some of the other consultations hosted by the city planning department, and I agree their timelines are epic. It was good however to engage with neighbours I wouldn't otherwise and hear differing opinions. I can understand why it can take so long when engaging with the general public, land redevelopment can be very divisive.
The town hall meeting is November 1st if you're interested in participating:
https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/sidewalk-toronto-community-town-...
(For those unfamiliar with the Guardian, its mix of news content bemoaning young British people's lack of access to affordable housing and relentless stream of opinion pieces objecting to any and every type of (sub)urban development has always been one of its more amusing quirks)
Here's Google street view of the area: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.644809,-79.3348222,3a,75y,340...
Civil governments are created with goal (yes I know it's imperfect) of providing access to resources equally. Corporations are formed with the goal of evading individual responsibility for financial benefit. They have no incentive to treat expensive individuals such as the less educated, the disabled, the poor, etc. They only support them in the most minimalist ways legally required and actually spend money to change laws to support the disadvantaged even less.
If you want that area to be better, round up your fellow residents and get an initiative passed in the city.
Are you describing corporations or city governments here, because I don't see much of a difference. The bulk of that work gets forced on NGOs and charitable organizations.
I guess we can say the same here too.
You're calling democracy into question as your first argument for letting Google do this? REALLY? Then you ask for research, as evidence, that would be impossible to do?
I agree if the city wants to let Google do this then so be it, but your response to the article was even more pointless than you claim the article to be.
In order for social and political sciences to carry weight they should be held to the same standard as all sciences. Therefore they should follow the scientific method:http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html
I've included the link so there's no confusion as to what the scientific method actually entails. Democracy is an unproven hypothesis that we are using to govern society and has shown time and time again that it can be poorly executed and have dire consequences. For example, Hitler was democratically elected.
Your response to my response was by far the most pointless activity. You achieved nothing but showing that you lack a certain awareness and might have a reading comprehension issue.
Thanks.
On the other hand, maybe Google is flexing a little much here. I sincerely believe them that they have peoples' best interests at heart - because that will eventually be beneficial to Google as well. But inserting a little more competition here I think would lend itself a long way.
Corruption and self-interest amongst elected city officials, especially in large cities such as Toronto, is endemic.
You're generally right though, that any publicly-traded company has primarily its shareholders best interests at heart. But that doesn't mean they'll ruin their public image by doing something untowards. Google especially seems to be more forward thinking than the traditional "quarterly results" style company. So I think it's worth giving them a shot at this just to see what happens. (Spoiler alert: it'll probably be the ultimate form of sacrificing privacy for convenience)
Do we have our government fund alternative companies? Do we force Google to break up into smaller companies? Do we make laws and regulations limiting what companies can and cannot do?
I genuinely don't know the right answer (if there even is one), but I know that most of the answers i've heard on this have very large tradeoffs and downsides.
"But cities are not machines that can be optimized, nor are they labs for running experiments. Cities are not platforms with users, nor are they businesses with shareholders. Cities are real places with real people who have a right not to live with whatever “smart solutions” an engineer or executive decides to unleash."
The reaction seems more visceral than thoughtful. Cities in many ways ARE machines that need to be optimized; and, regardless of our feelings, are always in a constant state of experimentation. Cities may not be platforms, but they are certainly businesses with shareholders called voters. Businesses are real places with real people; and while I agree that they should have the right to live without any "smart solution" that a business would like to unleash... my neighborhood covenant (enforced by city ordnance) already disagrees with my opinion.
I don't disagree with the intent of the author, but she failed to make any reasonable argument in support of her point.
Also, when Google pulls out because they don't know how to budget for most of their experiments after one year will still allow them to keep your data.
Three weeks after they turn your water off for no readily apparent reason, you post here in hopes that someone that works there will see it and intercede.
I've got a massive issue regarding my digital footprint and I know Google spreads my data like the plague if it gets chance.
There needs to be some sort of organisation that could do this but not for profit which Google/Alphabet will no doubt get in someway shape or form.
I think he would have to take specific proposals by Alphabet and then point out flaws for this to have meat.
Google being given a city sounds like hell, but they'll probably stop supporting it after a few years, anyway.
The grandiosity and ego of tech CEOs never ceases to amaze. You'd think someone with so much power wouldn't so casually drop that they want a city, too. Why don't you guys focus on your existing empire?
They are a corporation. They are here to do nothing but make more money. They are not here to make your life better. Fuck off Google, this article ruined my day.
Am I the only one who feels like there's a shady, coordinated media attack on silicon valley right now? Somebody wants these companies dead.
Insinuating articles that criticize your employer have ulterior motives while conveniently forgetting to mention you're being paid by the company being criticized is significantly more concerning behavior than The Guardian's.
For example: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-...
This article on Sidewalk labs leaves out a lot of details and for "journalism" didn't even bother to ask the local authorities if Sidewalk had the authority to build or execute any plans without approval by the government.
The reality is that this appears more like every other property developer master-planned community. Localities find a bit of land they want to develop or re-develop, they solicit architects and builders to submit proposals. Typically those proposals are master-planned, including commercial, residential, and public spaces. The city signs off on the plan, and then it is built. And like most such areas, there is a property management organization responsible for up keap, landscaping, repairs, maintenence, etc.
This is not the same as the company becoming the "government", they don't run the police, fire departments, schools, etc. The only difference it seems between what Sidewalk is doing, and what Centex, or Shea Homes, or other master-plan community builders, is that the latter are real estate companies, and Sidewalk is a tech company.
Oooh, scary. It's Omni Computer Products, better watch out for those ED-209's on the corners.