Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
Mon Jan 1, 2018, 05:04 PM Jan 2018

New twist on corporate towns. Quayside Toronto, built by Google.

Google is now expanding its data driven operation into building a part of a city based on how its executives think a city should be designed and managed.

The part that makes me a bit queasy is that Google has so far succeeded by using people as its product. People aren’t its customers so much as they are providers of data, which is extensively gathered, packaged then sold to other companies. This is very different than the civic relationship of people with their government. How does this translate to real people who are living or working in or even just passing through a physical place?

Note: I have been watching the new season of Black Mirror so my views on this endeavor is tinged by thoughts of how technology employed by private companies to benefit them can sometimes run amok. I think there is a solid role for embracing new technology in development and in improving lives and systems. I’ m just skeptical that this is the way to proceed. It has too many echoes of the old “company town” to it, with the new dimension of everything you do being tracked and analyzed.

First, here’s a statement from Eric Schmidt on Alphabet/Google/Sidewalk Labs being selected for this venture:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/with-toronto-alphabet-looks-to-revolutionize-city-building/article36634779/

Alphabet executive chairman Eric Schmidt said on Tuesday the genesis of the thinking for Sidewalk Labs came from Google's founders getting excited thinking of "all the things you could do if someone would just give us a city and put us in charge," although he joked he knew there were good reasons that doesn't happen. He then related his reaction when the company discovered it had won the bid for the development of its city-as-a-platform model: "Oh my God! We've been selected. Now, it's our turn."



And here Is some info from a NYT article about it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/world/canada/google-toronto-city-future.html

Quayside, as the project is known, will be laden with sensors and cameras tracking everyone who lives, works or merely passes through the area. In what Sidewalk calls a marriage of technology and urbanism, the resulting mass of data will be used to further shape and refine the new city. Lifting a term from its online sibling, the company calls the Toronto project “a platform.”

But extending the surveillance powers of one of the world’s largest technology companies from the virtual world to the real one raises privacy concerns for many residents. Others caution that, when it comes to cities, data-driven decision-making can be misguided and undemocratic.

~~~
Nothing is too prosaic to analyze: Toilets and sinks will report their water use; the garbage robots will report on trash collection. Residents and workers in the area will rely on Sidewalk-developed software to gain access to public services; the data gathered from everything will influence long-term planning and development.

~~~
While surveillance cameras and other sensors are fixtures in many cities, Pamela Robinson, an associate professor at the school of urban planning at Ryerson University in Toronto, said Quayside’s data would differ in its extent and its collection method — by a private company rather than by government agencies. Plans for who will own that data and who will be able to access it have not been announced.





4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New twist on corporate towns. Quayside Toronto, built by Google. (Original Post) suffragette Jan 2018 OP
Creepy. Companies always think they know what's chowder66 Jan 2018 #1
When Cantwell ran against McGavick, she ran an effective ad that noted some common corporate suffragette Jan 2018 #2
YIKES! That's a great example. nt chowder66 Jan 2018 #3
Everything involving the Toronto waterfront quickly becomes a farce Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2018 #4

chowder66

(9,086 posts)
1. Creepy. Companies always think they know what's
Mon Jan 1, 2018, 06:20 PM
Jan 2018

best and how they can "run" things but what they don't ever count on is that people get fired or get pissed off, or have issues that drive bad decisions. Influencers can change minds and misdeeds can begin to flourish. OR people don't see the big picture of someone who has ill intent. Why is it that regulations were even ever enacted? Because there are greedy, shitty people everywhere.

Women will most likely be the first to get hurt or abused by this experiment. There is going to be "that guy" who's a fucking peeping tom or something to that effect.

Crooks are everywhere especially in corporations anymore.

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
2. When Cantwell ran against McGavick, she ran an effective ad that noted some common corporate
Mon Jan 1, 2018, 07:42 PM
Jan 2018

practices don’t translate to civic responsibility and good and spefically went after impact of actions McGavick was portraying as showing he was a good leader.

Most effective counter of the ‘CEOs are good at the job so would be good political leaders’ I have seen.

Wish I could find the tv ad, but here is a description of part of it:

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Former-Safeco-chief-exec-to-head-Bermuda-insurer-1267451.php

In TV ads, Cantwell attacked McGavick's performance at Safeco, asserting that "Mike McGavick laid off 1,700 employees as an insurance executive, then took $4 million in cash bonuses." The ads also said he "cut employee and retiree health benefits, then took a $28 million golden parachute when he left to run for the Senate."


You can’t just lay off or restructure out citizens the way so many companies discard employees. You can’t fire a child for misbehaving in their home or in public places.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New twist on corporate to...