first post blank
Is using the homeless as wireless hotspots helpful or exploitative?
Mon, 2012-03-12 14:23
#1
Is using the homeless as wireless hotspots helpful or exploitative?
Mon, 2012-03-12 14:24
#2
A new program at the South by Southwest festival that sets homeless people up as mobile 4G hostpots has sparked a heated debate.
Homeless Hotspots sets up nine homeless people with 4G devices that can allow walkers-by to access the internet in exchange for a donation.
The living hotspots are identified by t-shirts that read, "I am a 4G hotspot" and feature the Homeless Hotspot logo and the required 4G ID.
The recommended donation for using a Homeless Hotspot is $2 US for 15 minutes of internet use, according to tech.li. Hotspots founder BBH Labs, part of the marketing firm Bartle Bogle Hegarty, compares the concept to homeless persons' street newspapers, which are sold to support the community and educate people about their lives.
Clarence, a Hotspot volunteer from New Orleans who lost his home during Hurricane Katrina, said in a YouTube video that the program would find out if "this invention could work out to help the homeless."
But headlines on the story span a range of tones, from supportive to damning. Gizmodo's post begins with the headline "Homeless Men Turned into Human Routers," while the Register calls it a "roaming hobonet for pennies."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/03/is-using-homeless-people-as...
Mon, 2012-03-12 14:49
#3
Maysie
Mr Tea, you have got to be fucking kidding.
Here's more equally scintillating and intellectually challenging questions:
Is poverty good or bad for poor people?
How much can you stomp on a homeless person and not get arrested?
Should it be okay to use a homeless person as a footrest?
.... And more intellectual games from the comfortable middle class!
Mon, 2012-03-12 15:02
#4
Maysie, the headline was taken from the CBC, not from me.
I don't necessarily disagree with your perceptions of the campaign but I think the idea is at least worth discussing.
On the one hand, I'm very interested in technology and particularly how it can be harnessed to promote social change (e.g. #OWS, Arab Spring, the currenty "Kony 2012" campaign, and dozens of other examples). I also think there are great examples of how technology can be mobilized very quickly to help people in need (e.g. being able to instantly text message donations to the Red Cross following natural disasters).
On the other hand, this campaign makes me uncomfortable. If the goal of BBH Labs (the guys behind this) was to a)provide wireless for people at the event and b) to raise money for a good cause....ok, both are worthy. I just don't really see the need to actually have homeless people standing there wearing t-shirts saying "I'm a wireless hotspot", anymore than I think it would be a good idea to have homeless people holding a sign declaring the speed limit or how many miles to Austin. They're people, not sign posts or part of the infrastructure. I think BBH could just as easily have set up these wifi zones and put up signs that said "Dear SXSW Attendees: Enjoy the free wifi and please consider making a doantion to the following cause...."
Mon, 2012-03-12 15:10
#5
Maysie
I know the headline is from the cbc.ca article. The MSM no longer disgusts me regarding the level of despicable attention-grabbing grossness they will sink to.
Bur what made you think that presented uncritically, as you did, here on babble, that there would be no push-back?
And it's generally a good idea to present an existing headline in quotes, and cite where the news story is from. But even so, one could argue that regurgitating mainstream stupidity is hardly groundbreaking.
Enjoy your intellectual and detached discussion.
Mon, 2012-03-12 15:18
#6
Well, forgive me if I'm unfamiliar with the proper proper protocol in terms of when to use quotation marks in a thread title. I did, indicate where it was from, btw, and included a link at the bottom to the full article. The entire post was quotes from the CBC, not my thoughts. I thought that was pretty clear but perhaps not.
As to what made me think there would be no push-back? I actually DID expect push-back. That was the whole point of posting the article. About an idea that is being discussed fairly widely across the mainstream media as well as across the blogosphere, social media, etc., where there is duscussion as to the pros and cons of the idea.
Mon, 2012-03-12 15:21
#7
Catchfire
I find the question posed by the article to be disgusting. There is no debate here from a social justice point of view. Brad Pitt seems to get around too. Why not put a 4G hotspot on him?
Mr. Tea, babble is for the discussion and development of leftist politics, which only a cursory knowledge of should disabuse you of any "difficulty" you have with this subject. Posing the OP question like you did--even if it does come from the CBC--invites criticism and is not in line with the spirit of babble.
Mon, 2012-03-12 16:24
#8
There is no debate here from a social justice point of view. Brad Pitt seems to get around too. Why not put a 4G hotspot on him?
I'm sure companies would love to. And I'm sure Brad Pitt would agree if the price were right. Just like Sidney Crosby and Lebron James show up to events for money. The difference is the price tag.
Mon, 2012-03-12 16:47
#9
Maysie
Speaking of price tags, let's talk about these other great topics!
- If companies paid every woman $1000 each to not vote, is that a good idea?
- Should no more people of colour be hired for upper management, because, come on, we know white people are better at jobs that pay more?
- Should homeless people just be rounded up and killed because they're no good for business?
- Should we reinstate residential schools?
Anxiously awaiting the excellent debates to follow.
Mon, 2012-03-12 17:23
#10
Those are all terrible analogies in that they involve violating someone's fundamental rights. This situation at SWSW is about offering people money in exchange for them performing a service to which they agree. It's not fundamentally different than paying someone to fix your car or to cut your hair or to do your taxes. Or to pay Lebron James to play basketball or Sidney Crosby to play hockey or Brad Pitt to act in your movie.
There's ample room for debate (and indeed there has been across the media all day) but ridiculousl and completely irrelevant questions like those don't contribute anything of value to any discussion.
Mon, 2012-03-12 17:31
#11
Catchfire
It's not fundamentally different than paying someone to fix your car or to cut your hair or to do your taxes. Or to pay Lebron James to play basketball or Sidney Crosby to play hockey or Brad Pitt to act in your movie.
Oh dear god. I thought you at least had a handle on the injustice of the abominable practice of SXSW, but I see that you think this is a real ethical quandary. Do you think a low-income or homeless person has the agency to say no to a potential source of income, even if it is humiliating and degrading? You seem to miss the point of my earlier analogy when it is unlikely that Brad Pitt, or any middle-class person, will walkaround with a 4G Hotspot taped to their back for a "recommended" $2 handout. Of course, even if they did, they have the agency and economic wherewithal to (more or less) consent to the practice.
Maysie's analogy of the homeless person as footstool seems particularly apt. The others are quite pointed for asking questions anyone with an iota of critical thought and a sense of social justice should know the answers to.
There is room to discuss this episode at the SXSW, but from a progressive foundation and not like this. I'm closing this thread.