Bonilla and Rosa’s 2015 article on #Ferguson explores the magnitude of ways which social media hashtags have been used in America, particularly in retaliation towards un-just shootings of people of colour. Such explorations are profound and informative of the social response to such events, yet the article does little to critique or questions such actions, nor the impact of the response. It is important to note that hashtag activism is not of single use towards injustice against people of colour and Black people, but that these are only one example of a community which use such activism against injustice. While Bonilla and Rosa (2015) do make good points on the evidence found on how American legal action impacts people of colour, Black teenage boys in particular, they fail to explore how such hashtag activism works to trouble these behaviours. While an element of this is answered in the final paragraph of Bonilla and Rosa’s work by stating “…particularly social media, had posed ‘the most significant challenge’ to his investigation” suggesting that this activism does work to express their emotions to the world, in such troubling the mainstream portrayal of the event. However, such troubling does seem to do little in support of the action which the hashtag impresses on social media readers: there seems to be no understanding or expression of understanding towards the community who has been hurt. In fact, by the quote above, it seems to suggest that, in a legal sense, the activism actually did very little to help their case. In the sense of society there is no mention within this article of how this activism supported, or opposed, the call to action regarding shootings of unarmed Black and people of colour in America.

References

Bonilla, Y. and Rosa, J. (2015) #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist. Volume 42, Issue 1. https://doi-org.ezproxy.brighton.ac.uk/10.1111/amet.12112

There is striking similarity across many of the concerns surrounding organised labour processes that correlate not only with public sector strikes, but particularly within the gig economy as I reflect upon stories from companies such as Amazon, SportsDirect, and as Woodcock (2021) highlights in Chapter 1, Deliveroo. In the first two examples mentioned, I recall various news releases as issues surrounding health and safety, and more general exploitation of workers emerged, with a notable Guardian article comparing the sports clothing company to the ‘gulag’ (Goodley and Ashby, 2015). Within the article the simplicity of its manual force is compared against Amazon, whose technology demonstrates greater sophistication. The voice of Amazon’s workforce is arguably a more public example of attempts to address employee unrest, with analyst roles provided to rack reports of unionisation and threats to jobs. While Amazon’s fulfilment centres do utilise technologies such as robotics, similar concerns surrounding employee welfare mirror those within SportsDirect, as conditions are unethical and demand the impossible. In an era where technology is driving every minute of our lives, it is inconceivable that workers should exist within the juxtaposition of contemporary capitalism, whereby we see the benefits of ‘extraordinary high-technologies’ yet ignore ‘workers who live and die in brutal conditions often imagined to belong in some antediluvian past’ (Dyer-Witheford, 2015, p.2). Companies with technologies so sophisticated as Amazon, who pilot drone deliveries and boast billion dollar profits demonstrate that while workers are not as isolated as previously considered (Woodcock, 2021), threats of redundancy and automation, amongst others, have significant impacts. Yet, resistance is crucial. Therefore, while technological surveillance and the consequence of technology can further hinder organisational resistance, it may also be a gateway to facilitate communication and action from workers to affect social change.

Goodley, S. and Ashby, J. (2015) “A day at ‘the gulag’: what it’s like to work at Sports Direct’s warehouse,” The Guardian, 9 December. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/09/sports-direct-warehouse-work-conditions (Accessed: March 20, 2023).

Woodcock, J (2021) “Introduction” and “Why struggles against platform capitalism matter” The Fight Against Platform Capitalism. London: University of Westminster Press

Streitfield, D. (2021) “How Amazon Crushes Unions,” The New York Times, 16 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/amazon-unions-virginia.html.

n exploring the role of technology within human society, Mosco (2019) acknowledges that while ‘optimistic scholars stress the instrumental role of ICT in the process of social development… pessimistic scholars emphasise the emergence and constant expansion of the digital divide’. The scope of increasingly convergent technologies is allowing cities to generate sophisticated systems which are responsive to the lives of citizens (Glover, 2019), it is highly evident that the freedom of movement and space can also be limited within smart cities. Sadowski (2017) demonstrates this effectively through anecdotal evidence of his own, having been locked out of his apartment. While the notion of key cards and fobs can create a sense of safety and security in the limited access it grants those who do not inhabit the space, a tool of which can be applied in a variety of contexts, frustration and vulnerability is caused when systems fail. In referencing Deleuze (1992), he comments on the ‘barrier’ established due to the fact that the relevant systems were unable to operate as intended. Although seemingly insignificant within the larger scale smart city, this incident hints toward the imbalances that can begin to grow for a variety of reasons. Generally, these imbalances can be seen to be created through existing imbalances within social structures and the influence of hegemonic groups, whereby marginalised groups are not provided sufficient opportunities to engage or participate. In exploring the role of sensors within smart cities, Enlund et al. (2022) state that in order to overcome certain risks such as this, where technology ‘instil[s] feelings of command and control [by] turning citizens into ‘databodies in codespace’’ (Enlund et al., 2022), considerable thought must be taken to account for multiple variations. At the heart of this, primary consideration should factor in the way in which spaces are lived. With this in mind, they can ‘create opportunities for sensors to become mediators of needs and wants between different groups of citizens’ (Enlund et al., 2022), actively accounting for occasions where technology fails and seeking to prevent the rise of barriers.

Mosco, V. (2019) The Smart City in a Digital World. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/9781787691353.

Glover, F. (2019) ‘The Smart City: Seoul, South Korea, [The Compass], 10 April 2019. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csz41r (Accessed: 21 February, 2023)

Sadowski, J (2017) ‘Access denied: Snapshots of exclusion and enforcement in the smart city’ in Shaw, J and Graham, M. ed. Our Digital rights to the city, pp 6-11. Meatspace Press

Enlund, D. et al. (2022) “The role of sensors in the production of Smart City Spaces,” Big Data & Society, 9(2), p. 205395172211102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221110218.

The ethics and vulnerabilities of digital and smart cities are an important issue, now more so than ever before with the somewhat unintentional rise in technology. Rob Kitchin (2020) explored this very topic in his article “Hacking cities is very much a reality”. Due to the amount of data which can be, and to some extent is currently, being gathered by such cities it is important for those in charge of such technologies and cities to ask what type of information they want and need to gather, and how such data should be gathered and regulated. With how much information and technology is used in cities, the idea of any first world city being hacked is no longer only a thought for science fiction or futuristic shows. This could be done through disabling systems, such as traffic lights which would cause possible traffic accidents, injures, and deaths, or through the hacking of central databases to steal information. Should this happen, it could lead to many problems in society, both for individuals and for the local area in general. However, it would not just be central problems which this could cause: the technology systems which are used would need to be built by humans on a system which would only account for certain groups of people. As such it is very likely that smart cities would become much more inequal with the further rise of technology usage and reliance. Not only, but it would be the minority of the society and city who would fall into this category, yet these people would be the most vulnerable in society as well.

References

Kitchin, R. (2020) Hacking cities is very much a reality. Digital Future Society. https://digitalfuturesociety.com/qanda/rob-kitchin-and-the-vulnerabilities-of-smart-cities/

In exploring how smart cities enhance and compromise community participation and sustainability, Mosco (2019) explains the technology-driven perspective as a collection of advanced technologies, such as sensors, big data analytics, and artificial intelligence, that are used to optimize the efficiency of urban systems and services.

This approach emphasizes the benefits of using technology to improve resource management, reduce traffic congestion, and enhance public safety. but it may also compromise community and participation by focusing on efficiency over social and cultural values (Sadowski, J, 2017), (Mosco, 2019).

In 2017 Google’s Sidewalk Labs proposed the Quayside project in Toronto, which aimed to create a smart city using a range of technologies such as autonomous vehicles, sensors, and energy-efficient buildings. The project claimed to enhance sustainability by reducing carbon emissions and waste while improving community participation by offering open data and public consultation. However, “it raises significant policy issues” (Mosco 2019, P.85), concerns were raised about data privacy and governance, as well as the potential for exclusion of marginalized communities (Cecco, 2019).

“Panelists felt that [the Sidewalk Labs master plan] did not appear to put the citizen at the centre of the design process for digital innovations, as was promised in the beginning and is necessary for legitimacy.” Digital Strategy Advisory Panel, Waterfront Toronto

Another perspective Mosco (2019) discussed is the citizen-centered perspective which views digital smart cities as platforms for citizen participation and engagement in urban governance. This approach highlights the importance of involving citizens in decision-making processes and providing them with access to information and resources to co-create their urban environment.

The current ‘smart city’ model is made up of a variety of advanced technologies such as sensors, data collection systems, real-time analytics, connected devices, algorithmic processes, and centralized command centers. These technologies work together to create a city that is capable of processing and analyzing large amounts of data in real-time to optimize its services and systems “They are fundamentally about infrastructural and civic applications. They are the kind of systems that constitute the techno-political ordering of society” (Sadowski, J 2017, P.7).

The readings and current ‘smart cities’ projects, serve as a strong reminder that technology alone is not the ultimate solution to the challenges of urban living. Such initiatives need to be well-defined, accessible, and transparent to the general public. They must be founded upon civic participation and align with sound planning principles. Additionally, policies targeting government inefficiencies and social inequalities should accompany these smart technologies. Otherwise, these technologies could end up magnifying urban problems as readily as they can solve them.

References:

• Sadowski, J (2017) ‘Access denied: Snapshots of exclusion and enforcement in the smart city’ in Shaw, J and Graham, M. ed. Our Digital rights to the city, pp 6-11.
• Cecco, L. (2019). ‘Irrelevant: report pours scorn over Google’s ideas for Toronto smart city’, The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/11/irrelevant-panel-pours-scorn-over-googles-ideas-for-toronto-smart-city>, accessed 1 March 2023.
• Mosco, V. (2019) The Smart City in a Digital World. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/9781787691353. [chapter 3: City of technology: where the streets are paved with data]