Techno-culture Myths and the Public Good

McChris's picture

            An online video that recently circulated shows two bros trying to bounce some youths playing a pickup game in a park in San Francisco’s Mission District. The bros, wearing t-shirts bearing the logos of tech companies, purportedly reserved the field with a mobile app and felt entitled to remove the locals from their park. Although later reports indicated that the tech workers reserved the field through more conventional paperwork at the city’s parks department, this is likely a case where the myth is more true than the facts: smartphone-wielding techies in San Francisco and other cities are eroding access to public goods and services through disruptive apps and data management.

            Here in Austin, a local tech incubator hosts a monthly transportation meetup, highlighting how startups want to reform the city’s dysfunctional transportation system, and a city council member tells an immigration-reform group that it’s “important for government to embrace technologies that will help solve urban problems.” Rather than look to local government for solutions to local public problems, government has turned to tech entrepreneurs to sprinkle some disruptive innovation pixie dust on traffic and a lack of functional public transportation in this rapidly growing city.

            These developments reflect a consistent strain of technological optimism in United States culture, but where grand projects like the Hoover Dam and Apollo missions once addressed issues in the physical world, governments and citizens turn to tactical applications to solve social challenges. This entry of startup culture into local governance is also symptomatic of a habitus where people have more faith in free markets than in the ability of public institutions to solve public problems. As local governments are increasingly squeezed for resources and the support of citizens, it’s no wonder that well funded civic startups are greeted with open arms.

            Local governance can often be sclerotic and slow to respond, but this faith in technology and entrepreneurship may pose a threat to equitable access to public services and public space. While mobile apps and big data may improve the urban experience for those who possess smartphones and the techno-capital to use them effectively, people who lack these resources may increasingly find themselves losing access to services they once had.

            After a motorist killed a popular Austin lifestyle blogger this year, a grassroots group and some city leaders looked to transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft to address weaknesses in the city’s late-night transportation system. Smartphone users relish the ability to hail nearby drivers in a city where cabs are difficult to find and buses run infrequently, but turning to these private solutions to public problems raises some significant issues. Uber has been accused of distorting driver earnings, automating racist attitudes, and encouraging drivers to take on subprime debt. It also did an end-run around the local political process by operating illegally in Austin while flaunting a warchest for potential court battles.

            For satisfied Uber users, it may seem like a high-tech convenience that improves upon current transportation problems. Here, I would argue, however, is one of the dangers of technoculture: the fetish of the new masks deepening inequalities and emerging opportunities for exploitation. Novelty makes it difficult for many to see how software systems may reconfigure individuals’ relationship with local government, possibly reducing their access to public services and increasing surveillance, while making life more precarious for many people. While positive dispositions toward technology aren’t bad in themselves, it is important to consider how introducing technology can further inequality.

Comments

Technoculture masking issues

Technoculture masking issues in society is something that I have been thinking about quite a bit myself and I think the point you make about turning to private companies to solve issues having an effect of furthering inequality is an interesting one. As someone who relies on public transportation quite a bit in a city that struggles to expand their network I have personal concerns tied to this. Public transit at it's core is a problem about networks. There need to be as many different interconnected lines going everywhere in a city for them to become useful. Here is Norfolk they have been trying to get a Light Rail system going but right now it only has one line that just runs back and forth. People have already begun to write the whole project off because they don't see it as useful for them instead of realizing that the way it becomes useful is to expand and allow it to go more places in the city.

All of this is just for me to say that if instead of expanding the public network we push people into using private tools like Uber and Lyft do we not just end up with a weak network that could have been something more useful? All those people that could have been connected are now let loose to figure things out for themselves and to hope that a car is available when they need one.