It's a concept that seems right out of the sprawl -- using homeless people as walking 4G hotspots (via a hardly normal view / story at Wired)
A sign of the impending distopia
- Thread starter evilmike
- Start date
- Status
It's a concept that seems right out of the sprawl -- using homeless people as walking 4G hotspots (via a hardly normal view / story at Wired)
ElJuski
Staff member
could have sworn I had a gif of the bum turning into a mailbox somewhere...
but seriously, not really sure how I feel about this. It's very degrading, but, to a certain degree, it is an opportunity to make some money. But then again, it's really fucking degrading. But then, not as degrading as what some sickos make homeless people do for money.
but seriously, not really sure how I feel about this. It's very degrading, but, to a certain degree, it is an opportunity to make some money. But then again, it's really fucking degrading. But then, not as degrading as what some sickos make homeless people do for money.
ElJuski
Staff member
Hey, so here's a bit of food for thought on the other end of the spectrum: http://www.good.is/post/the-critics...-homeless-hotspots-haven-t-met-jonathan-hill/
The only things I see even slightly degrading about this are the pay and the name; at $20 a day it sounds low, but if they're given commission off their wireless sales as well they might very well be making decent money.
The name "homeless hotspot" printed on their shirts advertising them as homeless can be construed as degrading but that's also raising awareness of the homeless issue, so that maybe people will give it a second thought when the day is done, so from their perspective I can see why they might want to use it.
Beyond that, I don't see how employing someone to give people wi-fi is any different from hiring them for any number of other jobs.
I'd even argue its LESS degrading than a lot of jobs companies hire women for in similar capacities like booth babes, the Red Bull girls, etc.
The name "homeless hotspot" printed on their shirts advertising them as homeless can be construed as degrading but that's also raising awareness of the homeless issue, so that maybe people will give it a second thought when the day is done, so from their perspective I can see why they might want to use it.
Beyond that, I don't see how employing someone to give people wi-fi is any different from hiring them for any number of other jobs.
I'd even argue its LESS degrading than a lot of jobs companies hire women for in similar capacities like booth babes, the Red Bull girls, etc.
S
Soliloquy
I'm oddly torn about this. I mean, it's their choice, and it's not like there's anyone forcing them to do this. If they want to emphasize their homelessness to get work experience that can actually count as sales work, I'm not going to stop them. After all, it's not like people are lining up to give these people jobs.
But along those same lines, you could argue that they are being forced to do this because there aren't many job opportunities available to people at that point in life. The people involved obviously want to work, but because of their situation in life the only legitimate job they can find is one that labels them explicitly as homeless. They might not mind that (see Fade's comment on begging) but it doesn't really sit well with me.
And then there's the whole "bringing attention to the homelessness problem" angle, which seems like a stretch at first. But think about it: how many of these self-righteous bloggers and media personalities that are condemning the business even mentioned the homeless recently? Their sudden, out-of-nowhere crusade to protect the homeless kind of reminds me of someone...
The funny thing is, if these people succeed in yelling the homeless hotspots into nonexistence, the people who were employed under it will probably go back to being jobless. So... way to have their backs, media!
And yet, despite all this, and despite the fact that it's these people's choice to do this, I can't help but feel that we can choose ourselves into a dystopia this way. If things are set up so that the only real choices people have are between doing a number of demeaning things, that does not sit well for society.
So color me flummoxed.
I think that's a bright shade of orange.
But along those same lines, you could argue that they are being forced to do this because there aren't many job opportunities available to people at that point in life. The people involved obviously want to work, but because of their situation in life the only legitimate job they can find is one that labels them explicitly as homeless. They might not mind that (see Fade's comment on begging) but it doesn't really sit well with me.
And then there's the whole "bringing attention to the homelessness problem" angle, which seems like a stretch at first. But think about it: how many of these self-righteous bloggers and media personalities that are condemning the business even mentioned the homeless recently? Their sudden, out-of-nowhere crusade to protect the homeless kind of reminds me of someone...
The funny thing is, if these people succeed in yelling the homeless hotspots into nonexistence, the people who were employed under it will probably go back to being jobless. So... way to have their backs, media!
And yet, despite all this, and despite the fact that it's these people's choice to do this, I can't help but feel that we can choose ourselves into a dystopia this way. If things are set up so that the only real choices people have are between doing a number of demeaning things, that does not sit well for society.
So color me flummoxed.
I think that's a bright shade of orange.
For me, the problem could be that they are hotspots instead of hotspot carriers or something like that. The way it's written, they are things, communications antennae with unkempt beards.
Dystopia would be if they were taking Austin's College students, and implanting them with 4G and WiFi connections and forcing them to be homeless...
"Wifi Green is PEOPLE!!!!"
fade
Staff member
That's called "majoring in art".
I just debated with my husband on this.
He doesn't like the idea. I do.
My stance is that it brings attention to the homeless, which are basically invisible people, and they are getting paid. 20 bucks a day? Sure! That's 140.00 a week! I'm also going ot be optimistic and hope that some people will donate pocket change to these men and women who are carrying around their wireless signal.
My husbands stance was "It's wrong" and "It's callous."
I think I win.
He doesn't like the idea. I do.
My stance is that it brings attention to the homeless, which are basically invisible people, and they are getting paid. 20 bucks a day? Sure! That's 140.00 a week! I'm also going ot be optimistic and hope that some people will donate pocket change to these men and women who are carrying around their wireless signal.
My husbands stance was "It's wrong" and "It's callous."
I think I win.
- Status