"[B]y literally labelling the person as a 'hotspot,' you are priming an affluent, iPad-toting public to think of that person as a commodity."
"If all BBH are doing is turning these people into an aerial and asking them to stand still then they are just treating homeless people the same way the Victorians did when they asked them to hold posters."
১২ মার্চ, ২০১২
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১৪টি মন্তব্য:
They're getting paid, right? At least to the tune of "stand here for a bit and I'll give you a couple bucks", right? And if they aren't paid they can "wander off" and see if someone else wants a stationary hot-spot for a bit.
And what's wrong with holding a poster?
Yeah but... it doesn't sound at all like they're asked to do anything for the $20 and they're not begging donations, they're offering a service.
My conservative side sez what 2 people agree to do for money, as long as it's legal and doesn't hurt anybody, then it's their business and not mine.
My lapsed Catholic side sez these people need help, not patronizing.
Would there be an objection if the "hotspots" where college students? What about young women in bikinis?
Would the money be better spent to "rent" a spot to hang a router in a store front, or off a telephone pole? Are yuppies so tied to their blackberries that they would pay someone to not wander away, or even follow them around?
The roaming of the hotspot themselves would indicate that the advertising company itself is not going to get the market saturation that they could with a non-mobile hotspot. Better saturation could be had if hobos were assigned areas, and paid to stay there, with flooding occurring at Austins many fairs and celebrations.
My prediction is next week there will be some other outrage to get all huffed about that will indicate the further decline of Western civilization and Mores.
And no one will remember this one.
Hey, this is how GodZero could say unemployment remained steady.
All the "discouraged workers" are now Federal-designated hotspots.
"Would there be an objection if the "hotspots" where college students? What about young women in bikinis?"
Exactly! The poor have traditionally been most harmed by those thoughtful folks who thought them too helpless to "allow" them to earn what they need. They would prefer the poor stay poor rather than have someone else benefit from them, like any other employment agreement. Nobody feels sorry for the young and hot.
They should equip them with aprons and a cask around their neck full of cappuccino, like a St. Bernard. The St. stands for Starbucks.
Clearly a gimmick. Who's going to walk right past a coffee shop with nice comfy chairs and free wifi to hunt down and stand next to a homeless person at $2 a pop for 15 minutes of wifi!?
That said, we are talking about adults with the right to consent to gimmick labor. It's just patronizing to say I find your decision distasteful, Mr. Homeless Person, so sit back, keep your hand out and let me do all that tough thinking for you.
Jennifer wrote: the right to consent to gimmick labor
I like that phrase. Clearly, the right to consent to gimmick labor was established by Schechter Polka Corp. vs. United States.
@ Jen:
The people at SXSW might. Crowded convention.
Feels like a "Stuff White People Like" project too much: The patronization of the poor segment of society who's not being given assistance to actually get out of their situation, but rather a temporary, condesending service task (not even a full fledged job) that at best benefits only those who carry and use smartphone, and has zero impact on the future of the homeless people themselves. No long lasting skills are imparted, and the benefit to those folks goes away when the company does.
On top of that, the company executing the plan is patting itself on the back for generating "insane amount of chatter about this" as well as making the homeless "no longer invisible". From their webpage, you wonder if they're really doing it for the homeless in their town, or to make themselves feel better.
As charity, it comes off as sort of superficial. The company says it's all about the homeless, but how has their condition actually improved? A bit of cash in their pockets is transient benefit at best; it's not like they're suddenly learning cellular network engineering from carrying the devices (on the contrary, the "Hot Spot" functions of devices are nothing more than end-user-land extensions of the cellular network with an end-user-land interface: A checkbox on a device's screen; I've used these myself in the past, and they're no challenge technically to set up. The only marketable skill you teach yourself in using one is helpdesk support ("See the box? Check it...")). Seems to me the biggest benefit has been to the corporate egos, positive stimulation from all the self-stroking their giving themselves. Which is why I call it a "Stuff White People Like" project: It's not really for the homeless, is it? Regardless of what BBH Labs thinks.
Hey, it's ok 'cause all these hipsters in Austin are Progressives. If this was Columbia, SC and it was the Republican convention, we'd be seeing wall-to-wall coverage on CNNNBCABCCBSMSNBC about how "scary" Republicans are.
By the way, speaking of Progressives... this morning, when I saw the report that Apple surpassed Exxon as the largest company in the world, I was wondering when the Left will start decrying them for making "too much" in profit. I guess they won't.
As long as the homeless person is getting paid a reasonable fee for his time, I have no problem with this. Aside from the cheekiness of calling them "homeless hotspots", this is no different than hiring high school or college students to pass out fliers or something equally trivial
"the same way that pizza places and tax preparers do when they asked them to hold posters."
Fixed that for you. But the pizza places and tax preparers have to pay minimum wage. So do unions when they hire pickets.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন