The Real Reason We’re Angry At Google for Wanting Toronto’s Money

And why Google might have a good point

When we were younger, we were told that hard work pays off. Some of us were told, that if we wanted to make a lot of money and truly succeed, we had to work our way up the ladder. Often times, this meant sacrificing our time, and even some of our income. Eventually, they said, it would be worth it.

Now, keep that in mind for a bit.

Alphabet (Google) recently dominated tech headlines after the plans of its subsidiary company, Sidewalk Labs (Sidewalk Toronto), were leaked to the media. In short, it has been said that the company requested a share of property taxes, developmental fees and the rising value of Toronto City land¹.

These requests did not go over smoothly, to say the least. The Toronto Star, a leading paper in the city, surfaced the concerns of both individuals and public representatives, many of which stated that they preferred the project be scrapped all together.

According to a recent CBC News article, the main concerns revolve around “Sidewalk’s data privacy policies, lack of transparency and desires around solid waste and transportation”. City councillor, Gord Perks, expressed that the recent revelations had confirmed the government’s “worst fears”.

Daniel L. Doctoroff, Sidewalk Labs CEO, was relatively quick to respond, explaining the rational behind the company’s conduct.

“Only when specific project elements reach a certain scale are they able to achieve the objectives shared by Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs to meaningfully improve the lives of the people who will live there.”

Doctoroff also addressed the same concerns in a Breakfast Television interview, where he reassured that everything presented in the media up to this point, is a concept that still requires governmental approval. Most importantly, he stressed that Alphabet wishes to be open and transparent throughout the process.

While much can be said about the matter of openness and transparency — especially considering there have been claims about Sidewalk lobbying all three levels of government— something doesn’t quite add up.

What would Sidewalk achieve by concealing information? Isn’t the company’s survival (and future projects of the same nature), reliant on the success of Sidewalk Toronto? What exactly would Sidewalk gain by blatantly disregarding regulations and risking its success? It just doesn’t make sense.

Hold up, what is Sidewalk Labs, anyway?

If all that I’ve said up to this point is completely new to you, and you have no idea what “Sidewalk Labs” even is, let me give you the rundown:

Alphabet’s (Google’s) subsidiary company, Sidewalk Labs is a corporation aiming to “Reimagine cities to improve quality of life.” The corporation believes that by “Combining people-centered urban design with cutting-edge technology” they will be able to “Tackle the challenges of urban growth.” These days, they are in the midst of developing a district within Toronto’s Eastern Waterfront, meant to “Make Toronto the global hub for urban innovation”².

Sidewalk Labs believes that by combining a “People-centered urban design with cutting edge technology” they can achieve new standards of “Sustainability, affordability, mobility and economic opportunity," further aiming to create “A new type of place to accelerate urban innovation and serve as a beacon for cities around the world”. All in all, these cities will eventually encompass full mobility, housing and sustainability systems³.

In other words, Alphabet/Google is building the world’s smartest city, in order to better our lives. Can’t stress Neo-Technologism⁴ enough.

Anyway, after all that, why are we so angry? Why exactly do their requests seem so out of place?

Why you may be angry and why you shouldn’t let it get to you

If you think about it, it’s kind of like your best friend becoming your boss. When someone you once knew as one thing, suddenly becomes another. Even if deep down, you know your best friend deserved the promotion, and you’re well aware that these changes are not personal in any way, shape or form, you just can’t help but feel the way you do. Your friend’s promotion isn’t making you jealous — it’s not that you wanted the job anyway — but for some reason, you prefer it to be somebody else. Somebody more official.

After all, you’ve known your friend forever —You know what they’re like when they’re happy, drunk or sad. You’ve seen them at their lowest, and you know them for who they truly are. How can they all of a sudden become a manager? Surely there’s somebody more qualified, right?

When comparing that analogy to Alphabet/Google, we get this: We’ve been with Google from the start. We remember it being an itty bitty search engine, and that’s it. It may have helped us with our homework, but it was often faulty and couldn’t translate a document for its life. Whatever articles it yielded for us, couldn’t be used as a credible source. It might even be right to say that back then, we would have been just fine without it.

For a while there, there was no such thing as Gmail (remember how awesome it was when you first got your gmail invite from a friend?!). There was no YouTube, Loon, or Verily. Nothing! We’ve seen the corporation develop from Google to Alphabet, for Christ sake. We made them what they are!

If nothing more, and probably the main reason why we're upset: Google has almost always been free. Sure, they made a profit off of us, but other than enduring a few ads, we enjoyed nearly every one of their services without spending a dime. Now they want our (I mean, Toronto’s) tax money? Who do they think they are? And what about democracy? They weren’t even elected!

Oh contraire, you sort of did.

For one, Alphabet has yet to act without governmental consent, it’s all theoretical at this point. Nonetheless, what people need to understand is that when you hold a corporation accountable, you’re only validating their power. Therefore, any objection towards any part of the process, should be aimed at the democratic government you, have elected.

Moreover, while there’s definitely lots to be said about the implications for democracy, Alphabet or any other Multinational Tech Corporation (MNTC) are not to blame. These changes are part of societal processes, we’ve all shared a role in.

Alphabet is an institution which ultimately strives to compensate for whatever the “official” institution (government) could not achieve on its own. Be it “Sustainability, affordability, mobility and economic opportunity," clearly there’s more to be done.

Now, if we pay our governments taxes to achieve the goals above, why shouldn’t we pay Alphabet or any other MNTCs, too? They’ve proven to be more than capable of managing global challenges and improving our day-to-day lives, so why are we so reluctant about “putting them in charge”?

I suppose you can say that citizens shouldn’t have to fund a corporation, and if they’re unable to achieve what they planned with their own finances, it is best to scrap the project entirely.

While that’s certainly a feasible option, try to look at it from a different perspective: If any government was unable to achieve its goals using its available assets, they would inherently raise taxes, wouldn’t they? Sure, we’d be angry about it for a little while, maybe even protest, but eventually (and despite any half measure that were to arise), it is likely that we’ll pay the price. Not just in the form of money, but in the quality of life too.

Okay, so now what?

So, if Alphabet wants to improve our lives, mostly out of pocket, why not let them? Those taxes were going to be paid anyway, so why not invest the money in a corporation that possesses the capability to accomplish what they set out to do? They’ve proven to be more than capable of pursuing big projects in the past.

I’m not saying Alphabet or any other MNTC should be exempt from regulation. Not one bit. You should always be able to disagree with your friend, even if he is your boss. BUT, not giving them a chance just because they’re “Alphabet” is outright ignorant.

Remember when I talked about the friend analogy? About how it might be difficult to see someone we know in a “formal position”. Well, it seems to me that part of our concerns are based on the fact that we’ve not only been there from the start, but have also been there throughout the downfalls. As a corporation, Alphabet does not have the government’s luxury of keeping a fair share of their mistakes and errors on the down-low. Any fallacy made by Alphabet/Google, was publicized for the world to see. How then, can we be fully devoted to an institution who has made so many mistakes along the way?

To that I say, just because we’ve been more exposed to Alphabet’s wrongdoings in the past, does not mean they are not the right candidates for the job. Simple as that.

Our governments had more than enough time to prove they are capable of handling our world’s biggest challenges. Though they’ve managed to succeed in some tasks, they’ve definitely failed in others. They need help, and who better to give it to them than a corporation who’s sole survival is dependent on their success?

On another note, and let’s use the friend analogy again: We may not be jealous of our friend for getting that promotion — just like we’re not jealous of Alphabet for their growth — but you can bet someone out there is. Somebody else who felt they were far more deserving and worthy of management, and will not go down without a fight. I believe, this is precisely what’s happening now, and that this is the source for all of the criticism currently headed their way. And they’re not the only ones.

Just recently, Amazon and New York City had their own share of disagreements, and you can bet it won’t be the last time this happens. In fact, if I had to bet on it, I would say it’s only the beginning.

What needs to be realized is that our world is not the same as it once was. We have calculators in our pockets (jokes on you, 90s elementary teachers), cameras on our phones, and the ability to find answers to just about any question at a click of a button. If that wasn’t enough of a change, a star of a reality show is now President of the United States!

Something is happening, powers are shifting and we would be better off learning how to handle changes, instead of avoiding them. As it stands today, governments are not making enough effort to understand these developments, and it shows. Remember Sundar Pichai’s congressional hearing⁵? If the leaders of the greatest superpower in the world don’t fully comprehend that Google does not track their movement, how can we be sure that they would be able to utilize the available tools and resources that can help our world thrive and prosper? Tools and resources, which by the way, very much benefit our governments too (even if they don’t explicitly admit it).

When it comes down to it, change is scary, and that’s okay, but it shouldn’t prevent us from moving forward. We need to accept innovation and societal changes as they come. Remember the Luddites? Where would we be today if they had their way?

I’m not saying we didn’t loet a lot along the way, but it’s important to remember that that’s just part of evolution. You win some, you lose some. In economics, this is referred to as “Opportunity Cost”, “the benefits an individual, investor or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another”

To balance out the pros and cons, however, it is probably better to join forces. It is undeniable that governments can’t do it alone, even if they tried. They lack knowledge, resources and manpower. But these corporations can help, even if they make mistakes along the way, it is more likely that we’re better off with them around.

Remember, it’s okay to ask, challenge and disagree, but with such a notable, proven track record, maybe we should MNTCs, and speicially Sidewalk Labs, a fair chance. They worked hard to get to where they are today. They planned, researched and most likely never acted on instinct (no successful business does). If they end up making a profit, let them, they earned it. After all, it is more than likely that we’ll benefit from their profits, too.

Footnotes:

1. Google wants to develop and tax 350 acres of Toronto, by Karen Graham
2. Sidewalk Labs
3. Ibid
4. A term I’ve coined to describe the idea that Multinational Tech Corporations (MNTCs) hold the power to shape and govern human society, thereby, steering a Post-Westphalian era.
5. I will dedicate an entire post the congressional hearings of both Pichai and Zuckerberg in a future post, but this had to be said now, too.

Other Sources:

• Sidewalk Labs — Project Update from February 14th, 2019