A Dumb Fact Check on Smart Cities
Oprah Didn't Zap Maui with Her Laser, So Smart Cities Are Good
An often-used tactic of the fact checking industry is conflation.
This involves defending one concept by mixing it with another…or two…or three… - that way the discussion of the main topic seems more credible in comparison.
A week or so ago, PolitiFact published an “explainer” piece (not exactly a fact check but still meant to be last word on an issue) - https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/sep/12/what-are-smart-cities-and-why-are-conspiracy-theor/ - on smart cities by framing the highly controversial idea using the terrible fire on Maui.
The piece was entitled: “What are 'smart cities' and why are conspiracy theorists linking them to wildfires?”
The first swipe at people who are concerned about “smart cities” is taken in the headline by grouping them with people who think Oprah used her satellite to send a laser beam to earth to start the fire so she could buy land on the cheap.
The explainer continues that the spate of natural disasters is not linked to the “smart city” movement - in other words, evil overlords are not wiping out existing cities intentionally to build new ones.
That is almost certainly true, but it is stated in order to conflate loopy disaster people with people who have serious legitimate questions about the “smart city” movement.
So what is a “smart city?” I wrote this piece about three months ago
that delves into a bit of detail on the idea. But, in short, a smart city is a city that uses technology to improve lives…or maybe very very much not improve lives.
The fact check itself can’t seem to decide...or more accurately, the article significantly downplays the potential for the abuse of residents of a smart city. From the fact check:
“It’s a term ‘that’s been used so many times that it sort of lost all meaning,’ said Shoshanna Saxe, an associate professor in the University of Toronto’s Department of Civil & Mineral Engineering. ‘It means a lot of different things to different people.’”
So even though their own experts are a bit unsure, they plow ahead anyway – another handy fact checking tactic when you want to ensure a specific result.
PolitiFact emphasizes the little things a “smart city” can do and notes those little things are already being done around the world
“The cities embrace the use of digital tools, such as networks of sensors and cameras, to help improve traffic flow, public transit and electrical grids,” the article states. “Most smart city technology is small-scale and incremental — such as adding software and sensors — and doesn’t require destroying anything in a city to implement it.”
And here is another tactic – defining away the meaning of a term when it is used by the general public. The public does not see “smart cities” as merely synchronizing streetlights – it sees them as having the potential to control their very existence. That’s why people are worried – the “small scale” stuff is not the issue.
The idea of the “smart city” is sometimes used interchangeable with “15-minute city.” That is is quite understandable but incorrect. A “smart city” can certainly be a “15-minute city (almost everything a person would need to go about their everyday life is within what I would personally call a “two cigarette walk,”) but does not have to be and vice-versa. However, it is without question that the two concepts fit very nicely together, which is one of the main legitimate fears the public has: being tracked, surveilled, and cooped up.
From the story linked above; a definition of a 15-minute city:
The idea essentially is to re-invent the neighborhood idea by trying to ensure that pretty much all of the goods and services a person could ever want are readily available nearby. Jobs, schools, doctors, and cultural activities are also meant to be easily accessible. To get to the “15 minute” part, the area would be (based on typical walking speeds) about a square mile or so.
At its heart, the idea hearkens back to the village of yore – a place of belonging, simplicity, of knowing your neighbors, of creating a community you can count on in a pinch.
While this may be a key selling point, it cannot be forgotten that for literally hundreds of years people have been purposefully leaving villages to try their hand in the city with its chaos and opportunity, its risks and rewards, and, most importantly, its broadening experiences.
And now, from the same piece, the smart city:
This is a bit simpler because pretty much everything above about FMCs applies except with the added bonus that your neighborhood is watching you at all times. Using cell phone tracking, defined shopping habits, health information from your smart watch, your social media presence, your credit report, you familial status, your hobbies, your habits, and your opinions, a smart city will figure out everything you need even before you know you need it and encourage you to be an overall better person as it defines better people.
In other words, the definition of a needs-taken-care-of, stay-in-your-house-and-shut-up-or-we-will-take-that-away-from-you Nerfified mere existence. You know, hell with ice water.
Not every FMC is a smart city, but most smart cities must be (or at least start out as) an FMC.
PolitiFact admits there may be some possible issues, but dismisses them as not possible in a free society. It seems the writers of PolitiFact have no sense of irony:
“Some autocratic countries, such as China, have used technology for mass surveillance of their residents. But in North America and Europe, governments and smart city collaborators must follow more rigid privacy laws,” Saxe (and another expert) said. “North American smart city advocates are not proposing to surveil residents.”
Saxe is wrong – provably and specifically. Google’s now-shelved smart city concept for a portion of Toronto - https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/06/29/1054005/toronto-kill-the-smart-city/ - would have done exactly that.
Again, we go back to the most common fact checking trick: ask people with a vested interest in the topic whether or not it’s evil and when they say it’s not evil declare it not evil.
Finally, PolitiFact turns to – of course – conspiracy theorists, which the article can now do more naturally because it has already broached the Oprah laser conspiracy earlier.
To wit, a few quotes from an “expert” on misinformation – Mike Caulfield, research scientist who leads the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public…so much grant money out there for that industry now everyone is getting in on the game…sigh – to tie up any loose ends and make sure the public always ties “smart city opposition” to “tinfoil hat nutjobs” in the future:
"People who have a strong conspiratorial worldview see conspiracies behind many events and circumstances," he said. "People conspiracy-theorized about social security numbers, airline security and many other similar things."
Caulfield said conspiracy theories often are driven by shifts in power.
The idea of a smart city means that "a new way of life is winning, and it is going to leave an old way of life behind," Caulfield said.
There are valid concerns about smart cities, such as surveillance and "elite control of public spaces," Caulfield said, but most people with such concerns try to seek out the best information possible.
"But for many of the conspiracy theorists, it's more of a story about who has power — their enemies — and how dangerous those enemies are."
“Enemies” is a very powerful word and obviates any need to address the opposition to smart cities because their concerns are based on mere jealousy, fear, and a lizard-brain level need for “enemies.”
To sum up, this is not a proper fact check or explainer but a hit job on any member of the public who raises a concern about smart cities in the future.