Oh my fucking god. I really, really hate this response.

First of all, this entire idea revolves around the idea that there are no disabled folks in tech. That the only way tech advances can happen is if we get together the "need-knowers" and those with the "skills" can we find "solutions" to the "problem" of disability. Yes, there are a lot of scare-quotes in there. It's because I'm rolling my eyes so fucking hard right now. It's stupidly infantilizing. On top of that, Google is specifically saying they don't want to deal with solutions we can do now, they want to come up with "new and innovative" solutions, which separate the disabled community further, Otherizing them, and not countering the social model of disability.

What do I want them to do?

I'd first of all like them to actually engage with the disabled community before going out with their hearts on their sleeves with the sob story of what disability is like to show everyone how much Google cares. Because honestly, that's all I see in this. "Google cares so much about the disabled community that they're interested in coming up with solutions that can't be realized right now." And in doing so, they're ignoring the fact that there are so many things they, Google, could be doing right now to actually help the disabled community with technology that is stable and exists, rather than "help us out" with "cutting-edge" technology.

They could make it easier to access transcripts of YouTube videos.

They could identify where there are, and aren't, curb cuts on streets.

They could identify where there are crosswalks.

Where there are lights to cross a busy street.

They could see what businesses have a universal access sign in their window.

And those are things that they could easily do with their own technology that I can think of off the top of my head that would simply help me.

But no, they don't want me to identify those needs because they're not "innovative" and the technology isn't exciting enough.

Why do they need to use more exciting technology? Because that's the shit that hits the papers. There's a reason you hear about exoskeletons and 3D printed prostheses in the news. They're exciting to able-bodied, neurotypical people who want to simultaneously feel good and be able to ignore the disabled community.

You know what would be fucking revolutionary? What if Google did a hackathon for disabled techies? Rather than making the disabled community ingratiated to those wonderful techies who reach out with all their charity in order to help those who are under-privileged? That entire fucking narrative is what I deal with every day. When I need help, I fucking ask for it. But here's the irony: when I do need help, half the time I don't get it. And when I don't need help, I constantly have it forced on me by people in "good faith" who feel that their drive to help me is more important than my desires or needs.

Also, calling overt ableism a "misstep" is really fucking gross. Really gross.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Patrick O'Doherty <p@trickod.com> wrote:

So anyone who reaches out in good faith, asking for feedback and community engagement, but who missteps should be shunned and boycotted. That seems a tad extreme and counterproductive.

What do you want them to say yes to, specifically in relation to creating an event like this?

On 24 Jun 2015 6:08 pm, "Ryan" <yandoryn@gmail.com> wrote:
I can never understand why outright ableism is treated so differently than other forms of prejudice.

If Google had put together a hackathon where we swapped out "disability" for "black," "women," or "queer," no one would quietly be talking about how we should "explore the opportunity" so we can bring them around. We'd be livid and working to boycott the project in general.

What is it about ableism that allows us to grin and bear it, and look for the long game rather than demanding short-term action? Why is the disabled community asked to be quiet and meek, while their "allies" do just as much damage as those who openly admit that they see us as objects or unworthy of life?

Oh, and it's not the "tech industry" that largely ableist. It's pretty much every industry out there.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Vicky Knox <vknoxsironi@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm no longer in town but I have something to say.

I think this is a good opportunity to explore. I hear your concerns about their approach, Ryan. I am particularly irked by the inspirational music in the video. *shudders*

That said, I would love to take this opportunity to transmit our collective concerns and critiques to them...call it "hacking their framing". :] Whether one likes it or not, these folks have a lot of power in shaping popular technology development and understandings into the future. While we may not revolutionize Google, we can at least encourage them to do their bidding in a way that is a little less evil.

I'm happy that they're directly reaching out to hackerspaces, which means they may take notes. I'm also happy that they're reaching out to us because our social ecosystem is quite a bit more diverse than theirs and therefore has more potential for wisdom (I wonder, have they reached out to Mothership or LOL?). The tech industry (or any business that requires a steep social capital (whiteness, maleness, ability to work 40+ hours/week, etc.) in order to have a better (or any) chance at getting employed), after all, is largely ableist and culturally stagnant. Please excuse my nesting.

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss

--
Currently Reading

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss

Currently Reading