According to documents obtained through a public records request and provided to Motherboard, a subsidiary of Vice, architecture and design firm HDR Inc. has been working with the government to monitor the social media of activist groups opposed to plans calling for the construction of jails and highways.
Through HDR’s STRATA team, a division that “leverages large data sets to visually display social and political risk nationwide”, it’s been revealed that the company has surveilled both public and private Facebook groups run by activists opposed to its projects, including those against a proposed $2 billion highway that would cut through the sacred Moahdak Do’ag mountain in Arizona.
Motherboard notes that the company also generated an “influencer” report, which is an analysis of public sentiment on social media platforms. It includes a geospatial analysis that places communities into categories such as “ethnic enclaves”, “barrios urbanos”, “scholars and patriots”, and “American dreamers”. Through their 24/7 “social listening” activities and “strategic communications” program, HDR crafts targeted media campaigns and hosts public hearings for clients.
Additional documents obtained by Motherboard show that the Board of Commissioners in Greene County, Ohio hired HDR in April 2021 for “justice consulting and planning services” regarding a new jail that will need approval from voters. Using its social listening program, the company is identifying potential risks, influencers, social networks, and user demographics to the county, along with developing initiatives to convince the public to support the project.
HDR’s activity is indicative of what’s called corporate counterinsurgency, wherein corporations and governments work together to neutralize those who oppose projects and threaten profits and political agendas. The firm has exhibited the use of “soft” tactics in this regard, in which indirect strategies, such as PR campaigns are used to thwart resistance.
While HDR’s online surveillance activity falls under their STRATA service, it’s alarming, especially when the projects that are being protected and promoted, include prisons and those that exploit indigenous land and underserved communities. However, it seems as though the company is somewhat open about its role.
“Controversy is costly, both in reputation and in dollars,” as said on their site. “Social and political risk deserves attention at the planning stage of a project or program, where it can be carefully assessed and when there is time to develop strategies to mitigate or diminish risk.”
7 Comments
"However, it seems as though the company is somewhat open about its role."
Because it's a service that they are selling.
Anything done solely for money is guaranteed to be shit.
In essence perhaps not surprising, but nonetheless interesting to see the sheer scale of operations the corporate-architectural complex is engaging in nowadays. This is why it's crucial to make the distinction between design services and architecture, and I sincerely don't mean that as a coy differentiation, but in functional, operative terms. The entity providing design services, beyond a certain scale perhaps turns into a massive choreographer of public opinion - it has to fabricate subjects along the way which apparently involves a healthy dose of segregative language.. I know it leads to a well-worn tale of privatization in general, but this is just sad, and wrong in many levels.
Brave souls to comment on this article. Now we are all on HDR's watch list.
The thought I keep coming back to on this is they use this for "corporate counterinsurgency, wherein corporations and governments work together to neutralize those who oppose projects and threaten profits and political agendas." What if instead they used this to understand how to better design and meet the needs of users? Would people still see this as problematic if it was being used for "good" rather than corporate counterinsurgency? I'd hope so, but worry that the line might get blurry depending on the outcome. What if they were using it to help developers and governments to identify and neutralize the NIMBYs that oppose projects and threaten profits and political agendas? I don't know, maybe HDR is already using STRATA to do that.
"help developers and governments to identify and neutralize the NIMBYs that oppose projects and threaten profits and political agendas"
I have worked with enough developers and lived through enough of the US gov't to think this would not end will.
I know SP ... same here. I threw it out there as an example of something an architect might be ok with because it would be for a "good" purpose to provide affordable housing in the face of NIMBY opposition, but tried to use the same language I quoted earlier from the writeup.
I feel that, and it's a worthy question. NIMBY and YIMBY have been co-opted, for better or worse, by larger interests with deep pockets and are less useful these days as shorthand labels useful for finding likeminded folks. NIMBYs aren't universally opposed to development but find themselves aligned with regressive people who will stop at nothing to prevent America from "changing," and YIMBYs find themselves aligned with massive deep pocketed developers who fool them into thinking luxury towers with a few below market rate units is a necessary compromise lest nothing get done at all. Use a little social media surveillance, add a dash of good SEO and blammo, you've got readymade hashtags that flatten complex issues down into tribal voting rage.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.