google maps has over a billion users around the world. it is truly a global product operating at a scale that’s nearly incomprehensible. that kind of scale changes the way you have to think about product development — and specifically about nth order effects.

the google maps routing algorithm selects the fastest route between your location and your destination. that means every segment of the street network has an equal chance at being traveled, given the commonality of location/destination deltas and street segment connectivity

the current algo is basically objective. any shift towards “nice” or “scenic” routes is going to take some new subset of variables into account; beautiful architecture, street trees, etc. this naturally introduces bias to the system (again, at global scale)

on its own, this bias isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's examine the shape of this bias... ask yourself: between these two streets, which one is this new 'scenic' route algorithm going to choose?

now ask yourself: which of those streets is likely the higher income community? city planning (my former profession) has mountains of research on these correlations. eg low-income communities in the US have 41% fewer trees than high-income communities

but it's not just the US, this pattern generalizes to nearly every city around the world. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

you see where this is going: because of its global scale, even a small shift in maps routing from a seemingly-innocuous (and frankly very useful!) feature could create a reinforcing feedback loop with spatial inequality.

inadvertently diverting foot traffic from low-income streets to high-income streets takes revenue and potentially tax dollars from already struggling communities and funnels it instead to richer communities. always remember: we live (and build tools) in complex systems.

for context: ime this idea was usually discussed with regard to walking navigation specifically.

additional context: I am sharing my opinion and my opinion alone, which doesn't reflect the perspective of the company. I was not the person who would have decided if this feature got built or not.

@kaseyklimes @JeromeAdamsMD Thank you for considering the social implications!

@ZAGrrl @JeromeAdamsMD I do what I can, where I can.

@kaseyklimes I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS

@michaelgarfield the nth order effects of geospatial routing algorithms? 😂 we were meant to be friends

@kaseyklimes I dislike your motivation (affirmative actions to support economic minorities over the majority of users ~ DEI over merit and choice). But i still do appreciate how thoughtful you were about second order effects due to big tech’s immense power and influence.

@generalsubutai I fail to see how wanting to keep routing objective and efficient is “affirmative action”

@kaseyklimes Lol -- While you're at it, why not also randomize Google Search results in the name of equality? 😂

@kaseyklimes Make sense that Google would fail to deliver a valuable product for political reasons

@kaseyklimes By your logic you should be routing everyone on the most dangerous streets to improve the neighborhood

@kaseyklimes Play this out a step further... Low-income streets can now take action to attract scenic drivers: plant trees. Today, competing on speed is entirely out of their hands. Giving large audiences a way to express preferences is nearly always a good thing. It gives content creators

@kaseyklimes What if I actively identify as a racist, and it would be harmful for me to walk through minority-heavy neighborhoods? Wouldn't it make sense for Google to route me along the nice, safe, scenic route? There should be an "I'm Racist" toggle

@kaseyklimes You have less than one year, unless AIDS (from being gay) gets you first.

@kaseyklimes now do safe routes

@kaseyklimes I don’t want a scenic route! I just don’t want to die while driving through one way country side lanes avoiding sheep, tractors and ditches just to save 2 mins

@kaseyklimes A pluralistic approach would have been to let people set up their own heuristic / modify the path finding algo to their needs In India, I would personally like to walk through quieter neighborhoods, because the main roads are extremely loud and somewhat unsafe to walk alongside

@kaseyklimes I look forward to arguing with you about this in person. :)

@kaseyklimes It plays out slowly but as we saw with, say SF, and now DEI, even when your monopolistic moat is strong, people will eventually abandon your product when you deliberately make it inferior (and less safe.) When a competitor offers the product customers want, it may take a decade

@kaseyklimes Yes I don’t want to drive through poor neighborhoods because that’s where most crime occurs

@kaseyklimes Next time at least allow an opt-in. Because what you’re doing here is virtue-signaling gate keeping, which isn’t remotely as cool as you think it is!

@kaseyklimes It’s an interesting discussion. If you had time, I’d love to hear what the thought process was regarding statistical crime rates vs low income areas. But I do think there’s room for this feature to be an “ask each time”. Usually I want fastest, sometimes, most scenic

@kaseyklimes But we don’t want to walk through low income neighbourhoods. The whole point of the nicest walk is to avoid undesirable places.