BERLIN: Global cities from Seoul to Tel Aviv have welcomed Google with open arms, but in the bohemian Berlin district of Kreuzberg the Silicon Valley giant has found itself on the frontlines of gentrification trench warfare.
Its new Berlin hub now in the making — 3,000 square meters (32,000 square feet) hosting offices, a cafe and a coworking space in a once-derelict industrial building — is set to be the latest outpost of California startup culture in Europe.
But a campaign dubbed “F*** Off Google” has begun organizing monthly demonstrations at the site of the company’s future “campus,” set to open later this year.
The blunt slogan has been daubed atop the layers of posters and graffiti that cover all available public wall space in artsy, multicultural and left-leaning Kreuzberg and adorns the bridges along its tree-shaded canal.
“It’s extremely violent and arrogant of this mega-corporation, whose business model is based on mass surveillance and which speculates like crazy, to set up shop here,” fumed a hacker and protest leader who asked to be identified only by his alias Larry Pageblank.
With hip Berlin drawing ever more people, and apartment prices steadily rising, “gentrification is gathering pace and loads of people are already being thrown out” of once working-class Kreuzberg, he charged.
In fact, Berlin is no stranger to tech culture, and many IT newcomers lure programmers with offers of free beers, snacks or massages at the office and hierarchy-free leadership structures.
The city’s “Silicon Allee” (Silicon Avenue) companies now make it one of Europe’s top destinations for investment into startups, beating London and Paris to the post last year with 3.1 billion euros ($3.6 billion) in capital raised.
Google already operates a co-working space, the so-called “Factory” in the affluent hipster neighborhood of Prenzlauer Berg, while home-grown incubator Rocket Internet shepherds a flock of startups toward hoped-for greatness.
One of Berlin’s biggest successes, online fashion retailer Zalando, last year reported revenues of 4.5 billion euros less than a decade after its 2008 founding.
Such spots of light are vital for a city-state that lags behind wealthier regions in Germany’s west and south.
Berlin is still recovering from the post-war decades as a relative backwater sliced in half and stranded deep inside communist East Germany, which cost it most of its industrial base.
A study by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research last year found German gross domestic product would be 0.2 percent higher if Berlin simply vanished overnight — one possible reason why mayor Michael Mueller is in favor of the Google development.
“The space is meant to be open for other people interested in entrepreneurship and startups,” said Google Germany spokesman Ralf Bremer.
Just five of the Californian firm’s employees will work full-time at the site, while there will be space for dozens of “residents” working on their own ideas in a tech “incubator” hosted on a mezzanine level.
But opponents like Larry Pageblank are unconvinced.
“They’re going to create a battery farm for harvesting ideas, talented people and projects, then build them into the Google empire — via Ireland and the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes,” he predicted.
Startups have drawn cash and well-heeled tech workers to Berlin, but the influx has accelerated the city’s transition from a “poor but sexy” haven for artists, anarchists and squatters to a pricey capital of cool.
A study by consultants Knight Fox found property prices had increased faster in Berlin than anywhere else in the world between 2016 and 2017, shooting up 20.5 percent overall and up to 71 percent in Kreuzberg.
Trendy cocktail bars and freshly-renovated 19th-century apartment buildings rub up against social housing blocks and the annual Carnival of Cultures, celebrating the district’s dozens of immigrant communities.
Its contrasts have spawned anti-gentrification movements schooled in rearguard actions against the transformation of their neighborhoods.
But Google bosses refuse to be the scapegoats for what they see as an unstoppable city-wide phenomenon.
“We are Berliners, we are living here, we know the rents have gone up” since the early 2000s, said Google’s Bremer.
“Stopping gentrification is not our task, we can’t fix it, but we can offer something that is good for the people, with workshops and events which are open to anyone and for free,” he added.
Larry Pageblank had a different take: “Nothing is free with Google, you’ll end up paying for your coffee with personal data.”
Kreuzberg, he vowed, will not accept “a lifestyle that is a copy-and-paste from Silicon Valley.”
Berlin’s punk-rock district charges into battle against Google
Berlin’s punk-rock district charges into battle against Google
- With hip Berlin drawing ever more people, and apartment prices steadily rising, “gentrification is gathering pace and loads of people are already being thrown out” of once working-class Kreuzberg
- Google already operates a co-working space, the so-called “Factory” in the affluent hipster neighborhood of Prenzlauer Berg
UK, France mull social media bans for youth as debate rages
- Countries including France and Britain are considering following Australia’s lead by banning children and some teenagers from using social media
PARIS: Countries including France and Britain are considering following Australia’s lead by banning children and some teenagers from using social media, but experts are still locked in a debate over the effectiveness of the move.
Supporters of a ban warn that action needs to be taken to tackle deteriorating mental health among young people, but others say the evidence is inconclusive and want a more nuanced approach.
Australia last month became the first nation to prohibit people under-16s from using immensely popular and profitable social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Tiktok and YouTube.
France is currently debating bills for a similar ban for under-15s, including one championed by President Emmanuel Macron.
The Guardian reported last week that Jonathan Haidt, an American psychologist and supporter of the Australian ban, had been asked to speak to UK government officials.
Haidt argued in his bestselling 2024 book “The Anxious Generation” that too much time looking at screens — particularly social media — was rewiring children’s brains and “causing an epidemic of mental illness.”
While influential among politicians, the book has proven controversial in academic circles.
Canadian psychologist Candice Odgers wrote in a review of the book that the “scary story” Haidt was telling was “not supported by science.”
One of the main areas of disagreement has been determining exactly how much effect using social media has on young people’s mental health.
Michael Noetel, a researcher at the University of Queensland in Australia, told AFP that “small effects across billions of users add up.”
There is “plenty of evidence” that social media does harm to teens, he said, adding that some were demanding an unrealistic level of proof.
“My read is that Haidt is more right than his harshest critics admit, and less right than his book implies,” Noetel said.
Given the potential benefit of a ban, he considered it “a bet worth making.”
After reviewing the evidence, France’s public health watchdog ANSES ruled last week that social media had numerous detrimental effects for adolescents — particularly girls — while not being the sole reason for their declining mental health.
Everything in moderation?
Noetel led research published in Psychological Bulletin last year that reviewed more than 100 studies worldwide on the links between screens and the psychological and emotional problems suffered by children and adolescents.
The findings suggested a vicious cycle.
Excessive screen time — particularly using social media and playing video games — was associated with problems. This distress then drove youngsters to look at their screens even more.
However, other researchers are wary of a blanket ban.
Ben Singh from the University of Adelaide tracked more than 100,000 young Australians over three years for a study published in JAMA Pediatrics.
The study found that the young people with the worst wellbeing were those who used social media heavily — more than two hours a day — or not at all. It was teens who used social networks moderately that fared the best.
“The findings suggest that both excessive restriction and excessive use can be problematic,” Singh told AFP.
Again, girls suffered the most from excessive use. Being entirely deprived of social media was found to be most detrimental for boys in their later teens.
’Appallingly toxic’
French psychiatrist Serge Tisseron is among those who have long warned about the huge threat that screens pose to health.
“Social media is appallingly toxic,” he told AFP.
But he feared a ban would easily be overcome by tech-savvy teens, at the same time absolving parents of responsibility.
“In recent years, the debate has become extremely polarized between an outright ban or nothing at all,” he said, calling for regulation that walks a finer line.
Another option could be to wait and see how the Australian experiment pans out.
“Within a year, we should know much more about how effective the Australian social media ban has been and whether it led to any unintended consequences,” Cambridge University researcher Amy Orben said.
Last week, Australia’s online safety watchdog said that tech companies have already blocked 4.7 million accounts for under 16s.
