3 ms·

I’d love to hear someone’s analysis as to why these things happen. Like these major, major fuck ups by some super national organizations and governments. Is thi

I’d love to hear someone’s analysis as to why these things happen. Like these major, major fuck ups by some super national organizations and governments. Is this due to scale? Lack of accountability? Perverted incentives? I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. I hate the idea but like there needs to be some sort of counterweight to supernational organizations. Local governments trying to punish them is like a game of what-a-mole.

rgbrenner 8y ago
I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. Only because you feel like your definition of human rights would win, likely because you're american (as I am). Are you still for this if it meant China was the enforcer against the US? Are you ready for them to retaliate against us for citizens speaking out about CCP actions? The role and place of government, and even the idea that it is open to criticism, is a western idea. It is not a given that western ideas will continue to prevail (in fact, democracy is on the retreat worldwide).
tyfon 8y ago
That would be the UN but with policing power. I'm not opposed to the idea either. I'd also like it to hold government ministers/officials personally responsible for a states breaches of basic human rights. But the problem lies in it's structure, accountability and execution. It would be very hard to make a stable system that was objective and neither corrupt nor possible to subvert in some way.
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  As witness the current UN: stable, but not objective, thoroughly corrupt, and constantly subverted by pretty dictators and wannabe genocides. I think giving an organization like that enforcement power over anything would be a disaster — even if it weren't an affront to every sovereign nation on Earth.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The UN is a place to talk and conduct diplomacy. It is very intentionally intended to be the minimal, reliable set of international services needed to try and keep nations diplomatic channels open.
  - tyfon 8y ago
    Agree, the UN in it's current form is a joke. I have no idea how an ideal structure for this would be, if even one could be created. "Power corrupts" is still as true as it was in 1870.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  I agree the idea has problems. But I also would like to see democratic countries band closer together, and use their economic and military power to protect democracy and human rights. We opened our markets to many unfree countries on the idea that when they became richer, they would become democratic. We were wrong on that. Instead these countries sell to us to make themselves as dictators richer, and use our money to suppress their people, and in the name of free trade, we sell them the weapons and technology to do it. And when they become rich enough, they use their new found influence to attack democracy in other countries. Free trade with the west should be the reward for being democratic, free, and a protector of human rights of your citizens. Afterall it is our freedom that made us rich... we shouldn't allow dictators to benefit from it. Dictatorship is poverty. They are linked together. And without western money, they would be forced to live in the squalor they have created for themselves. Sadly our addiction to fossil fuels is probably the biggest impediment to this. Until thats solved, we'll continue to fund some of the worst human rights abusers in exchange for oil.
tsunamifury 8y ago
This is an extraordinarily difficult situation that is developing at a very fast pace, so information to make the sort of analysis you are asking for is very difficult. As you have seen by the regional government inquests, most of our national leaders are struggling to keep up as well. Here are a few observations: 1) the smartphone has become a technology vector to the most remote areas in the world, and its natural use case is communication 2) data is expensive, so expensive that many regions can not afford it regularly. 3) connectivity infrastructure is very expensive, and many developing regions customer base do not represent the revenues to support it. 4) Facebook and other services growth depend on reliable data connectivity 5) what started out as a way to launder facebooks ad inventory profits to carriers to provide free data so that Facebook and carrier networks could expand, turned into a cultural invasion 6) now areas who had not experienced the level of connectivity that Facebook affords are using it in radical and sometimes violent ways. 7) those local communities are struggling to regulate it while the broader developed world is shocked at the results 8) it turns out each region wants to regulate this in very different ways and have very different culturally accepted goals about communication as a whole. I.e. censorship hate speech etc. 9) the variety of cultures means that a global standard to filter and control communications is a kind of np complete problem. What is hate speech in one region may be free speech in another. 10) the best positioned and leveraged entities to provide the super-oversight are as of today, private for profit companies. This is likely a distasteful solution to many.

rgbrenner 8y ago

I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. Only because you feel like your definition of human rights would win, likely because you're american (as I am). Are you still for this if it meant China was the enforcer against the US? Are you ready for them to retaliate against us for citizens speaking out about CCP actions? The role and place of government, and even the idea that it is open to criticism, is a western idea. It is not a given that western ideas will continue to prevail (in fact, democracy is on the retreat worldwide).

tyfon 8y ago

That would be the UN but with policing power. I'm not opposed to the idea either. I'd also like it to hold government ministers/officials personally responsible for a states breaches of basic human rights. But the problem lies in it's structure, accountability and execution. It would be very hard to make a stable system that was objective and neither corrupt nor possible to subvert in some way.

JasonFruit 8y ago
As witness the current UN: stable, but not objective, thoroughly corrupt, and constantly subverted by pretty dictators and wannabe genocides. I think giving an organization like that enforcement power over anything would be a disaster — even if it weren't an affront to every sovereign nation on Earth.
- XorNot 8y ago
  The UN is a place to talk and conduct diplomacy. It is very intentionally intended to be the minimal, reliable set of international services needed to try and keep nations diplomatic channels open.
- tyfon 8y ago
  Agree, the UN in it's current form is a joke. I have no idea how an ideal structure for this would be, if even one could be created. "Power corrupts" is still as true as it was in 1870.
rgbrenner 8y ago
I agree the idea has problems. But I also would like to see democratic countries band closer together, and use their economic and military power to protect democracy and human rights. We opened our markets to many unfree countries on the idea that when they became richer, they would become democratic. We were wrong on that. Instead these countries sell to us to make themselves as dictators richer, and use our money to suppress their people, and in the name of free trade, we sell them the weapons and technology to do it. And when they become rich enough, they use their new found influence to attack democracy in other countries. Free trade with the west should be the reward for being democratic, free, and a protector of human rights of your citizens. Afterall it is our freedom that made us rich... we shouldn't allow dictators to benefit from it. Dictatorship is poverty. They are linked together. And without western money, they would be forced to live in the squalor they have created for themselves. Sadly our addiction to fossil fuels is probably the biggest impediment to this. Until thats solved, we'll continue to fund some of the worst human rights abusers in exchange for oil.

tsunamifury 8y ago

This is an extraordinarily difficult situation that is developing at a very fast pace, so information to make the sort of analysis you are asking for is very difficult. As you have seen by the regional government inquests, most of our national leaders are struggling to keep up as well. Here are a few observations: 1) the smartphone has become a technology vector to the most remote areas in the world, and its natural use case is communication 2) data is expensive, so expensive that many regions can not afford it regularly. 3) connectivity infrastructure is very expensive, and many developing regions customer base do not represent the revenues to support it. 4) Facebook and other services growth depend on reliable data connectivity 5) what started out as a way to launder facebooks ad inventory profits to carriers to provide free data so that Facebook and carrier networks could expand, turned into a cultural invasion 6) now areas who had not experienced the level of connectivity that Facebook affords are using it in radical and sometimes violent ways. 7) those local communities are struggling to regulate it while the broader developed world is shocked at the results 8) it turns out each region wants to regulate this in very different ways and have very different culturally accepted goals about communication as a whole. I.e. censorship hate speech etc. 9) the variety of cultures means that a global standard to filter and control communications is a kind of np complete problem. What is hate speech in one region may be free speech in another. 10) the best positioned and leveraged entities to provide the super-oversight are as of today, private for profit companies. This is likely a distasteful solution to many.