12 ms·

> It's not clear that a boycott is a meaningful response in the context of these kinds of disputes. I think the idea isn't so much a boycott specifically, but

by ardy42 6y ago

> It's not clear that a boycott is a meaningful response in the context of these kinds of disputes. I think the idea isn't so much a boycott specifically, but some kind of civil disobedience that specifically opposed to the improper law or regime. > If Facebook gets an improper censorship demand from the Tunisian government and responds by cutting off Tunisia's Facebook access, aren't they just doing what the government wanted? I agree. A more appropriate response would be to not comply, and make it clear that was intentional. That could even be amplified by taking deliberate steps to oppose such improper censorship.

bilbo0s 6y ago
* A more appropriate response would be to not comply, and make it clear that was intentional.* Under WTO rules, Government of Tunisia would be able to ban FB at this point. I think the issue is that with every conceivable route, the process ends in GoT getting what GoT wants. Which is for Facebook to be gone.
- vkou 6y ago
  Such is the nature of sovereignty. There's no clever techie hack around the ability of a government to enforce the rule of law in its own territory.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Depends on the law and the government. Encryption has a pretty good track record in lots of places. The whole Arab spring (and presumably many other political movements) was made possible by technology. Lots of people all over the world use technology to subvert authoritarian restrictions in their countries. Ultimately of course if a government has the means and the will, they can probably break a given encryption scheme, but it's quite asymmetric and in practice only the highest-profile violations are pursued and even then this is mostly concentrated to the wealthiest countries.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > around the ability of a government to enforce the rule of law in its own territory Nitpick: "rule of law" doesn't mean "having laws" or "enforcing laws," it means everyone being subject to the same set of laws, including elites and the government itself. Some countries without the rule of law, like the PRC, like to go on and on about the "rule of law" but mean something less: https://www.justsecurity.org/58544/china-rule-law-cautionary-tale-international-community/ https://www.justsecurity.org/58544/china-rule-law-cautionary...: > Despite the Party’s current encouragement of “rule of law” and its celebration of the Constitution, Chinese rule of law—officially called “socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics”—differs fundamentally from rule of law as internationally understood. To begin with, all aspiring Chinese lawyers—at least according to the study material for one bar exam preparation course—must commit to the belief that law is subject to the “leadership of the Party.” The same bar review material further states that the fundamental principle of Chinese rule of law is to “maintain the rule of the Party.” Meanwhile, a recent bar exam question affirmed that “Western Capitalist Rule of Law Thought” is not an “origin” of Chinese rule of law. Accordingly, rather than promote basic principles such as the supremacy of law, legal accountability, judicial independence, and fair treatment before the law, fazhi is instead used as a rhetorical tool to legitimize the Party’s rule. It is the Party’s will restated in seemingly neutral and distinctly legal language, which draws on a long imperial tradition of legal discourse while rejecting norms of transparency and impartiality. By evoking fazhi, the Party seeks to attain greater credibility, and in turn inspire greater compliance, by drawing on both the high prestige accorded to rule of law and the Chinese tradition of obedience to edicts of the ruler and the precedents of the dynasty (qianli 前例).
    - vkou 6y ago
      This behaviour is not unique to the PRC, and, for an example, you see it all the time in political law-and-order rhetoric in the US. The law is sacred, the law must be obeyed, people are rightly punished for breaking the law, yet the law is enforced incredibly inconsistently, and for what are often quite political goals. It comes to a particularly poignant moment at the top of the political structure, in the form of presidential pardons, many of them self-serving. (How their existence can be reconciled with claims about all men being equal under the law is mind-boggling.) Rule of law is a sliding scale. Some countries have more of it, some have less of it, but from having lived in four of them, my observation is that none of them have enough of it. Violations of it simply manifest in different ways.

by ardy42 6y ago

bilbo0s 6y ago

* A more appropriate response would be to not comply, and make it clear that was intentional.* Under WTO rules, Government of Tunisia would be able to ban FB at this point. I think the issue is that with every conceivable route, the process ends in GoT getting what GoT wants. Which is for Facebook to be gone.

vkou 6y ago
Such is the nature of sovereignty. There's no clever techie hack around the ability of a government to enforce the rule of law in its own territory.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Depends on the law and the government. Encryption has a pretty good track record in lots of places. The whole Arab spring (and presumably many other political movements) was made possible by technology. Lots of people all over the world use technology to subvert authoritarian restrictions in their countries. Ultimately of course if a government has the means and the will, they can probably break a given encryption scheme, but it's quite asymmetric and in practice only the highest-profile violations are pursued and even then this is mostly concentrated to the wealthiest countries.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > around the ability of a government to enforce the rule of law in its own territory Nitpick: "rule of law" doesn't mean "having laws" or "enforcing laws," it means everyone being subject to the same set of laws, including elites and the government itself. Some countries without the rule of law, like the PRC, like to go on and on about the "rule of law" but mean something less: https://www.justsecurity.org/58544/china-rule-law-cautionary-tale-international-community/ https://www.justsecurity.org/58544/china-rule-law-cautionary...: > Despite the Party’s current encouragement of “rule of law” and its celebration of the Constitution, Chinese rule of law—officially called “socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics”—differs fundamentally from rule of law as internationally understood. To begin with, all aspiring Chinese lawyers—at least according to the study material for one bar exam preparation course—must commit to the belief that law is subject to the “leadership of the Party.” The same bar review material further states that the fundamental principle of Chinese rule of law is to “maintain the rule of the Party.” Meanwhile, a recent bar exam question affirmed that “Western Capitalist Rule of Law Thought” is not an “origin” of Chinese rule of law. Accordingly, rather than promote basic principles such as the supremacy of law, legal accountability, judicial independence, and fair treatment before the law, fazhi is instead used as a rhetorical tool to legitimize the Party’s rule. It is the Party’s will restated in seemingly neutral and distinctly legal language, which draws on a long imperial tradition of legal discourse while rejecting norms of transparency and impartiality. By evoking fazhi, the Party seeks to attain greater credibility, and in turn inspire greater compliance, by drawing on both the high prestige accorded to rule of law and the Chinese tradition of obedience to edicts of the ruler and the precedents of the dynasty (qianli 前例).
  - vkou 6y ago
    This behaviour is not unique to the PRC, and, for an example, you see it all the time in political law-and-order rhetoric in the US. The law is sacred, the law must be obeyed, people are rightly punished for breaking the law, yet the law is enforced incredibly inconsistently, and for what are often quite political goals. It comes to a particularly poignant moment at the top of the political structure, in the form of presidential pardons, many of them self-serving. (How their existence can be reconciled with claims about all men being equal under the law is mind-boggling.) Rule of law is a sliding scale. Some countries have more of it, some have less of it, but from having lived in four of them, my observation is that none of them have enough of it. Violations of it simply manifest in different ways.