5 ms·

I was going to skip this one, because there's no comments yet. And I thought that Burkina Faso doesn't deserve my attention. But then I realized how myopic an

I was going to skip this one, because there's no comments yet. And I thought that Burkina Faso doesn't deserve my attention. But then I realized how myopic and sad I was. So, here it is. Burkina Faso is a land-locked country in West Africa, above Ghana, a bit West of Nigeria. [0] As big as Nevada or Colorado (105,900 sq. miles), with 20M people. Or, for us using the metric system, 275,000 sq. km. Poor as hell. Recent history full of coup d'é·tat, killings, etc. Internet disruption can mean a lot of nasty things. It includes mobile as well: > Analysis of Google Transparency metrics corroborates user reports of a mobile internet blackout We take the internet, and our freedoms, mostly for granted. It's a good thing to remind ourselves that they are not. I hope that people in Burkina Faso will be ok. I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso

perihelions 5y ago
>"We take the internet, and our freedoms, mostly for granted. It's a good thing to remind ourselves that they are not." The office of the US President has unchecked authority to shut down the US internet [0]. That that's never happened yet reflects on the discretion of individuals in office (and general historical luck), not on any legal or institutional safeguards. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bill-limiting-presidential-internet-kill-switch/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ("Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")
- lmm 5y ago
  > That that's never happened yet reflects on the discretion of individuals in office (and general historical luck), not on any legal or institutional safeguards. I'd say it's a stronger reflection on US culture than on individual presidents. Our legal system exists to manage the details of dispute resolution; it doesn't (and shouldn't!) determine our values.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    >Our legal system exists to manage the details of dispute resolution; it doesn't (and shouldn't!) determine our values. Then what's the deal with morality based laws and policing
    - lmm 5y ago
      Laws are tools we can use to express our values, but the influence should be one-way.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        If its one way, then wouldn't that make the law pointless? Which way should it be going? Law is meant for enforcing a behavior or change in behavior, by its nature its two ways. Law is not artistic expression
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Doesn't the US president also have unchecked authority to nuke any place on earth?
  - anon_123g987 5y ago
    No. There are other countries with nukes to keep him in check (and vice versa, of course).
    - iso1631 5y ago
      In theory he can nuke whoever he wants by issuing an order. If the president decides to say nuke Toronto on a whim, then he can. There are of course consequences in that the US may then get nuked in retaliation, but that doesn't stop the actual nuking. Whether in reality, the orders will be followed (initially the secretary of defense, whose job is to authenticate the order came from the president, and then the joint chiefs they orders are relayed to), or if they would be delayed enough to invoke the 25th amendment and remove the president from power, is a matter of speculation.
  - rasz 5y ago
    That would cause retaliation. Murdering civilians with drones on the other hand is quite popular and widely tolerated (so far).
ffwszgf 5y ago
It’s also at the center of Jihadi activity in Africa and the situation is only getting worse every year.
ganzuul 5y ago
Thank you.
sofixa 5y ago
> I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence For some minerals, e.g. cobalt, there's simply no such option. Unless they decide to go with it United Fruit Company/banana republic style, but benevolently. What's worse, a corporation or a military dictatorship?
- cookieswumchorr 5y ago
  that's an easy one, military dictatorship is much worse. The last time when companies committed war crimes by themselves, independently of governments, was long ago.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Okay about war crimes, but there are also crimes against (humanity|nature) in the form of oil spills, forced displacements, up to now.
    - cookieswumchorr 5y ago
      Yes, sure, but this is still not comparable with using weapons of mass destruction. We need to keep in mind though that the reason why corporations are not, say, nuking away their concurrence, is that they are prevented by the states. so its not as easy as "state bad, corporate good", it's rather, "as an unimportant civilian person on this planet right now, i need to be cautious of governments more than corporations"
marcodiego 5y ago
> I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence. I agree with the general idea, but I fear the counter-argument that says that this kind of blockage or boycott make the region even poorer which empowers dictators.
kmlx 5y ago
> Poor as hell. understated. people can't afford electricity or clothes and their main staple is banana. few go to school. a bicycle is considered a major asset. their options in life are either making enough money to survive, or stealing in order to survive.
- thematrixturtle 5y ago
  Most Burkinabes live on subsistence agriculture, not making or stealing money.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    It doesn’t make sense anyhow, like the old myth that Africa is full of beggars. Who are they begging from? It’s not particularly likely there’s a society consisting of a few rich people who spend their days walking around dispensing money to the beggars who make up the rest. And neither is a society where everyone is doing nothing but stealing money.

perihelions 5y ago

>"We take the internet, and our freedoms, mostly for granted. It's a good thing to remind ourselves that they are not." The office of the US President has unchecked authority to shut down the US internet [0]. That that's never happened yet reflects on the discretion of individuals in office (and general historical luck), not on any legal or institutional safeguards. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bill-limiting-presidential-internet-kill-switch/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ("Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")

lmm 5y ago
> That that's never happened yet reflects on the discretion of individuals in office (and general historical luck), not on any legal or institutional safeguards. I'd say it's a stronger reflection on US culture than on individual presidents. Our legal system exists to manage the details of dispute resolution; it doesn't (and shouldn't!) determine our values.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  >Our legal system exists to manage the details of dispute resolution; it doesn't (and shouldn't!) determine our values. Then what's the deal with morality based laws and policing
  - lmm 5y ago
    Laws are tools we can use to express our values, but the influence should be one-way.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      If its one way, then wouldn't that make the law pointless? Which way should it be going? Law is meant for enforcing a behavior or change in behavior, by its nature its two ways. Law is not artistic expression
hutzlibu 5y ago
Doesn't the US president also have unchecked authority to nuke any place on earth?
- anon_123g987 5y ago
  No. There are other countries with nukes to keep him in check (and vice versa, of course).
  - iso1631 5y ago
    In theory he can nuke whoever he wants by issuing an order. If the president decides to say nuke Toronto on a whim, then he can. There are of course consequences in that the US may then get nuked in retaliation, but that doesn't stop the actual nuking. Whether in reality, the orders will be followed (initially the secretary of defense, whose job is to authenticate the order came from the president, and then the joint chiefs they orders are relayed to), or if they would be delayed enough to invoke the 25th amendment and remove the president from power, is a matter of speculation.
- rasz 5y ago
  That would cause retaliation. Murdering civilians with drones on the other hand is quite popular and widely tolerated (so far).

ffwszgf 5y ago

It’s also at the center of Jihadi activity in Africa and the situation is only getting worse every year.

ganzuul 5y ago

Thank you.

sofixa 5y ago

> I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence For some minerals, e.g. cobalt, there's simply no such option. Unless they decide to go with it United Fruit Company/banana republic style, but benevolently. What's worse, a corporation or a military dictatorship?

cookieswumchorr 5y ago
that's an easy one, military dictatorship is much worse. The last time when companies committed war crimes by themselves, independently of governments, was long ago.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Okay about war crimes, but there are also crimes against (humanity|nature) in the form of oil spills, forced displacements, up to now.
  - cookieswumchorr 5y ago
    Yes, sure, but this is still not comparable with using weapons of mass destruction. We need to keep in mind though that the reason why corporations are not, say, nuking away their concurrence, is that they are prevented by the states. so its not as easy as "state bad, corporate good", it's rather, "as an unimportant civilian person on this planet right now, i need to be cautious of governments more than corporations"

marcodiego 5y ago

> I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence. I agree with the general idea, but I fear the counter-argument that says that this kind of blockage or boycott make the region even poorer which empowers dictators.

kmlx 5y ago

> Poor as hell. understated. people can't afford electricity or clothes and their main staple is banana. few go to school. a bicycle is considered a major asset. their options in life are either making enough money to survive, or stealing in order to survive.

thematrixturtle 5y ago
Most Burkinabes live on subsistence agriculture, not making or stealing money.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  It doesn’t make sense anyhow, like the old myth that Africa is full of beggars. Who are they begging from? It’s not particularly likely there’s a society consisting of a few rich people who spend their days walking around dispensing money to the beggars who make up the rest. And neither is a society where everyone is doing nothing but stealing money.