@jwildeboer With KSA chairing the Human Rights Commission?
@jwildeboer Also to be clear that my concern is _not_ hypothetical:
@dredmorbius and I’m on your side. So let’s move onward. Find better solutions. Expose the failures. Iterate. Look forward.
@jwildeboer So, a couple of approaches I try to use:
1. Establish common ground or agreement.
2. Identify concerns or disagreeent.
3. Seek to expand 1 and shrink 2.
@jwildeboer A first question might be:
What problem are you trying to solve?
E.g., what's wrong with present systems? What do you want to do?
@dredmorbius I’ve said that in this very thread three times. We. Need. Global. Governance. For. Global. Problems. And our current systems do not deliver, as you pointed out. So. What’s next?
Thanks for kicking the log rolling again.
Issues which require _global coordination_, or where there's only an option for a _single_ choice to be made (e.g., resources, outcomes, or committments involve everyone), evidently DO require a global agreement, or ability to act independently and effectively without one. Planetary sunshades, ocean seeding, and BAU are examples, where BAU is independence-absent-agreement.
Gap-jumping can be another. If traversing ...
A to B is possible incrementally -- walking across a field -- then partial progress is a viable method. If there's a gap to be bridged ... you're going to need to assemble the resources to build that bridge.
Coordination challenges are another. Britain, Japan, SA, and Oz can drive on the left, the rest of the world right, without conflict. But within any given traffic regime, you've got to pick one side or the other, not both. The decision's arbitrary but ...
@EtchedPixels ... important.
Back to Jan's proposal, it's not clear to me that a _single_ global comms structure is _either_ inherently necessary _or_ essential, though it's certainly possible. Absent being able to _define_ it as "sufficiently free", the problem of ensuring that whatever system _does_ exist _is_ remains.
And a multipolar / multiparty system could well answer a possible goal "provide answerable publicly-funded free-speech access" better than a unitary one.
@EtchedPixels The key question for me is which (unitary/multiparty) system is more subject to authoritarian capture. My instincts go with the multiparty system.
Though if that is subject to dynamics similar to the US broadband/comms sector, you could well end up with a diversity of small/regional petty dictatorships.
Again: my goal is to think through the solution space. But that requires knowing the problem and goals.
@dredmorbius @jwildeboer They don't necessarily require global agreement. Take railway track gauges in the UK. The adoption of 4' and a bit was not driven by the state. The only bit the state got involved in was meddling later on in the private business war between 7' and 4'8 by backing the technologically wrong side for political reasons. It was driven by local economics and network effects at each state.
@dredmorbius @jwildeboer Another example is ebay. Ebay become a single dominant auction player in the west without any global co-ordination. Network effects alone caused convergence. In the European case network effects drove Sweden to fix the side their cars drive (but not their trains) because the incompatibility became a sufficient size pain in the arse.
Generalistic and moderated instance.