@jwildeboer So, there's that.
But then, it's easy to solve hard technical, political, or social problems by specifying a proposed solution as problem-free by definition.
That doesn't actually do the hard work of solving the problem.
My question wasn't a hypothetical as IIRC KSA *has been* the chair of the UN HRC, with certain implications for groups associated with religions that are notably not Islamic. (Not calling out Islam itself, merely the ensuing dynamic.)
@jwildeboer You've dialed in on *precisely* what I've just said isn't the point.
Please read my objection as "what happens if the human-rights / free-speech organ of your Global Communications Body is taken over by elements fundamentally opposed to providing freedoms/rights to an entire class of people, based on beliefs, affiliations, ideology, or values?"
In politics, creating a system your opponents may control is a chief concern.
@dredmorbius „truly free“ means the opposite of centralised control. My point is that we need something that reflects „global nationalisation“ as the next step of socialism.
@jwildeboer And again, simply *saying a thing has some property* does not in actuality *endow* it with that property.
If you're looking for agreement, then _yes_, I agree, "a truly free tax-supported Internet" would be a good thing.
That doesn't *actually solve the problem* of ensuring "truly free".
If you don't understand, perhaps try restating my objection back to me in your own words.
@dredmorbius I honestly am not attracted to get lost in details of defining the problem, I care a lot more about iterating on solutions. And I’m happy to fail and try again.
@jwildeboer I think considering failure cases is quite useful here. Particularly _demonstrated_ failure cases (or strong risks of same).
UTNR.org may exist. What actual power or authority does it have?
How would you even define power and authority? Does the UN have this? The US? Ukraine? Gaza / Greater Palestine? Southern Somalia? Catalonia? Wallonai?
Again, pronouncing or declaring a thing isn't creating it. I hope that's clear. There's the difference between idea and existence.
@jwildeboer My first inclination was actually to somewhat agree with your suggestion.
But the contrarian in me is an asshole and had to say something, and who am I to deny its right to speak?
The point being that you might want to put some thought into a publicly-provided Internet (excellent idea, IMO), in a structure which *doesn't* create a single, *global*, potentially-compromised controlling entity.
@dredmorbius of you use the UN to enforce the fundamental human rights it’s a win-win. It’s the other way round IMHO. We have no global governance. But we need it. And it can never be a commercial entity like Facebook or Google.
@jwildeboer It seems to me that there is a possible set of solutions which are neither "The UN" nor "Facebook and/or Google".
I'm needling toward noncommercial, social, *and* mutually independent parties, which offers a set of choices to individuals.
It could be argued that this exists _within_ the UN, though it could also be argued that it does not.
See again previous discussion.
@dredmorbius exactly my point. Check my bio. I am a citizen of the United Transnational Republics utnr.org for reasons :) we need global governance and exposing the limits of what we have is a way to find better solutions.
@jwildeboer I've actually known of you for years, well before G+ through the FS/OSS world. I generally find you sensible, if that helps.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name