@jwildeboer With KSA chairing the Human Rights Commission?
@dredmorbius would that matter? „Truly free“ being quite the identifier.
@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 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.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name