It's worthwhile looking back at some of those earliest criticisms of Standard. In the UK and in the EU, we're hearing the same noises about the US tech giants, and like the opposition to standard oil, the arguments may appear to be about economics or (today) freedom of speech, but are also very much about human mistrust of large, powerful corporations that are not subject to local or democratic control. And this is where the proffered solutions expose the supranationalists and separate them from the anti-Globalists; if you want Facebook to be subject to UK regulation in the UK, you're likely an anti-Globalist. If you want some sort of over-riding international internet authority to have jurisdiction, you're a dangerous supranationalist.
This is more than just about who regulates your gran's baby pictures on FB. If Biden beats Trump this November, a requirement to accept US hegemony in the form of the tech giants may be a cost attached to a trade deal - remember, socialism is a Globalist construct. For the EU, distaste for the tech giants is also about an endogenous dislike of what they see as transatlantic cultural imperialism. It's been a long time growing; the first time back in the '80s when I watched Die straßen von San Francisco dubbed into German in an Amsterdam hotel room you could see the way things were going. There are simply no home-grown alternatives to Netflix and Amazon Prime anywhere in the EU, and it hurts.
It may be an uncomfortable realisation for both those in the UK and the EU who dislike the power of the tech giants, but their best hope lies in Trump's re-election in November. His recent spat with Twitter brought the revocation of a clause in a 1996 US law - 'Section 230' - into view. If he does so, it would cripple the power of the tech giants - and make many on this side of the Atlantic very happy. And this may just be the only policy aspect upon which Rejoiners and Brexiteers will ever agree.
Update
=====
The government clearly need to refine the 2m rule. Do they really think the British people are too thick to understand a more nuanced approach? Here's my suggestion - feel free to tear holes in it.
18 comments:
It's not at all uncomfortable hoping that Trump beats Biden in November. On the big calls (North Korea, China) he's been proven right.
And the fury of the BBC and the woke chatterati would be a delight to see.
We suffer from policies that apply the will of the minority over that of the majority in all examples of 'excess' be it political, economic or social subjects of concern.
When the state decided that 'common sense' was no longer a requirement of the individual to protect them from self harm we went downhill ever after.
After Government took control of common sense the corporates jumped on the bandwagon to apply their own version of what they considered to be 'best for us' - when they really mean best for THEM - again citing the concerns of a minority and their inability to accept 'life' as it is presented to them.
Maybe because the legal system was given a free pass to persecute the innocent to save someone else from failure of their own common sense?
If you can't stand criticism of ANY sort then the like of FB and Twitter aren't for you - or life itself.
People need to grow a pair.
Let me see... Trump who has many obvious faults but challenges the internet/military/industrial complex and reduces the American interest in foreign wars, or Biden (and previously Hillary Clinton) who has may carefully hidden faults but promotes the internet/military/industrial complex and military foreign action.
Not really a hard decision.
Not only the big decisions DeeDee. It is hard to point out where DJT has really failed at all. Considering there are STILL positions unfilled in the administration due to Democrat stalling and we are nearing the end of the 4 year term. Proof is that nearly of the things against him turn out to be false, most of the crazy things he says turns out he didn't quite say that, I rarely get beyond on question talking with anti_Trumpers: "he's racist/homophobic/whatever" and I say "what makes you say that then?", what follows is bluster, lies stupidity...or all three. And each time the DNC think up some other great ruse it turns more sunlight disinfectant (see what I did there) on them and his opponents. Obama, Clinton, Rice etc all being shown up by the bandwagons they pushed.
if Trump DOESN'T win everyone needs to watch out and you know I don't mean a RW backlash.
Sad situation just now.
I believe the ratio between indoor and outdoor susceptibility is much greater. A cough, sneeze, or just speaking loudly will spread an aerosol cloud several metres indoors, possibly aided by air-conditioning. Outdoors the same cloud will dissipate much more quickly, possibly aided by any wind and also degraded by sunlight. So your 2:1 or 3:1 hazard ration might be 6:1 or even 10:1
Meet outdoors!
The 2m rule may need to be relaxed. Of course, nobody measures 2m so in practice it is 1m - 3m. Likewise, 1m will become 18" to 5ft.
Might I suggest that we look at what other countries are doing and copy the successful ones? In France, restaurants are open with 1m distance, but staff wear masks and customers must wear masks if not seated at a table. Most other countries where infection rates are falling have more mask wearing and several recent studies have shown the effectiveness of masks through natural experiments, e.g. comparing German states with masks with those without, or comparing masked sailors with unmasked on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
Right on cue:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/06/nassim-nicholas-taleb-the-masks-masquerade.html
Very pretty, Raedwald. But I really don't want a Government which imposes rules dictating how I should behave; who I can meet; how many and where. So I'd scrap the 2m "rule" and leave it up to the individual.
The propaganda needs to end and basic FACTUAL information about the likelihood of catching the virus should be produced with the mortality statistics by age/ethnicity/region. And it should then be left up to individuals to decide their own level of risk.
Wuhan Flu bed-wetters can isolate themselves at home if they want - and if they lose their jobs as a result, well at least it was their own choice.
DeeDee quotes 'common sense' so you know right away that it won't be adopted.
"won't someone think of the 0.02%"
Reading some of the reported comments by MPs over the weekend ("There's more to life than the R number", "The loss to the economy is not worth the few additional lives saved") I finally realised what the problem is:
Most people do not understand the difference between exponential growth exp(at), and exponential decay exp(-at) (a>0). The latter is stable and continually gets better, the former is a runaway train wreck that cripples the economy and overwhelms the health service. This is the difference between reproduction number >1 and <1. I think that most MPs, or the likes of Toby Young (PPE, Oxford) think that somehow the number of deaths is proportional to R.
Gents, social distancing, lockdown, masks, track 'n trace etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the risk any individual is willing to bear. All of these measures collectively are needed to break the chain of transmission and make the infection die out instead of spread ever faster.
As Taleb says, exponential solutions are very nonlinear; small measures can have a huge effect. It is only if the Wuhan flu is seen to be dying out that the economy will recover. If we remove all measures and leave it to individuals (as in Brazil) the economy will grind to a halt and the UK will become an international pariah.
Snake Oil Update:
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Sues the FDA to End Its Arbitrary Restrictions on Hydroxychloroquine
Today, June 2, 2020, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) filed a lawsuit, AAPS v. FDA, against the Food and Drug Administration to end its arbitrary interference with the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which President Trump and other world leaders have taken as a prophylaxis against COVID-19.
https://aapsonline.org/hcqsuit/
Steve
Over regulation, wherever it comes from, in order to curtail monopolies often just serves to supress competition - self defeating in my opinion.
M.
DJK 15:41, "I think that most MPs, or the likes of Toby Young (PPE, Oxford) think that somehow the number of deaths is proportional to R."
You are entirely entitled to think this...and you are wrong (but I think you really knew that)
One thing's for sure - the tech giants are here to stay, and to dominate. Online activity will grow exponentially now that a nail has been driven into the coffin of physical retail. The best thing we can do is to re-engineer our economy into digital, prestissimo, and frame our tax laws so as to ensure the Amazonian giants have big incentives to be here and pay some tax, maybe even to act as mentors for new digital startups - because a tsunami of structural unemployment will hit the cities once the consequences of high-street implosion, residential congestion, bog-standard education, and poor transport infrastructure affect the bottom line.
The excess death figures will say what's working and what's not - assuming that those are reliable. Nothing else seems to be.
ALL WRONG
I'm a proud Englishman, who supports interationalism ...
I'm a cautious globalist who loathes Arsebook & it's not-so-crypto-fascist boss ( Zuckerberg )
International agreements & treaties are there for a reason - they help tp prevent wars.
At the same time, I think national regulations to prevent over-mighty "corprations" ( Or theor equivalent - think RC church? ) from getting away with too much.
There ain't no simple answer to this complex set of problems
Greg T said @ 19:11
'I'm a proud Englishman..'
That's wrongthink mate. The English (both sexes) are scheduled for demolition by the forces of 'internationalism', aka progressivism, whose mantra is 'no nations no borders'. The transition to majority minority will take the English below 50 per cent in their homeland by the third quarter of this century - an absolute minority by the end of the century. The Tories are on your side on this one, so don't be too critical of them as they want whitey gone just as much as you do.
Steve
Post a Comment