Author: David Allen Green

“Is it time to retire the .gb top level domain?”

17th November 2022

Here is (what may be) an amusing question – what should be done, if anything, with the .gb domain?

According to the United Kingdom government, there is no need for the .gb domain, given the pervasiveness of the .uk domain.

And so it seems it can be just got rid of.

But.

Getting rid of .gb may presume or preempt the outcome of possible constitutional changes in the next few years.

In the event there is Irish unification – which is possible in the next few years – then we would no longer be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

And so we may then need .gb.

Though we could perhaps then be the United Kingdom of Great Britain, full stop.

And so still be .uk.

At least in our own minds.

*

But if there is Scottish independence, then presumably we will no longer even be Great Britain – and thereby not .gb.

Maybe, without Scotland or Northern Ireland, England and Wales will try to persist in calling themselves either the United Kingdom or Great Britain.

You know, just like those pop bands from the 1970s and 1980s that tour the nostalgia circuit but with only one or two of their original members.

*

Perhaps, if Scotland and Northern Ireland do leave the union, England and Wales could adopt the domain .ew ?

 

*

Or perhaps not.

*

Given it seems that it would not cost anything to get rid of it, and that it appears nobody else could take it, there may be no practical risk in letting .gb go.

But this will be one of many questions about our self-identity if and when Northern Ireland and Scotland (and less probably Wales) leave the union.

And just as the history of these islands to 1922 can be told as a move from separate nations to one union with ever grander names, the history of these islands from now may be told as a sequences of less expansive domains for the London-based government:

.uk > .gb > .ew > .eng > .lon ?

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Gordon Gekko, “Bloatware”, and Retained EU law

16th November 2022

There is a scene in the film Wall Street which almost gets you nodding-along with, if not cheering on, Gordon Gekko.

The scene is very carefully done.

It is a company’s annual stockholders’ meeting, and Gekko is about to speak from the floor.

You will know what he says.

But what you see is a stage full of non-plussed people in suits:

“Teldar Paper has thirty-three different vice presidents each earning over 200 thousand dollars a year. Now, I have spent the last two months analysing what all these guys do, and I still can’t figure it out.

“One thing I do know is that our paper company lost 110 million dollars last year, and I’ll bet that half of that was spent in all the paperwork going back and forth between all these vice presidents.”

*

The point is – or seems – inarguable.

And having got his audience – and us – onside Gekko then subverts us with his “greed is good” exhortation.

(Though even then he has to slip in “for lack of any better word” to make the sentiment expressed palatable.)

And if you find yourself thinking “but actually…”, just think of those thirty-three vice presidents all on that stage.

You cannot help but think he may have a point – doesn’t he?

*

Of course: that scene is a combination of clever writing and clever visual rhetoric.

And it is easy to depict things as, in effect, bloated – and to get claps and cheers.

But sometimes what appears bloated has a less obvious purpose.

Take, for example, the new owner of Twitter.

This is a tweet from him:

And this is what then happened:

Whoopsie.

Many who logged out of Twitter could not log back in, and so if you wanted to retain access you could not log out.

Or as Rorschach once put it:

*

The word “bloat” in this context is pejorative – a term used instead of thinking.

Just seeing a lot of something you don’t understand and do not like, and characterising (indeed, caricaturing) that something as “bloatware” is not enough.

There may be all sorts of hidden and semi-hidden things which are important, if not critical.

That is why a slow, methodical case-by-case approach is needed.

Else you can inadvertently turn-off something that matters, like Musk’s new Twitter did with phone-based authentication.

*

And now we come to our old friend, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

The premise of this Bill is that the mass of European Union law that still has effect in the United Kingdom is bloatware.

One can imagine a certain kind of government minister gleefully tweeting:

“Part of today will be turning off the EU retained law bloatware. Less than 20% is actually needed for the United Kingdom to work!”

Or another minister posing in front of thirty-three shelves of regulations, instead of thirty-three corporate vice presidents.

Some would be tempted to nod – perhaps even you.

But.

As this blog has averred before, a lot of retained European Union law is important and beneficial, and we negotiated and implemented it ourselves.

A great deal serves a function – even if it will take time and effort to ascertain what that function is.

Perhaps some of it is statutory bloatware and can be safely discarded.

Yet the moral of Musk and authentication is that gusto is not enough.

Caution – for lack of a better word – is good.

***

Please subscribe to this blog – each post will then be delivered to you by email.

***

Please also contribute to this blog if you can.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Getting any quick international trade deal is easy, if you give in to the other side

15th November 2022

There is one way to get a “quick win” international trade deal.

That way is to just give in to what the other side want, but without gaining anything of equal value in return.

It really is quite easy.

All you have to do is turn up to the negotiation, ask what the other side’s negotiators want, give it to them, and – Hey Peston! – the United Kingdom has a trade agreement.

It is as easy as falling off a eucalyptus tree.

*

This week in the House of Commons there was a debate on the Australian trade deal.

In that debate the former minister George Eustice said (and this should be read carefully):

“…the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part.

“Indeed, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there were things that we achieved, such as a special agricultural safeguard for years 10 to 15, staged liberalisation across the first decade and the protection of British sovereignty in sanitary and phytosanitary issues.

“It is no surprise that many of these areas were negotiated either exclusively or predominantly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of the UK team, but it has to be said that, overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”

*

It gets worse:

“…we should not set arbitrary timescales for concluding negotiations.

“The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand—holding all the best cards—but at some point in early summer 2021 the then Trade Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude heads of terms by the time of the G7 summit, and from that moment the UK was repeatedly on the back foot.

“In fact, at one point the then Trade Secretary asked her Australian opposite number what he would need in order to be able to conclude an agreement by the time of the G7.

“Of course, the Australian negotiator kindly set out the Australian terms, which eventually shaped the deal.”

Ooof.

*

*

As regular readers of this blog will note, this idiotic approach to negotiations was pretty much also that adopted by the government of the United Kingdom with the withdrawal and relationship agreements with the European Union.

Instead of taking negotiations seriously, there were artificial deadlines imposed for domestic and media political consumption, regardless of the quality of the agreement.

In essence: the government of the United Kingdom did not and does not take international agreements seriously.

*

Part of this lack of seriousness is down to faux-nostalgia.

The notion that because nearly two hundred years ago the United Kingdom could go around the world agreeing trade deals on its own terms.

The idea that, like some latter-day Richard Cobdens, we can pop across the channel and agree a free trade deal, and still be back for tea.

Indeed, the very phrase “international trade deals” is invoked and bandied about by supporters with Brexit with misty-eyed sentimentality.

Being able to enter into such agreements was, it was claimed, one of the advantages of Brexit.

*

But.

International trade agreements are not creatures of sentiment.

International trade negotiations are perhaps the most hard-headed, unsentimental things one can imagine in the commercial world.

Indeed, international trade law is commercial law for grown-ups.

Any real benefits gained from such a deal are hard-negotiated and will come at a cost elsewhere.

And a benefit, in any case, may only have an overall marginal economic effect.

For forty-five years, the United Kingdom benefitted from the experience and expertise of the European Commission in negotiating trade deals, with the commission being able to deploy the clout of the single market and twenty-eight member states.

In this way, the commission were able to negotiate deals with mattered and were worth having.

That has now been thrown away, with the United Kingdom leaving the European Union’s common commercial policy and internal market.

What we have now have instead are bravado and bluster, and Elizabeth Truss asking what the other side want so that we simply can give it to them.

And we also have the moral hazard of Boris Johnson and David Frost agreeing to the Northern Irish Protocol and then saying we will renege on it.

We could not be in a less impressive place on the world stage.

*

Yes, perhaps, Eustice should have resigned rather than go-along with what he knew to be a bad trade agreement with Australia.

Perhaps.

But it is a Good Thing that he has set out the real position now on the floor of the House of Commons.

The United Kingdom, in a post-Brexit world, is going to learn slowly and painfully that the superficial approach of Johnson and Truss to international agreements is disadvantageous.

Well, at least the limitations of this approach are becoming apparent.

***

Please subscribe to this blog – each post will then be delivered to you by email.

***

Please also support this blog if you can.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

 

What does it mean to “take (back) control” of a border?

14th November 2022

Brexit, we are told, was about “taking back control” – of our borders, our money, and our laws.

Yet, if you read the news, it would seem the United Kingdom is less in control of its borders than it was before we departed the European Union.

It would seem that simply declaring that we were “taking back control” was not enough for us to, well, take control.

A less-than-a-moment’s thought should explain why.

It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to have absolute control of a border from one side alone, if a significant amount of people want to cross that border.

In extreme situations, of course, resorting to coercion and lethal force can give the impression of control, at least in the immediate term.

But for there to be effective and sustainable control of a border usually requires those on both sides to cooperate.

As such, the simplistic unilateralism of “taking back control” will not work in practice.

And it is thereby not surprising that the current home secretary has had to agree with France a form of cooperation about the channel crossings.

Though, as Zoe Gardner points out on Twitter, this is not the first time such a thing has been announced:

*

Another misconception is that deterring those crossing the channel will work.

That one can remove the “demand”.

That by threatening people with flights to Rwanda or keeping people in horrible conditions the United Kingdom will somehow reduce the number of those seeking asylum here.

The demand seems, to further use economics jargon, “inelastic”.

All that appears to be happening is that, by using various hostile, inhumane and illiberal measures, is that the same number of people are still coming – but we are treating them less well.

The “push factor” does not seem to care about our unpleasant ways.

And there is little that the United Kingdom can do to directly address the “push factor”.

*

So what we have are high significant numbers of asylum seekers.

[Word ‘high’ replaced, as some commenters complained it was misleading.]

What should be done?

Well, as Gardner further says, the dealing with the actual claims themselves should be the priority:

*

What we can take control of is not our border – but our internal processes, and how well those processes are resourced.

That is what is within our control.

Anything else either requires sincere international cooperation or is outside of our or any other receiving country’s direct control.

And that is control we cannot take – either “back” or otherwise.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

 

 

Musk and the three ways his acquisition of Twitter shows a remarkable approach to legal risk

11th November 2022

The acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk is fascinating – at least to watch from the outside.

*

I am not an American lawyer, and I have not seen any of the legal or other documents related to the acquisition.

Like many of you, I only know what I have read in the media and watched play out on Twitter.

But from the information available to me, and based on twenty years’ experience as an English commercial lawyer, there are three elements of this acquisition which may show us things about Musk’s approach to the issue of legal risk.

*

The first element is the agreement to purchase, which Musk reportedly sought to get out of.

It would appear that he was unable (or unwilling) to do so, and so had to complete the purchase.

There were two things here which seemed odd.

The first odd thing was that an experienced business person like Musk, who presumably had access to legal advice, could even get seemingly trapped by such an agreement.

The second odd thing was his use of issues such as the number of bot accounts as a basis to get out of the transaction.

It seemed to me that such issues would normally go to warranties than to anything more substantial.

(In this context, a warranty would be a promise that a certain state of affairs existed which would allow a cash adjustment to the purchase price if the warranty was breached – and so the ultimate price of the purchase would be adjusted to what it would have been had the correct state of affairs been known.)

The issues he raised did not appear to me to be convincing, and many better placed observers were not convinced either.

It looked like Musk had put himself into a commercial situation he could not get out.

Few business people, following advice, would have allowed this to happen.

It was a curious situation.

*

The second element of this acquisition is the reported disdain for regulatory and other legal risks by Musk and his new managers once Twitter was purchased.

On this, the New York Times has reported:

Musk “was used to going to court and paying penalties, and was not worried about the risks”.

This is an extraordinary position for any experienced business person – but it does accord to his approach to risk as described in the first element above.

Some of the regulatory and other legal risks now facing Twitter are not trivial, from data privacy to employment rights.

The approach described by the New York Times is not even cavalier – it is outright denial and disdain.

What a curiouser and curiouser situation.

*

The third element is the very structure of the acquisition.

Musk may be conducting himself online as if he were a buffoon, but those lenders and investors also financing the transaction are serious people.

And if for some reason those lenders and investors were easily impressed by a charismatic figure, their legal advisers certainly would not be.

The position of these lenders and investors here is the greatest puzzle of all.

What were they thinking?

Reuters tells us these are the lenders and investors:

Even if Musk was in denial or disdainful about legal or other risk, these lenders and investors would not be.

Again, according to Reuters:

“Twitter faces interest payments totaling close to $1.2 billion in the next 12 months on the debt that Musk piled on it, following a string of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, an analysis of the financing terms disclosed in regulatory filings shows.

“The payments exceed Twitter’s most recently disclosed cash flow, which amounted to $1.1 billion as of the end of June, according to financial disclosures Twitter made before Musk took it private on Oct. 27.”

Even if Musk’s antics were not foreseeable, the state of Twitter would have been obvious when lenders and investors did their due diligence.

Lenders and investors proceeded even though they were aware of the precarious financial state of Twitter.

Why would they do this?

Perhaps they were confident that Musk would suddenly turn the platform around and generate revenues in excess of costs.

Perhaps they took a view on the risks and thought they could just write it off if the investment went bad.

Or perhaps they were less interested in any return on investment than in the security they could enforce if the transaction went bad.

Some lenders plan on the basis that an investment will go well – and some lenders plan on the basis that it will not.

If Twitter defaults on the payments, it will be interesting – fascinating – to see what security is in place, if any, and what is enforced, if anything is enforced.

Even if Musk somehow though this transaction was free of risk, those who co-financed the transaction would not have done.

What will happen next?

The situation gets curiouser.

*

Musk’s acquisition of Twitter is almost as if it were taking place in a magical business world where legal and other risks do not really exist.

A fabulous world devised by, say, Italo Calvino rather than our mundane real world of contracts and regulations.

Perhaps the fantasy will hold, and Musk will pull off a great commercial success.

Perhaps.

But us trudging legal sorts are used to seeing the downsides.

And the utter lack in this transaction of any visible risk-based approach by Musk is remarkable.

If this transaction escapes the world of fantasy, then Musk and Twitter will need to brace, brace.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on doing these posts., even though I cannot offer you a BLUE TICK.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

 

Of “echo chambers” and “preaching to the converted”

10th November 2022

Some places – like courts and legislatures – have shared rules for discourse.

But courts and legislatures are not “echo chambers”.

Certain things are not readily said, and certain hard things are to be said softly.

This is not because there are not disputes – and some differences may be fundamental and life-changing.

It is because shared rules for discourse enable constructive engagements and facilitate important exchanges.

*

But.

For some on the internet, the slightest suggestion that there can be shared rules for discourse triggers (ahem) the instant accusation that you want to be in an “echo chamber” or that you “want to preach to the converted” or want to be in “a bubble”.

These phrases – clichés – are usually substitutes for thought.

Yet so accustomed are many to the shoutiness and rancour of internet exchanges that the merest suggestion that there can be shared rules for discourse is seen as some sort of assault on “free speech”.

Shared rules are not, however, undermining of dialogue – they instead make meaningful dialogue possible.

Shouting at people – either in real life or on the internet – is a form of monologue, especially if it inhibits the other person from engaging, or saying something they would like to say.

As such the real echo chambers and preached at choirs are not platforms where there are shared rules, but places where such rules are disdained.

Places like Twitter.

*

On this blog I will write things which a number of readers will disagree with: Brexit (where I am ultimately neutral in principle, though critical in practice), codified constitutions (where I am sceptical), electoral reform (where I am wary), and so on.

And the commenters on this blog – many of whom provide comments that are better quality and more informed/informative than my head post – will engage, often with other perspectives.

You can then form your own view.

Pre-moderation and my “irksome” rule prevents comments derailing the discussion.

(And, in practice, few comments are not published.)

As such, I do not think this blog is an “echo chamber”, or that I am “preaching to the converted” (though I sometimes wish I could convert more of you to my idiosyncratic views).

*

In practice, accusations such as “echo chamber” and “preaching to the converted” can be rhetorical devices to shut down unwanted forms of discourse.

The important thing is that if you want a platform that suits you then you should be free to use a platform that suits you.

And do not be afraid of comments such as “echo chamber” and “preaching to the converted”.

Hierarchies vs networks in the age of Musk and Mastodon

9th November 2022

Regular readers of this blog will know that central to my thinking about law, government and politics is the so-called Dunbar’s Number.

This number – which is about 125-150 for members of our species – is the number of individuals with which one can have meaningful relationships with at one time.

The implication of this number (in my view) for law, government and politics is that with any community or society larger in size than this number there will tend to be a limit on what can be done without shared rules and recognised commands and notions of status.

It is very difficult to be sustainably dominant merely on a face-to-face basis with large numbers of people.

One way of scaling upwards (and downwards) is by having hierarchies.

And with hierarchies we get the conceptual paraphernalia of lordship and kingship (and ladyship and queenship), with lower levels and higher levels.

But another way of scaling is more horizontal: networks and shared protocols.

Here certain signifiers and agreed rules and lore will mean that groups of people can interact.

What has made me think about this is the current contest between commercial social media platforms (like Facebook and Twitter) and the protocol-based Mastodon, of which I have become a great fan.

(And where I somehow now have 18,000 followers in just a few days.)

The commercial platforms are sometimes called “proprietary” because the software is owned by the corporation.

But they can also be regarded as “proprietary” by how they treat their users.

The new owner of Twitter, in particular, seems to see the users of Twitter as a standing asset to be exploited, by charging users for this or that.

The assumption seems to be that the users will stay and pay.

And the way the Twitter acquisition was structured and financed suggests that there has to be a high level of return very quickly.

Perhaps some users will stay and pay: but many will not.

And some will move to forms of social media where there is not one big corporation in charge, imposing its own standards (and whims), but lots of smaller platforms joined by optional or negotiated protocols.

If so, this will be nothing that new in human history.

Human activity often moves between from hierarchies and networks, and between cathedrals and bazaars.

Networks, of course, bring their own problems – especially when selflessness and self-restraint begin to fall away.

And corporations will tend to have better access to resources to finance and maintain the development of platforms.

But Elon Musk and others will not be the first to discover that the ways and means by which individuals will interact cannot easily controlled by those asserting and expecting dominance.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

Removing all the European Union law in the United Kingdom may be a practical process on which the sun will never set

8th November 2022

Back in August 2016, a month-or-two after the Brexit referendum, I wrote the following at the Evening Standard:

“So extensive are the EU ties which bind the UK that they take at least a political generation to untangle. Gus O’Donnell, the former head of the UK civil service, has pointed out that it took Greenland, with a population less than Croydon and with only the issue of fish, three years to leave the old EEC. And in the Eighties the EEC was a far less complicated entity than the modern EU.

“Thousands of UK laws — nobody knows exactly how many — are based on EU law. Many of these laws only have effect because of the European Communities Act, which would need repeal or substantial amendment. Some of the laws have effect without any UK-implementing measure.”

The phrase I want to emphasise here is “nobody knows how many”.

Six years later, still nobody knows how many laws of the United Kingdom are based on the law of the European Union.

*

This situation has to come to prominence because of the daft notion of the current government that somehow all the laws of the United Kingdom are based on the law of the European Union can be identified and replaced at speed.

The entire exercise is ludicrous, as well as probably impossible.

The idea can only have been conceived by someone with no real idea of how entangled domestic and European Union law was by 2016 (or 2019-2020, when we actually departed in practice).

It is not a question of simply going to a database and using the right search terms – say to find all the regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.

Even with those regulations many were revoked or amended other regulations –  so that, without considerable time, you would never know the full extent of the entanglement.

Regulations were also made under other statutes, and much European Union law took effect without needing any local enactment at all.

And the important thing to note is that at the time – 1973 to 2016 – nobody ever thought the whole thing would need to disentangled, and so nobody thought to keep any track of it.

This is why, with the hurried departure of the United Kingdom after the referendum, the whole problem was kicked into the the future with the notion of “retained European Union law”.

Such a disentanglement could not be done at speed before departure, and for the same reason the disentanglement cannot be quickly done now.

It matters not that some politician confidently asserts that “something needs to be done” by some artificial “sunset” date.

And to the surprise of nobody who knows about European Union law, entire tranches of European Union law are still being found:

*

It will take a long time – perhaps decades, perhaps never – to unwind all the European Union law that had effect in the United Kingdom and replace or revoke it.

That is not a pro- or anti- Brexit statement, but the simple fact of the matter.

Some of these laws were championed by the United Kingdom when a member state of the European Union.

Some of the laws were hard-fought triumphs by United Kingdom ministers and officials.

Some of the laws are good and beneficial, and some are not good and need removing.

But this can only be done on a slow, methodical law-by-law basis.

As I averred back in August 2016: it may take at least a political generation.

The moment this is realised and accepted by the current government then we may be moving into a practical rather than an ideological understanding of our post-Brexit predicament.

That realisation, however, may itself take a political generation.

It is even likely to be a process on which the sun will never set.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on doing these posts.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above (suggested donation £1 to £5), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

From Twitter to Mastodon

7th November 2022

At the end of last week – exasperated by Twitter and the antics of its new owner – I opened a Mastodon account.

In one way, this is of no wider interest to anyone but me: it is just one person preferring one social media platform to another.

But in other ways, I do think there is something worth commenting on about this shift by me and many others – and worth assessing whether or not it is significant.

(For what it is worth, I acquired over 9k followers on there in 48h hours, and a number of legal and other commentators have joined the site too – I have called this a “Lexodus”.)

*

Social media cannot be un-invented.

As long as a person has access to the internet and another person is willing to provide a platform for communication, there will be social media.

The particular platforms, however, will come and go.

Some of you will remember MySpace and Bebo and so on.

There is no reason why any one platform will always be the dominant platform.

And what is a business giant or successful commercial model at one time may not be a business giant or successful commercial model at another time.

For that is the nature of business and of technology.

*

On the face of it, I should have a “stake” in Twitter.

I once spent a couple of years of my life litigating the once-famous TwitterJokeTrial case so as to explain Twitter and social media to the English legal system.

And I have acquired around 240k followers for my main Twitter account.

I am as versed in the lore and the tides and the currents and the perils of Twitter as any old sailor is of those of the sea.

So why move from there?

Well.

First, I am not moving completely – I will still use it as a medium for “broadcasting” my posts and my content elsewhere.

But Twitter is now pretty much a hellsite and a cesspit.

Every time you log in, the list of “trending” topics will make any liberal person’s heart sink.

Quote-Tweets and pile-ons and instant unpleasant replies mean that any considered conversation is all but impossible.

*

Of course, much of this will be defended as “free speech!”.

But the free speech of one can mean the inhibition from speaking for others.

And that is as least as much of a free speech issue, if you think about it.

Twitter is structured so as to encourage rage-tweeting and it enables you to say the most vile things you can think of and get away with, just because you can.

I do not think it brings the best out of people.

I think social media can be done differently.

*

Mastodon is different from Twitter in many ways, some of which are partly unseen and difficult to grasp.

Instead of it being one big site, it is a lot of sites with a common set of protocols.

As such, it is de-centralised.

But once you are in, you can communicate with those who joined via other “servers”.

Yes, some of the jargon is initially inaccessible – but so were RTs, DMs, QTs, #hashtags, and so on, once upon a time.

And each of those servers is independent, and they form a federation as an aggregate.

This means decision-making is decentralised and different servers can have different rules and policies.

And if one server turns vile – or allows vile stuff – then it can be rejected by the others.

As a liberal I find this system, with its in-built checks and balances, a lot more attractive and welcoming than Twitter.

*

And what about in practice?

So far, the conversations and engagement on the new site have been pleasant and constructive.

As a worked example, click here for a question about Brexit which led to many helpful and informative replies.

Yes, some of the replies don’t directly engage the terms of the question, but you will see there is a general civility and calmness that contrasts with Twitter.

The longer character limits help too.

So far – and it is still an early stage – Mastodon seems a serious site for serious conversations.

*

You may not want to join Mastodon – and I know several of you are not on Twitter.

That may be wise.

But if you do want to try a social media platform wired to avoid many of the unlikeable things about Twitter then Mastodon is worth having a try.

I cannot recommend any particular server – and there are glitches for many when they try to join, and so you may need to be patient.

And if you do join, do say hello and mention this post.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

 

 

Brexit, revisited – and a non-apology

4th November 2022

When I posted a correction yesterday, I got this comment in the moderation box:

Gosh.

Mistakes come in different forms: mistakes of attribution (such as the one corrected) are mistakes of fact, but there can also be mistakes of judgement and reasoning, and even mistakes of principle (either in their assertion or in their application).

And the mistake alleged here was one of those broader forms of mistake.

Should I recant?

Should I admit that I am wrong as alleged?

Well.

No.

The position remains (excuse the pun) that I have no ultimate objection to Brexit.

By which I mean I have no ultimate objection to the United Kingdom not being a member state of the European Union.

I do object – fundamentally – to the United Kingdom being outside of the Single Market.

But it is quite possible to be a member of the Single Market and not be a member of the European Union.

Indeed, a number of European countries are members of the Single Market but not members of the European Union.

I also object – and have done so consistently, and in detail – to the manner and speed of the departure.

(Departure should have been done slowly, gradually and methodically over a decade at least.)

So consistent and detailed have I been in this objection many regard me as pretty much a Remainer.

Some may say – perhaps fairly – that my view is of a Brexit in name only, where the substance of law and policy would not change, but with the United Kingdom formally outside the institutions of the European Union.

My preference would be for a close Association Agreement, with settled mechanisms for dialogue and consultation between the European Union and the United Kingdom on Single Market issues.

But since Maastricht I have not seen the case for the European Union to cover the non Single Market (once called) “pillars” of justice and home affairs, or of foreign and security policy.

Of course: cooperation on such topics is crucial – but there is no necessary reason why such cooperation should be through the European Union.

I also do not think a single currency is essential for a Single Market.

And the United Kingdom’s half-hearted opt-in-and-opt-out approach to the European Union on the other “pillars” and the single currency was a brake on what other member states wanted to do, and so I do think the European Union is better off without us if that is what they want to do.

So, I will not be issuing a correction post on my judgement call.

I realise that the view set out above is not widely shared – and perhaps nobody else has exactly the same view.

But it is my sincerely held view, and I cannot and will not pretend otherwise.

So this is my non-apology, and I hope you can accept it!

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.