Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
The odd thing is that Putin would probably still win 45-50% of the vote in a totally free election because his United Russia strongman stuff is popular outside the more liberal big cities.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
The odd thing is that Putin would probably still win 45-50% of the vote in a totally free election because his United Russia strongman stuff is popular outside the more liberal big cities.
But, that's not enough for him.
Quite a few academics and the like still write about the plebiscites that Napoleon “won” as if they involved anything like democracy.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
How do you define democracy? I mean North Korea also has so called elections. Is it also a democracy?
I think there are potentially only 2 people who think Russia is a democracy and that is you and Putin. No scratch that as I'm sure Putin knows it isn't.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
The uk, the eu and all major governments also have a record of passing shit laws like the online safety bill....because they try to regulate does not mean they are doing something good
Sorry I reject that in the case of online regulation. They aren't doing something just because they are actively trying to destroy things such as encryption and freedom of expression. The politicians syllogism implies any downsides are purely accidental whereas in the case of online regulation by governments the intent is to be malevolent
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
The odd thing is that Putin would probably still win 45-50% of the vote in a totally free election because his United Russia strongman stuff is popular outside the more liberal big cities.
But, that's not enough for him.
But would he win indefinitely? If there was a free media and expression? At some point the danger is that power would slip away and then he'd be screwed.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
The barristers can’t stop her being an MP. Her status as an MP is up to the electorate. Nothing here is challenging her status as an MP.
If the barristers’ code of conduct has ill-defined terms, that doesn’t sound like a good code. However, I find it difficult to believe that barristers of all people would have a code of conduct with ill-defined terms! Maybe they have a better grasp of these matters than you do?
How would define “conduct unbecoming”? It’s explicitly designed as a catch all.
Fundamentally this is an attempt by political opponents to increase the cost of an elected politician exercising her right to state a legal opinion.
She’s not broken the law. She’s not done anything wrong. You have the right to disagree (and I personally disagree).
The right outcome here would be for Bar Council to tell the complainants not to be so f*cking stupid. The problem is the rules are there for a reason. If they become used as a partisan weapon then the rules are undermined at a cost to all of us
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
If the most threatening candidates end up murdered/poisioned that does rather undermine the fairness of it wouldn't you agree.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
If the most threatening candidates end up murdered/poisioned that does rather undermine the fairness of it wouldn't you agree.
I said it was not a perfect democracy but anyone who has met the average Russian knows they are not liberal on any definition, economically the average Russian is statist, socially they are conservative and nationalist. With a few exceptions in the wealthiest parts of St Petersburg and Moscow
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
If the most threatening candidates end up murdered/poisioned that does rather undermine the fairness of it wouldn't you agree.
Don't try to argue the nuances on this, trust me. I still have the scars from trying to suggest militarily purging most of a Parliament's members might somewhat undermine regarding the actions of the remaining members as being done by the parliament as a whole.
The ultimate argument is that so long as an election is officially contested, even if it is not in practice, it counts. For some reason.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
How do you define democracy? I mean North Korea also has so called elections. Is it also a democracy?
I think there are potentially only 2 people who think Russia is a democracy and that is you and Putin. No scratch that as I'm sure Putin knows it isn't.
North Korea doesn't have multi party elections including opposition parties like Russia does so no. North Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship, not even a flawed democracy like Russia with North Korean 'parties' all part of the government controlled Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
If the most threatening candidates end up murdered/poisioned that does rather undermine the fairness of it wouldn't you agree.
I said it was not a perfect democracy but anyone who has met the average Russian knows they are not liberal on any definition, economically the average Russian is statist, socially they are conservative and nationalist. With a few exceptions in the wealthiest parts of St Petersburg and Moscow
But why though? Do you accept most North Koreans are communist too?
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
The uk, the eu and all major governments also have a record of passing shit laws like the online safety bill....because they try to regulate does not mean they are doing something good
Sorry I reject that in the case of online regulation. They aren't doing something just because they are actively trying to destroy things such as encryption and freedom of expression. The politicians syllogism implies any downsides are purely accidental whereas in the case of online regulation by governments the intent is to be malevolent
You assume malevolence.
My experience with talking to politicians on the encryption issue is that they believe that all communications and information must be accessible to warranted authorities.
That this is not possible without destroying online data security hits a mind block - the thinking is that technology *must* bend to the law.
The idea that the law could have such a limit is unacceptable to this mindset.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
The North Korean election page is a hoot, as apparently Kim Jong Un couldn't even be bothered with the pretext of participating as a candidate, even though they already make no effort to pretend it is even close to democracy.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
How do you define democracy? I mean North Korea also has so called elections. Is it also a democracy?
I think there are potentially only 2 people who think Russia is a democracy and that is you and Putin. No scratch that as I'm sure Putin knows it isn't.
North Korea doesn't have multi party elections including opposition parties like Russia does so no. North Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship, not even a flawed democracy like Russia with North Korean 'parties' all part of the government controlled Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea
The words Russia and democracy do not fit in any sense.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
How do you define democracy? I mean North Korea also has so called elections. Is it also a democracy?
I think there are potentially only 2 people who think Russia is a democracy and that is you and Putin. No scratch that as I'm sure Putin knows it isn't.
North Korea doesn't have multi party elections like Russia does so no, North Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship, not even a flawed democracy like Russia
Russia doesn't make it to "Flawed Democracy" on the Democracy Index. It's not even a "Hybrid Regime" (like Turkey). It's a fully-fledged "Authoritarian Regime".
But feel free to invent your own index. I'm sure it will catch on in Russia.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
How do you define democracy? I mean North Korea also has so called elections. Is it also a democracy?
I think there are potentially only 2 people who think Russia is a democracy and that is you and Putin. No scratch that as I'm sure Putin knows it isn't.
North Korea doesn't have multi party elections including opposition parties like Russia does so no. North Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship, not even a flawed democracy like Russia with North Korean 'parties' all part of the government controlled Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea
The words Russia and democracy do not fit in any sense.
Well, they can, if you add 'lack of' in there somewhere.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that he was fucking stupid and hadn't grasped this basic point.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that he was fucking stupid and hadn't grasped this basic point.
Sure, but dictators often go for only a bit less than 100% which is equally implausible when they could fix it with a semi plausible but dominant amount - Al-assad has won with 95 and 92%, they picked those numbeers for a reason rather than 85 or 88 for example.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
Are those the figures for the last election or an early leak of the figures for the next one?
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that he was fucking stupid and hadn't grasped this basic point.
No, he was giving the message loud and clear that no opposition whatsoever would be tolerated and even thinking about it was very bad for your health.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
The uk, the eu and all major governments also have a record of passing shit laws like the online safety bill....because they try to regulate does not mean they are doing something good
Sorry I reject that in the case of online regulation. They aren't doing something just because they are actively trying to destroy things such as encryption and freedom of expression. The politicians syllogism implies any downsides are purely accidental whereas in the case of online regulation by governments the intent is to be malevolent
You assume malevolence.
My experience with talking to politicians on the encryption issue is that they believe that all communications and information must be accessible to warranted authorities.
That this is not possible without destroying online data security hits a mind block - the thinking is that technology *must* bend to the law.
The idea that the law could have such a limit is unacceptable to this mindset.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
When many people have explained why its not possible and they still refuse to believe it and are apparently meant to be intelligent people then the only conclusion can be is not that they can't grasp the fact its not possible but they don't actually care it is not possible and they view it not being possible as more of a feature than a bug. I would believe it is just some being thick and not getting it if mostly they get the point and change their mind and go ok not such a good idea then....can you name one politician that has turned round after its explained and gone oh...now I see yes that wasn't the good idea I thought it was. I can't
It is malevolence...they hate the fact we can say stuff they can't access
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that he was fucking stupid and hadn't grasped this basic point.
There is also the element of showing That I Am The Maximum Leader* by doing outrageous stuff and expecting applause.
*Some loony dictator had a title that literally translated as that.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that he was fucking stupid and hadn't grasped this basic point.
There is also the element of showing That I Am The Maximum Leader* by doing outrageous stuff and expecting applause.
*Some loony dictator had a title that literally translated as that.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
The uk, the eu and all major governments also have a record of passing shit laws like the online safety bill....because they try to regulate does not mean they are doing something good
Sorry I reject that in the case of online regulation. They aren't doing something just because they are actively trying to destroy things such as encryption and freedom of expression. The politicians syllogism implies any downsides are purely accidental whereas in the case of online regulation by governments the intent is to be malevolent
You assume malevolence.
My experience with talking to politicians on the encryption issue is that they believe that all communications and information must be accessible to warranted authorities.
That this is not possible without destroying online data security hits a mind block - the thinking is that technology *must* bend to the law.
The idea that the law could have such a limit is unacceptable to this mindset.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
When many people have explained why its not possible and they still refuse to believe it and are apparently meant to be intelligent people then the only conclusion can be is not that they can't grasp the fact its not possible but they don't actually care it is not possible and they view it not being possible as more of a feature than a bug. I would believe it is just some being thick and not getting it if mostly they get the point and change their mind and go ok not such a good idea then....can you name one politician that has turned round after its explained and gone oh...now I see yes that wasn't the good idea I thought it was. I can't
It is malevolence...they hate the fact we can say stuff they can't access
It’s not malevolence. They - the ones I’ve met - aren’t thinking that way.
The way they see it, they have an obligation to protect society etc. Technology must follow the law.
It comes from a generalist manager/lawyer view of the world.
I’ve tried convincing such people that there is no such technical solution. Their response is to say I am ignorant - a solution *must* be found.
Fully agree that this is bad. But Musk isn't alone in this. Facebook and Google also appear to censor views they don't agree with. The power we, as consumers, have handed to big tech is the problem, not specifically Musk.
You can't ever expect millions of consumers to collectively co-ordinate. We need government action to break up monopolies.
How would you go about it?
Don’t break them up.
Regulate them as a public utility instead
Isn't the problem that we don't want to treat them as a public utility? We don't hold BT or EE responsible for the conversations held on their phone networks. We don't hold Anglian Water responsible if someone uses their water to drown someone in a bath. Treating them as public utilities wil not solve the issue.
And the problem with treating them as monopolies is that - certainly in the case of a comany like Facebook, they are far from being a monopoly. They are just very successful at what they do and people chose to use them. There are lots of alternatives and they are well used and supported.
When Twitter was bought by Musk there was all that talk about people moving to Mastadon. And yet a few months later and everyone is still talking about Twitter.
People use these social media platforms because they like them. Forcing them to use others against their will seems to me to be particularly stupid.
And I say that as someone who thinks the whole of Twitter and its alternatives are stupid.
Network effects.
I decided to use Telegram* instead of WhatsApp, because I wanted to avoid using another part of the Facebook empire. With the help of one of my brothers I managed to get my family to do the same, but my in-laws and my erstwhile knitting group are on WhatsApp. I don't choose to use WhatsApp, but I use WhatsApp to communicate with people who use it.
Someone on the knitting group complained about not being able to correct typos, and two of us tried to convince the rest to switch to Telegram, but there was too much resistance from others who didn't want to install another app.
Network effects are strong, and they make a mockery of your free choice arguments.
* I later decided that Signal was probably better than Telegram. I don't know anyone else who uses Signal.
Network effects are free choice. They are not imposed by anyone and should not be legislated against.
Network effects inhibit open competition, because they make switching between different services more difficult. This implies a greater role for regulation to protect consumers than with a market sector where consumer choice is easier to exercise.
For example, in banking, there is regulation that creates certain standards to make it easier for people to switch banks. For energy there is regulation to make it easier to compare prices between different companies.
There is potential for regulation to improve consumer choice and reduce the power of network effects in social media.
The problem you have is that most of us don't want to be on multiple platforms. We want to be on a single - or at most a couple of - platform with all our friends, family and colleagues. It oesn't matter to me if my best friend banks with another provider. It doesn't affect where I bank. But if he is using a different social media platform then I would have to join that platform as well to be able to interact with him online. I don't see how you get round that fundamental issue.
Which is why you regulate returns - social media is a fundamental part of modern existence and regulation has a role to play
It also has a huge impact on political discourse - I was uncomfortable with Trump been banned from Twitter just as I am uncomfortable with Musk’s actions in Turkey. We regulate traditional media so why not social media?
How about because they are totally fucking different....traditional media....few speaking to many.....social media is us all talking....you want them to regulate your speech go right ahead....you want them to regulate my speech go stick your head in a toilet while I shit on you frankly
We regulate social media.
Both the U.K. government and the EU have imposed requirements with the full force of law on social media.
The question is too much? Or not enough?
One area that has barely been touched on is the use of algorithms to select for an individual messages and news articles. In some instances this has created, in effect, an automated version of the radicalisation spiral.
The uk, the eu and all major governments also have a record of passing shit laws like the online safety bill....because they try to regulate does not mean they are doing something good
Sorry I reject that in the case of online regulation. They aren't doing something just because they are actively trying to destroy things such as encryption and freedom of expression. The politicians syllogism implies any downsides are purely accidental whereas in the case of online regulation by governments the intent is to be malevolent
You assume malevolence.
My experience with talking to politicians on the encryption issue is that they believe that all communications and information must be accessible to warranted authorities.
That this is not possible without destroying online data security hits a mind block - the thinking is that technology *must* bend to the law.
The idea that the law could have such a limit is unacceptable to this mindset.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
When many people have explained why its not possible and they still refuse to believe it and are apparently meant to be intelligent people then the only conclusion can be is not that they can't grasp the fact its not possible but they don't actually care it is not possible and they view it not being possible as more of a feature than a bug. I would believe it is just some being thick and not getting it if mostly they get the point and change their mind and go ok not such a good idea then....can you name one politician that has turned round after its explained and gone oh...now I see yes that wasn't the good idea I thought it was. I can't
It is malevolence...they hate the fact we can say stuff they can't access
I recall Lindsey Graham once publicly stated he had changed his mind on proposals to undermine encryption for example, in order to make things easier for government, after being briefed and discovering it was not as simple as he thought and might do some damage to do what he had been proposing.
Labour set to snatch quarter of Lib Dem local vote at general election
Nearly a quarter of Liberal Democrat local election voters will back Labour at the general election, research by a think tank with close ties to Sir Keir Starmer suggests.
Labour Together identified mass tactical voting at the local elections, arguing that it would therefore be “nonsense” for Labour to fear losing votes next year to any party but the Conservatives.
Starmer and his supporters were buoyed by the results of the local elections this month, claiming that their projected national vote share lead of nine percentage points over the Conservatives puts Labour on course for a majority at the general election.
However, the Liberal Democrats also surged, with a projected national vote share of 20 per cent. Some psephologists have argued that this could leave Labour relying on Liberal Democrat support to form a majority government. In the aftermath of the local elections, Starmer failed to rule out striking a pact with the Lib Dems in a hung parliament.
Research and YouGov polling commissioned by Labour Together in the wake of the local elections suggests that Liberal Democrat voters will behave very differently in a general election.
Asked how they would vote in a general election, 23 per cent of Liberal Democrat local election supporters said they would vote Labour, while 9 per cent said they would move to the Conservatives. Forty-four per cent said they would stick with the Liberal Democrats, while 17 per cent said they did not know how they would vote.
Similarly, 14 per cent of those who voted Green this month said they would vote Labour in a general election — though almost as many, 11 per cent, said they would switch to the Conservatives.
Across the whole electorate, 29 per cent said they voted in the locals for the party which “best reflects my values and principles”, but among those who backed the Lib Dems, this figure was 17 per cent. Instead, 21 per cent of Lib Dem voters said they had backed the party that was “best placed to defeat a party I disliked, even though they were not my first choice”. Across the whole electorate, the segment who voted for that reason amounted to 8 per cent.
Labour Together claimed that the survey of Lib Dems meant that in a general election the nine-point projected national vote lead would become a 13-point lead.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
Isn't it obvious? Declaring 100% on a 100% turnout is a way of signalling to all your opponents that you aren't going to stand for any challenges of any type.
Election days in Turkey don't seem to be official holidays, but the rules do make them what one might call "half holidays". Which, I assume, is intended to increase turnout: "On election day, the sale of alcoholic beverages will be prohibited from 6 a.m. until midnight and many entertainment venues will be closed or restricted to solely serving food to patrons. Coffeehouses, teahouses and internet cafes will be closed on election day. Weddings may be held after 6 p.m. on the day. Also of note, schools will be closed on Monday, May 15." source: https://www.dailysabah.com/life/expat-guide-what-to-know-about-may-14-elections-in-turkiye/news
(The reported level of turnout does not seem implausible to me, especially if Turkey follows Western customs, and makes Sunday a day of rest. According to the source, elections are usually held on Sundays.)
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that he was fucking stupid and hadn't grasped this basic point.
There is also the element of showing That I Am The Maximum Leader* by doing outrageous stuff and expecting applause.
*Some loony dictator had a title that literally translated as that.
Well, it's not really more ridiculous than something like King of Kings. More dictators should just be honest about it rather than hide behind something bland like President.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
What @HYUFD doesn't seem to take account of is that having votes does not a democracy make. There are other preconditions. A free press. The rule of law. Proper electoral procedures. Etc etc.
Remember all those People's Democratic Republics from Cold War times?
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
Isn't it obvious? Declaring 100% on a 100% turnout is a way of signalling to all your opponents that you aren't going to stand for any challenges of any type.
No its not obvious, because the same message is made with 100% on a 98% turnout, or 98% on a 100% turnout. The message is not more enhanced for being 100 of both, which is why the Saddam example is actually pretty rare - even that North Korean one only claimed 99.99% turnout.
It's ridiculous either way, yet he went for something extreme even for dictators.
Labour set to snatch quarter of Lib Dem local vote at general election
Nearly a quarter of Liberal Democrat local election voters will back Labour at the general election, research by a think tank with close ties to Sir Keir Starmer suggests.
Labour Together identified mass tactical voting at the local elections, arguing that it would therefore be “nonsense” for Labour to fear losing votes next year to any party but the Conservatives.
Starmer and his supporters were buoyed by the results of the local elections this month, claiming that their projected national vote share lead of nine percentage points over the Conservatives puts Labour on course for a majority at the general election.
However, the Liberal Democrats also surged, with a projected national vote share of 20 per cent. Some psephologists have argued that this could leave Labour relying on Liberal Democrat support to form a majority government. In the aftermath of the local elections, Starmer failed to rule out striking a pact with the Lib Dems in a hung parliament.
Research and YouGov polling commissioned by Labour Together in the wake of the local elections suggests that Liberal Democrat voters will behave very differently in a general election.
Asked how they would vote in a general election, 23 per cent of Liberal Democrat local election supporters said they would vote Labour, while 9 per cent said they would move to the Conservatives. Forty-four per cent said they would stick with the Liberal Democrats, while 17 per cent said they did not know how they would vote.
Similarly, 14 per cent of those who voted Green this month said they would vote Labour in a general election — though almost as many, 11 per cent, said they would switch to the Conservatives.
Across the whole electorate, 29 per cent said they voted in the locals for the party which “best reflects my values and principles”, but among those who backed the Lib Dems, this figure was 17 per cent. Instead, 21 per cent of Lib Dem voters said they had backed the party that was “best placed to defeat a party I disliked, even though they were not my first choice”. Across the whole electorate, the segment who voted for that reason amounted to 8 per cent.
Labour Together claimed that the survey of Lib Dems meant that in a general election the nine-point projected national vote lead would become a 13-point lead.
It’s not malevolence. They - the ones I’ve met - aren’t thinking that way.
The way they see it, they have an obligation to protect society etc. Technology must follow the law.
It comes from a generalist manager/lawyer view of the world.
I’ve tried convincing such people that there is no such technical solution. Their response is to say I am ignorant - a solution *must* be found.
Isn't the thing they want now client-side monitoring? So that they don't need to try and subvert the encryption, but they have a "bug" in every app. What they don't seem to grasp is once places like the UK make such laws many other countries will follow, afterall the legality and means will have been established. In many countries it won't be scanning images for child exploitation, it will be scanning for dangerous talk, like "democracy", "civil rights", "trade unions", "abortion" and so on.
Labour set to snatch quarter of Lib Dem local vote at general election
Nearly a quarter of Liberal Democrat local election voters will back Labour at the general election, research by a think tank with close ties to Sir Keir Starmer suggests.
Labour Together identified mass tactical voting at the local elections, arguing that it would therefore be “nonsense” for Labour to fear losing votes next year to any party but the Conservatives.
Starmer and his supporters were buoyed by the results of the local elections this month, claiming that their projected national vote share lead of nine percentage points over the Conservatives puts Labour on course for a majority at the general election.
However, the Liberal Democrats also surged, with a projected national vote share of 20 per cent. Some psephologists have argued that this could leave Labour relying on Liberal Democrat support to form a majority government. In the aftermath of the local elections, Starmer failed to rule out striking a pact with the Lib Dems in a hung parliament.
Research and YouGov polling commissioned by Labour Together in the wake of the local elections suggests that Liberal Democrat voters will behave very differently in a general election.
Asked how they would vote in a general election, 23 per cent of Liberal Democrat local election supporters said they would vote Labour, while 9 per cent said they would move to the Conservatives. Forty-four per cent said they would stick with the Liberal Democrats, while 17 per cent said they did not know how they would vote.
Similarly, 14 per cent of those who voted Green this month said they would vote Labour in a general election — though almost as many, 11 per cent, said they would switch to the Conservatives.
Across the whole electorate, 29 per cent said they voted in the locals for the party which “best reflects my values and principles”, but among those who backed the Lib Dems, this figure was 17 per cent. Instead, 21 per cent of Lib Dem voters said they had backed the party that was “best placed to defeat a party I disliked, even though they were not my first choice”. Across the whole electorate, the segment who voted for that reason amounted to 8 per cent.
Labour Together claimed that the survey of Lib Dems meant that in a general election the nine-point projected national vote lead would become a 13-point lead.
This shows the inaccuracy of the claim so easily and lazily made, that Greens are on the left.
I'm not sure it does show that.
The leadership and marketing is definitely left wing. You can find testimonials on their website today from people explaining why they joined the Greens as a credible left alternative to Labour, they identify strongly with the voices and arguments of the left in their messaging and promotion.
What it shows is that a party's voters do not always do what might seem obvious.
On the same basis if you've ever done a count for an AV election you will have found people who voted Labour first and Conservative second, and vice-versa, even when the two sides are at their most bitterly opposed. Does that mean the concept of left vs right is bullshit?
Well, sort of, but more just that the public are a lot fuzzier on the margins.
On topic, more or less: In the US, enterprises such as Twitter and Facebook are legally neither publishers, nor common carriers. If they were publishers, then they would control the content -- and be responsible for it, legally. If they were common carriers, they would not control or be responsible for it.
Now they partially control it, and are partially responsible for the content. Which is unsatisfactory, for many reasons.
But if there is a practical solution to this problem, that preserves freedom of speech, I haven't found it.
Remarkable that we’re expecting around three quarters of a million migrants next year, after 500k this time around, and yet still manage to have labour shortages.
In an intervention that will be seen as a rebuff to cabinet colleagues calling for an easing of visa rules to boost economic growth, the home secretary will say there is no good reason to bring in overseas workers to compensate for shortages in the haulage, butchering or farming industries...
I've been told that the Turkish challenger's last name, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, can be pronounced: Key liege da rogue loo.
Can anyone tell us whether that is roughly correct?
The dot less ı (second and fourth letter) in Turkish is I think pronounced like the vowel in English "the" while ğ is silent, so something like Keugh Leutch da rawlu.
It’s not malevolence. They - the ones I’ve met - aren’t thinking that way.
The way they see it, they have an obligation to protect society etc. Technology must follow the law.
It comes from a generalist manager/lawyer view of the world.
I’ve tried convincing such people that there is no such technical solution. Their response is to say I am ignorant - a solution *must* be found.
Isn't the thing they want now client-side monitoring? So that they don't need to try and subvert the encryption, but they have a "bug" in every app. What they don't seem to grasp is once places like the UK make such laws many other countries will follow, afterall the legality and means will have been established. In many countries it won't be scanning images for child exploitation, it will be scanning for dangerous talk, like "democracy", "civil rights", "trade unions", "abortion" and so on.
How are they going to stop someone using their own XMPP server and an open source client?
Possibly routed via a VPN server, just for added paranoia.
Erdogan is popular in the countryside but is likely to lose badly in the cities, particularly Istanbul where his candidate was hammered in local elections relatively recently. There is a real danger of serious violence if the perception in the cities is that he has stolen this.
I am no fan of Erdogan but if he wins narrowly mainly because of his popularity in rural areas so be it. City voters can't always get their own way as we have discovered here too with Brexit and in 2019 or the US did in 2016
Given that you still call Russia a democracy it is hard to take anything you say about an election like this seriously.
Russia is a democracy, not a perfect one but nonetheless Putin was elected President with 77% of the vote to 12% for the Communist candidate and 6% for the Nationalist LDPR candidate in 2018.
Putin's party was also elected with 51% of the vote in 2021 with 19% for the Communists and 8% for the Social Democrats, 7% for LDPR and 5% for the Liberals in the legislative elections
I am simply amazed that you are willing to take such figures at face value. It’s bizarre.
The odd thing is that Putin would probably still win 45-50% of the vote in a totally free election because his United Russia strongman stuff is popular outside the more liberal big cities.
But, that's not enough for him.
Well, yes, but that's because of his control of the media, which is why I've fruitlessly argued several times that there are more important markers of a democracy than elections - such as the rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc. Of course, if you have all those things then people will tend to demand that they have a say over the government, and you end up with elections anyway, but you can clearly have elections without a free press, for all the good they do in that circumstance.
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
And if it's upheld, good.
The Bar Council is designed to regulate the legal industry
Legal political speech should not be restricted by them. It’s a massive overreach.
The regulator is under a duty, set by the Government, to investigate these complaints. The Bar Council and the SRA (the enforcement arm of the Law Society but they keep that quiet) have always regulated speech that could bring their respective professions into disrepute. It’s in their terms of reference that are agreed with the Ministry of Justice. Practicing lawyers accept this as part of being in a lucrative profession.
I agree with all that
The issue is that it is being used as a partisan weapon against a non Practicing barrister. That politicises regulation in a bad way
Politicians should be opposed politically, not via the pettifogging rule book of some Tufty Club professional body.
If she is accountable to a professional body why shouldn't she be? It should not affect her ability to he Home Secretary even if as a Barrister she faces consequences.
Yes, this can be abused, and we see people for instance using the law as a means of political activisim. But on the other hand some people make the exact same point - oppose people politically not legally - to in effect claim politicians should also be immune from consequence if they commit actual crimes.
They are trying to close down legal free speech by a senior politician with the claim that she is breaching a barrister’s obligation to “conduct themselves in an appropriate manner”.
That’s not what the code of conduct was intended to achieve
As she’s a senior politician, she doesn’t need to be a barrister, so where’s the problem? She can just remove herself from the barrister system.
If she wants to remain a barrister, then she’ll have to juggle being a senior politician and the code of conduct required of barristers.
Of course.
But the idea that a legal political comment should be criticised as “conduct unbecoming” is dangerous territory.
I hope that the Bar Council say it’s not their place to pass judgement on cases like this
There’s no point in a code of conduct if it merely reiterates the law. So of course the code of conduct will forbid things that are legal.
Braverman is the one who wants to be a politician and a barrister at the same time, and Braverman is the one who made comments that were widely criticised across the political spectrum. What’s wrong with Braverman being responsible for her actions?
You’ve ignored my key point.
Conduct unbecoming is an ill defined term that is being used as a political attack against an MP that these individuals disagree with. That’s wrong. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they approve of Braverman or not.
It's up to the professional body to decide whether she's breached their ethical standards. An upheld complaint won't bar her from political office.
The complaint is that her expressed political views are “conduct unbecoming” of a barrister. That’s an attempt to narrow the field of legitimate political discourse by people who disagree with her.
It’s stultifying.
And if it's upheld, good.
The Bar Council is designed to regulate the legal industry
Legal political speech should not be restricted by them. It’s a massive overreach.
The regulator is under a duty, set by the Government, to investigate these complaints. The Bar Council and the SRA (the enforcement arm of the Law Society but they keep that quiet) have always regulated speech that could bring their respective professions into disrepute. It’s in their terms of reference that are agreed with the Ministry of Justice. Practicing lawyers accept this as part of being in a lucrative profession.
I agree with all that
The issue is that it is being used as a partisan weapon against a non Practicing barrister. That politicises regulation in a bad way
The motive of the complainant it irrelevant if it's upheld. In the outcome you might want to consider thanking the civic-minded person who has highlighted the need for corrective action against someone who could find herself back practising in a year or so.
Comments
But, that's not enough for him.
I think there are potentially only 2 people who think Russia is a democracy and that is you and Putin. No scratch that as I'm sure Putin knows it isn't.
Little cash spread out on Erdoğan between 1.4 and 2, which means a bit of opportunity for the fast fingered - in small bites.
Fundamentally this is an attempt by political opponents to increase the cost of an elected politician exercising her right to state a legal opinion.
She’s not broken the law. She’s not done anything wrong. You have the right to disagree (and I personally disagree).
The right outcome here would be for Bar Council to tell the complainants not to be so f*cking stupid. The problem is the rules are there for a reason. If they become used as a partisan weapon then the rules are undermined at a cost to all of us
They had elections... It's just that they didn't mean anything.
They also had a Communist bloc version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which was presumably as much fun as it sounds:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18006446
The ultimate argument is that so long as an election is officially contested, even if it is not in practice, it counts. For some reason.
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1657793059747143683/photo/1
My experience with talking to politicians on the encryption issue is that they believe that all communications and information must be accessible to warranted authorities.
That this is not possible without destroying online data security hits a mind block - the thinking is that technology *must* bend to the law.
The idea that the law could have such a limit is unacceptable to this mindset.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Iraqi_presidential_referendum
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/11/2168364/-Quick-Explainer-Think-highly-of-Ukrainian-Commander-in-Chief-Zaluzhnyi-You-likely-underrate-him
But feel free to invent your own index. I'm sure it will catch on in Russia.
The psychology is rather interesting. There's not a human being on planet earth who would believe such a level of unanimity, and it doesn't make you look more powerful to declare support at 100% rather than 98%, and takes no more effort with that level of make believe (versus the subtler ballot stuffing real elections approach). So what is the purpose of going with 100% or near enough?
It is malevolence...they hate the fact we can say stuff they can't access
*Some loony dictator had a title that literally translated as that.
The way they see it, they have an obligation to protect society etc. Technology must follow the law.
It comes from a generalist manager/lawyer view of the world.
I’ve tried convincing such people that there is no such technical solution. Their response is to say I am ignorant - a solution *must* be found.
I doubt he kept that up though.
Labour set to snatch quarter of Lib Dem local vote at general election
Nearly a quarter of Liberal Democrat local election voters will back Labour at the general election, research by a think tank with close ties to Sir Keir Starmer suggests.
Labour Together identified mass tactical voting at the local elections, arguing that it would therefore be “nonsense” for Labour to fear losing votes next year to any party but the Conservatives.
Starmer and his supporters were buoyed by the results of the local elections this month, claiming that their projected national vote share lead of nine percentage points over the Conservatives puts Labour on course for a majority at the general election.
However, the Liberal Democrats also surged, with a projected national vote share of 20 per cent. Some psephologists have argued that this could leave Labour relying on Liberal Democrat support to form a majority government. In the aftermath of the local elections, Starmer failed to rule out striking a pact with the Lib Dems in a hung parliament.
Research and YouGov polling commissioned by Labour Together in the wake of the local elections suggests that Liberal Democrat voters will behave very differently in a general election.
Asked how they would vote in a general election, 23 per cent of Liberal Democrat local election supporters said they would vote Labour, while 9 per cent said they would move to the Conservatives. Forty-four per cent said they would stick with the Liberal Democrats, while 17 per cent said they did not know how they would vote.
Similarly, 14 per cent of those who voted Green this month said they would vote Labour in a general election — though almost as many, 11 per cent, said they would switch to the Conservatives.
Across the whole electorate, 29 per cent said they voted in the locals for the party which “best reflects my values and principles”, but among those who backed the Lib Dems, this figure was 17 per cent. Instead, 21 per cent of Lib Dem voters said they had backed the party that was “best placed to defeat a party I disliked, even though they were not my first choice”. Across the whole electorate, the segment who voted for that reason amounted to 8 per cent.
Labour Together claimed that the survey of Lib Dems meant that in a general election the nine-point projected national vote lead would become a 13-point lead.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-set-to-snatch-quarter-of-lib-dem-local-vote-at-general-election-tt987lw6p
"On election day, the sale of alcoholic beverages will be prohibited from 6 a.m. until midnight and many entertainment venues will be closed or restricted to solely serving food to patrons. Coffeehouses, teahouses and internet cafes will be closed on election day. Weddings may be held after 6 p.m. on the day. Also of note, schools will be closed on Monday, May 15."
source: https://www.dailysabah.com/life/expat-guide-what-to-know-about-may-14-elections-in-turkiye/news
(The reported level of turnout does not seem implausible to me, especially if Turkey follows Western customs, and makes Sunday a day of rest. According to the source, elections are usually held on Sundays.)
It's ridiculous either way, yet he went for something extreme even for dictators.
The leadership and marketing is definitely left wing. You can find testimonials on their website today from people explaining why they joined the Greens as a credible left alternative to Labour, they identify strongly with the voices and arguments of the left in their messaging and promotion.
What it shows is that a party's voters do not always do what might seem obvious.
On the same basis if you've ever done a count for an AV election you will have found people who voted Labour first and Conservative second, and vice-versa, even when the two sides are at their most bitterly opposed. Does that mean the concept of left vs right is bullshit?
Well, sort of, but more just that the public are a lot fuzzier on the margins.
Can anyone tell us whether that is roughly correct?
Now they partially control it, and are partially responsible for the content. Which is unsatisfactory, for many reasons.
But if there is a practical solution to this problem, that preserves freedom of speech, I haven't found it.
Looks like a run-off is on.
Suella Braverman to rebuff cabinet calls for easing of visa rules
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/suella-braverman-to-rebuff-cabinet-calls-for-easing-of-visa-rules
Thousands of Britons should be trained to drive trucks, work in the meat industry and gather crops rather than filling vacancies with foreign workers, Suella Braverman will tell Conservative activists on Monday.
In an intervention that will be seen as a rebuff to cabinet colleagues calling for an easing of visa rules to boost economic growth, the home secretary will say there is no good reason to bring in overseas workers to compensate for shortages in the haulage, butchering or farming industries...
The wonders of Brexit.
(But not an expert)
Possibly routed via a VPN server, just for added paranoia.
Asking for a friend.
Speaking of which this thread
has done a passable impression of the 74th motorised unit in Bakhmut.
The issue is that it is being used as a partisan weapon against a non Practicing barrister. That politicises regulation in a bad way
In the outcome you might want to consider thanking the civic-minded person who has highlighted the need for corrective action against someone who could find herself back practising in a year or so.