Comment by simonebrunozzi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonebrunozzi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I was going to skip this one, because there's no comments yet.

And I thought that Burkina Faso doesn't deserve my attention.

But then I realized how myopic and sad I was.

So, here it is.

Burkina Faso is a land-locked country in West Africa, above Ghana, a bit West of Nigeria. [0]

As big as Nevada or Colorado (105,900 sq. miles), with 20M people. Or, for us using the metric system, 275,000 sq. km.

Poor as hell. Recent history full of coup d'é·tat, killings, etc.

Internet disruption can mean a lot of nasty things. It includes mobile as well:

> Analysis of Google Transparency metrics corroborates user reports of a mobile internet blackout

We take the internet, and our freedoms, mostly for granted. It's a good thing to remind ourselves that they are not.

I hope that people in Burkina Faso will be ok.

I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso

>"We take the internet, and our freedoms, mostly for granted. It's a good thing to remind ourselves that they are not."

The office of the US President has unchecked authority to shut down the US internet [0]. That that's never happened yet reflects on the discretion of individuals in office (and general historical luck), not on any legal or institutional safeguards.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ("Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")

> That that's never happened yet reflects on the discretion of individuals in office (and general historical luck), not on any legal or institutional safeguards.

I'd say it's a stronger reflection on US culture than on individual presidents. Our legal system exists to manage the details of dispute resolution; it doesn't (and shouldn't!) determine our values.

>Our legal system exists to manage the details of dispute resolution; it doesn't (and shouldn't!) determine our values.

Then what's the deal with morality based laws and policing

Laws are tools we can use to express our values, but the influence should be one-way.

If its one way, then wouldn't that make the law pointless? Which way should it be going?

Law is meant for enforcing a behavior or change in behavior, by its nature its two ways. Law is not artistic expression

Doesn't the US president also have unchecked authority to nuke any place on earth?

That would cause retaliation. Murdering civilians with drones on the other hand is quite popular and widely tolerated (so far).

No. There are other countries with nukes to keep him in check (and vice versa, of course).

In theory he can nuke whoever he wants by issuing an order. If the president decides to say nuke Toronto on a whim, then he can.

There are of course consequences in that the US may then get nuked in retaliation, but that doesn't stop the actual nuking.

Whether in reality, the orders will be followed (initially the secretary of defense, whose job is to authenticate the order came from the president, and then the joint chiefs they orders are relayed to), or if they would be delayed enough to invoke the 25th amendment and remove the president from power, is a matter of speculation.

> Poor as hell.

understated. people can't afford electricity or clothes and their main staple is banana. few go to school. a bicycle is considered a major asset. their options in life are either making enough money to survive, or stealing in order to survive.

Most Burkinabes live on subsistence agriculture, not making or stealing money.

It doesn’t make sense anyhow, like the old myth that Africa is full of beggars. Who are they begging from?

It’s not particularly likely there’s a society consisting of a few rich people who spend their days walking around dispensing money to the beggars who make up the rest. And neither is a society where everyone is doing nothing but stealing money.

> I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence

For some minerals, e.g. cobalt, there's simply no such option. Unless they decide to go with it United Fruit Company/banana republic style, but benevolently. What's worse, a corporation or a military dictatorship?

that's an easy one, military dictatorship is much worse. The last time when companies committed war crimes by themselves, independently of governments, was long ago.

Okay about war crimes, but there are also crimes against (humanity|nature) in the form of oil spills, forced displacements, up to now.

Yes, sure, but this is still not comparable with using weapons of mass destruction. We need to keep in mind though that the reason why corporations are not, say, nuking away their concurrence, is that they are prevented by the states. so its not as easy as "state bad, corporate good", it's rather, "as an unimportant civilian person on this planet right now, i need to be cautious of governments more than corporations"

It’s also at the center of Jihadi activity in Africa and the situation is only getting worse every year.

> I know nothing about geopolitics in Africa, but I'd also wish that a few large companies (e.g. Tesla) would source their minerals from countries that can demonstrate political stability and avoid violence.

I agree with the general idea, but I fear the counter-argument that says that this kind of blockage or boycott make the region even poorer which empowers dictators.

Thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com