graenxa

I am tempted by this more and more.

I'd be curious to hear from anyone who's tried it

This is such a strange sentiment. Do you ever hear people talk about states this way. Is New York, West Virginia, or Washington ever "not responsible enough" to have control over their roads, electricity, or water supply? Is any country every said to be "not responsible enough."

But this sentiment comes up quite frequently in regards to Puerto Rico.

I live in Illinois. The budget/financial situation is a mess. People may have opinions about what went wrong. They might say "Illinois really needs to do X." But to my knowledge no one is seriously calling for a national intervention or strong-arming Illinois into privatization.

Can you elaborate on why you think the people of Puerto Rico are not to to be trusted taking care of their home?

I have no faith that those people would respect my rights of free speech at all. It is explicitly not part of their ideology.

In my view, believing that if you defend free speech hard enough the forces of fascism and hate will become interested in "hearing all perspectives" is incredibly naive.

To be clear, I do not think it should be illegal or impossible to express hateful views. I don't think there needs to be some effort to block their forking of Mastedon (if it were even possible).

I think it _is_ wrong to celebrate a company which trades in hate and has provided a platform for radicalization which has contributed to at least two major terrorist attacks.

I take issue with the sentiment that it is somehow good they are

> "standing up to their principles of being a truly free speech social network"

It's not true that they are a "free speech social network," they are a platform deliberately cultivating hate. And I think it's wrong to give anyone working to promote hate a pat on the back.

Don't hold up Gab as some free speech hero, you're just playing into their narrative.

Gab is not a free speech social network. Gab is a white supremacy social network. Gab has actively courted white supramcists[0], white supremacists make up the vast majority of their userbase[1].

I understand and respect your deep support of free speech. But please, take a step back here and think about what you are saying you are glad about.

Are you really glad a group of people decided to roll up their sleeves and build a platform for white supremacists? Is that really an admirable use of someone's time, energy, and expertise?

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech/gab-anti-semitic-speech-...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon...

I agree with you that there is room for nuance. I do not think the government should be all consuming.

Most of the topics listed in the blog post fall under social safety net.

"...a lack of government commitment to provide equal access to the basic services families need to thrive. These services include access to quality education, affordable housing/healthcare/food, physical safety, accurate news and information, a social safety net, and a livable environment.

We believe that a new generation of technology startups are emerging who will start to address these needs"

They explicitly state they are looking for startups to address social safety net needs. That is what I am criticizing.

That "something" is varies widely by party.

Who needs public services when you can have private for-profit start-ups?

I'm sure the new startups will always prioritize serving the citizens over making money. After all, that's what private for-profit organizations have a long track record of doing.

In seriousness: I'm sure the listed start ups do good work. There are ways tech can help government and people.

Government 2.0 is awful branding. The idea that you can "upgrade" our government with a handful of private companies is downright anti-democratic. How about instead of trying to replace the existing government with private organizations answerable to a few very rich individuals, you work with existing democratic structures and try to improve them.

CCL https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ in the US is working towards something, albeit in a mild and incremental way.

They're pushing a carbon tax policy in the house right now https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbo.... It's a little silly since it seems like there's little appetite for a bill like this with conservatives. I still think it's important to try.

I'd say there's a lot of opportunity to do things on a state or local level. Reducing your state's carbon emissions has a real impact. Push for renewable energy sources. Fight to make the process of rezoning for higher density housing easier in your community and improve public transit.

> it seems climate change is well on its way to being solved

This is laughable untrue.

EMISSIONS may have peaked (I'm not certain that's the case long-term), there's still plenty of carbon in the atmosphere and continuing to be added. The effects of carbon emissions will continue to compound on themselves[0]. We are still well on our way to >2 degree global warming where island nations will be eaten up by the sea, we will struggle to produce food for the population. Much of earth will become unlivable[1].

The effects of carbon emissions on global climate are not linear. They're exponential. Once the changes start they are impossible to stop.

If you think we've got climate change figured out, I really encourage you to read into the subject a little more. It's incredibly serious. We have already started seeing the effects. It's not too late to do something about it, but sitting back and assuming someone else has it figured out it fantastically irresponsible right now.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-c... [1] - http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-...

I apologize for my hostile tone before, I think you and I are on the same page. There does seem to be a lot of hand wringing about the ways thing are changing and little direction on what to do about it.

I think you're right, the question now is do we learn from how it's changed and how we're changing it?

Do we continue to make the planet an ever more unlivable hell-hole because "the world is a dynamic system."

Or do we look at what's happening, learn from it, and try to prevent things from getting worse.

They eat vegetables instead. What are you getting at?