Let's discuss the section regarding "New Tech Societies [Question Mark?]" (paraphrased).
1. "out of touch with reality"
Do I even need to explain the current failures of State across the entire globe? I'm curious what reality you are touching.
2. "unburdened by bureaucracies and other governmental regulations"
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Does "consensual government," which you subsequently quoted directly, include "regulations"? Is legitimate consensual government not the highest ideal?
If a society lives within a host country and abides by their laws, how in the world is that "colonialism"? I won't insult your intelligence, please don't insult ours. If I have misunderstood anything please correct my error. Do you think this is an acceptable slight to a person acting in good faith who's family emigrated from a former British colony...to another former British colony? I have had the highest regard for UltimateHangout but this is the 2nd or 3rd piece that is very uncharacteristic of what is normally well sourced and clearly articulated writing. The condescending tone with no stake or opinion is unwarranted, in my view.
We should always strive to represent each and every one fairly as we also hope to be treated in kind. Do you think you accomplished this with this piece?
Thank you for your comments: I sincerely appreciate the feedback. I apologize for my late response; I was on vacation for some of this week, and thus didn’t have time to write a response I felt was reasonable.
First, if I may, I would like to clarify something: yes, I am a contributor to Unlimited Hangout! This newsletter (TechXGeopolitics), however, is not Unlimited Hangout and is not attempting to achieve the same thing. Rather, its goal is to be a short-form newsletter, where I can direct readers to my other (often longer-form) reporting, while also highlighting key trends in tech and geopolitics.
I do feel at times that short-form writing like this does not always allow for the same depth and nuance as longer reporting, and as such have considered transitioning into doing less short-form newsletters, and more long-form reporting. I strive towards the highest standards in terms of sourcing and reporting, however, and if it’s felt that this roundup missed the mark, I will do my very best to ensure future editions will be better in terms of overall reporting rigor.
While I cannot answer your other questions in full at this time, what I will say for now is that I can understand your perspective, and you are correct that I could have lended (for example) more credence to why people may be interested in Network States in the first place, or could have otherwise provided more context. I don't mean to come off as condescending to my readership, and regret that I may have done so.
What I believe is worth pointing out, however, is that (often Western-based) attempts to establish Network States and other adjacent projects, like Charter Cities, have often caused a tangible disturbance in the communities (especially in the Global South) where they have been established in practice. The Prospera example and Honduras’ previous legal battles against similar communities, in my opinion, are both representative of this dynamic.
We could ultimately debate whether “colonialism” is a proper term to use to label the relevant phenomenon; I felt it was relevant to highlight that other people have used the term to describe it.
Thanks for your time, and feel free to shoot me an email or message if you have further thoughts. I hope we can discuss these issues, and politics generally, in good faith and with the possibility of disagreement as well. Take care!
Thank you for your response. Upon rereading my comments, it is apparent that I had a combative and harsh tone that I'm not sure is appropriate. Your reply gave me a better understanding of you as an author and the aim of your publication.
To be clear, I became a reader specifically to respond to this article which I stumbled upon by chance, I suppose. I found the structure of your article to be interesting and I look forward to seeing more of your writing. For full transparency, I am associated with the Network State, however, my comments are made in my personal capacity and I receive no material gain from any of the related organizations.
I'm especially thankful for your cordial response because you pointed out something that I agree is of crucial importance. Regardless of cultural differences, it is imperative that we treat our fellow humans with fairness and kindness. I will be emphasizing these moral imperatives in future discussions. I hope we can continue constructive dialogue. Best regards!
The robot suicide sounds like hype to talk as if they're becoming self aware.
Same thing with the "hallucinations" of made up books in the Google bard interview which strangely was left in the pre taped show. You would think they wouldn't show this if it was a bug but it's a feature.
Network states sound like a way for tech to dodge taxes and labor laws. How the heck does international law override local national law?!? Meanwhile in Gaza, it's a genocide disaster and the international law can't do shit?
Let's discuss the section regarding "New Tech Societies [Question Mark?]" (paraphrased).
1. "out of touch with reality"
Do I even need to explain the current failures of State across the entire globe? I'm curious what reality you are touching.
2. "unburdened by bureaucracies and other governmental regulations"
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Does "consensual government," which you subsequently quoted directly, include "regulations"? Is legitimate consensual government not the highest ideal?
3. "crypto colonialism", "academic", "solutionism"
If a society lives within a host country and abides by their laws, how in the world is that "colonialism"? I won't insult your intelligence, please don't insult ours. If I have misunderstood anything please correct my error. Do you think this is an acceptable slight to a person acting in good faith who's family emigrated from a former British colony...to another former British colony? I have had the highest regard for UltimateHangout but this is the 2nd or 3rd piece that is very uncharacteristic of what is normally well sourced and clearly articulated writing. The condescending tone with no stake or opinion is unwarranted, in my view.
We should always strive to represent each and every one fairly as we also hope to be treated in kind. Do you think you accomplished this with this piece?
Thank you for your comments: I sincerely appreciate the feedback. I apologize for my late response; I was on vacation for some of this week, and thus didn’t have time to write a response I felt was reasonable.
First, if I may, I would like to clarify something: yes, I am a contributor to Unlimited Hangout! This newsletter (TechXGeopolitics), however, is not Unlimited Hangout and is not attempting to achieve the same thing. Rather, its goal is to be a short-form newsletter, where I can direct readers to my other (often longer-form) reporting, while also highlighting key trends in tech and geopolitics.
I do feel at times that short-form writing like this does not always allow for the same depth and nuance as longer reporting, and as such have considered transitioning into doing less short-form newsletters, and more long-form reporting. I strive towards the highest standards in terms of sourcing and reporting, however, and if it’s felt that this roundup missed the mark, I will do my very best to ensure future editions will be better in terms of overall reporting rigor.
While I cannot answer your other questions in full at this time, what I will say for now is that I can understand your perspective, and you are correct that I could have lended (for example) more credence to why people may be interested in Network States in the first place, or could have otherwise provided more context. I don't mean to come off as condescending to my readership, and regret that I may have done so.
What I believe is worth pointing out, however, is that (often Western-based) attempts to establish Network States and other adjacent projects, like Charter Cities, have often caused a tangible disturbance in the communities (especially in the Global South) where they have been established in practice. The Prospera example and Honduras’ previous legal battles against similar communities, in my opinion, are both representative of this dynamic.
This article depicts a similar episode in Nigeria, where efforts to establish the Lekki zone have included allegedly displacing a number local communities in the process (https://www.wired.com/story/itana-binance-charter-cities-institute-africa-tech-startup/).
We could ultimately debate whether “colonialism” is a proper term to use to label the relevant phenomenon; I felt it was relevant to highlight that other people have used the term to describe it.
Thanks for your time, and feel free to shoot me an email or message if you have further thoughts. I hope we can discuss these issues, and politics generally, in good faith and with the possibility of disagreement as well. Take care!
Thank you for your response. Upon rereading my comments, it is apparent that I had a combative and harsh tone that I'm not sure is appropriate. Your reply gave me a better understanding of you as an author and the aim of your publication.
To be clear, I became a reader specifically to respond to this article which I stumbled upon by chance, I suppose. I found the structure of your article to be interesting and I look forward to seeing more of your writing. For full transparency, I am associated with the Network State, however, my comments are made in my personal capacity and I receive no material gain from any of the related organizations.
I'm especially thankful for your cordial response because you pointed out something that I agree is of crucial importance. Regardless of cultural differences, it is imperative that we treat our fellow humans with fairness and kindness. I will be emphasizing these moral imperatives in future discussions. I hope we can continue constructive dialogue. Best regards!
Wicked 'network state' roundup. Thanks!
It does seem to have a wicked tone.
The robot suicide sounds like hype to talk as if they're becoming self aware.
Same thing with the "hallucinations" of made up books in the Google bard interview which strangely was left in the pre taped show. You would think they wouldn't show this if it was a bug but it's a feature.
Network states sound like a way for tech to dodge taxes and labor laws. How the heck does international law override local national law?!? Meanwhile in Gaza, it's a genocide disaster and the international law can't do shit?
Right.... Sure.
What is "international law"? In short, it doesn't really exist. I mean no disrespect to anyone here but the author is mistaken.
Perhaps you should read the book. Then you wouldn't make such absurd judgements.