The Dark side of .io TLD(thedarksideof.io) |
The Dark side of .io TLD(thedarksideof.io) |
However there are urban restructuring projects every day in western countries that displace more people without proper compensation than this incident.
And while i understand that some people might feel they've been stripped of their homeland, but considering that the Islands were populated for the 1st time in modern history less than 200 years ago and remained populated for a period of only about a 100 years it's not exactly the strongest backing for a claim to a nation.
> However there are urban restructuring projects every day in western countries that displace more people without proper compensation than this incident.
I suspect it's factually untrue, but I'm more concerned with the moral implication that if we can find a wrong Y that is worse than wrong X, we shouldn't care about X.
There is a legitimate version of the argument, one where we triage resource usage. But our ability to recognize and acknowledge wrongs is not a limited resource. Indeed, this style of argument expends far more energy in denying the recognition of wrongs that it would take to say, "Why yes, that is wrong."
Definitely not "shouldn't care". But you should ask yourself "if there's a ton of materially similar things I'm ok with, why should I feel outraged about this one in particular?"
Sometimes the answer is that you shouldn't feel outraged at all, other times the answer will be that you should be outraged at all similar things. It's only rarely that the outrage should be focused on the one particular incident.
> But our ability to recognize and acknowledge wrongs is not a limited resource.
I just happen to be re-reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow at the moment, so this is very fresh on my mind. In fact, this does seem to be a limited resource, and the bias that overwhelming the resource creates is called the availability bias. Essentially, in cases where the media covers matters of lesser significance while ignoring matters of greater significance predictably leads people to weight the more heavily covered issue more highly despite its relative unimportance.
I don't know about the specific claim by the gp, but in general, I think it's socially useful to point out situations where a less covered related issue is not getting the appropriate amount of attention relative to a particular sensationalized issue in question.
Note: I'm interpreting 'recognize and acknowledge wrongs' as our ability to concert attention and restorative actions toward addressing issues, because this is where the rubber meets the road in addressing wrongs. So I'm responding more to a projection of wpietri's comment that I think is a bit more toward the consequential rather than a strict reading of her/his comment. This is clearly responding to a somewhat different argument than the one wpietri is making, so it shouldn't be construed as an argument against her/his statement so much as an argument inspired by her/his statement.
It doesn't matter if western countries mistreat their people sometimes, that doesn't justify mistreating the Chagossians or anyone else for that matter.
Even if you think 200 years isn't a strong claim to a nation, that doesn't change the fact those people lived there and were forceably removed from the islands.
I'm also curious, what is your cut-off point for a "strong" claim to a nation? 250 years? 500 years? 1 AD?
While there are plenty of arguments on what actually defines a nation from both historic cultural perspectives this one is a far stretch for any acceptable "litmus" test for a nation, even if it's simple because they never had the political legitimacy to being a nation state, not to mention ever had the capabilities of forming one.
Where they've mistreated? yes, do they deserve a compensation? yes, are they a nation? well not really if we are frank about it.
Also, the argument about the late first population is silly. You wouldn't do this to any person. These are people, who's lifes have been ruined, and you can't do that to anybody. No matter if they are indigenous, 2nd generation immigrants, descendants of slave trade, or what ever. You don't do this to any people.
Such as? Most western legal systems require compensation in such cases… at least in theory.
/rant
Certainly internal forced replacement still happens and often has terrible consequences for people but internationally the Chagos situation is pretty unique, and what is especially unique is that something can be done about it.
(Link to a now slightly outdated page on our website on Return 2015 campaign)
If they had their land and own government called Chagos, it seems unlikely they'd have .io.
You don't want to know what happened in the United States... Or everywhere, to that matter.
Admittedly, I am ignorant to many of the TLDs available today... But having primarily dealt with .com and .net TDLs previously (and their <$20USD price tag), is there something else at play when considering the cost/value ratio of an .io domain? Something that would make sense to refer to it as 'being cheap', despite it's costing 100%+ more than a 'traditional' TLD?
I get that 'io' is two letters rather than three and so it's "cool"... And that an io domain has potential for "domain hacks" (I assume they are talking about a neat looking URL, where the 'io' has significance in the brand and URL)... But is 'cheap' accurate?
Just curious - honest question... When I read 'cheap' as one of the primary bullet points (of the few cited bullet points) for the io TLD, I thought "There must be a lot that I don't know about io TLDs - let's ask".
Thanks!
The dark side of .io: How the U.K. is making web domain profits from a shady Cold War land deal https://gigaom.com/2014/06/30/the-dark-side-of-io-how-the-u-...
UK government denies receiving .io domain profits https://gigaom.com/2014/07/11/uk-government-denies-receiving...
However, if you look at the list of .cX TLDs, all possible obvious results are already taken by (alguably) bigger states: Switzerland, Canada, Congo, Colombia and .. well .cs is complicated.
That still leaves room for solutions like .ic (Islands of Chagos), in a similar vein to .im for the Isle of Man, and you could have cool domain hacks like fanf.ic or grabthem.ic.
Or, since Diego Garcia is the largest island, .dg, and cash out from D&G.
This means that UK Chagos Support Association does not have to follow charity law (i.e. be open about their work among other things), have a purpose considered as "charitable" [2], be run my trustees that don't personally benefit and/or be run independently. However, they could still be doing these things but be unable to register as a charity due wanting to do things that are prohibited as a charity e.g. "benefiting interests of a narrow closed group" or "campaigning for a change of government" among others [3]
(Of course it is open to debate whether many actual charities properly fulfil the stated requirements)
[1] http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfC...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-makes-a-char...
[3] https://www.gov.uk/how-to-set-up-a-charity-cc21a#step-1-deci...
And I say that as a .IO owner who was ready to get out my credit card.
Did you read the link?
By using .io TLD, they are submitting to the UK government on what should be theirs. It may be like rebels claiming a territorial independence but then still pay taxes to the government for that particular territory.
Ok I'll admit it, I'm a little lost. What do they mean by this?
The irony of it...holy shit it's painful. And listed supporters all having .io.
If people can't see the near-masterful irony here, you're already lost.
Has someone bought up thedarksideof.ly yet????
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfC...
To answer some of the questions raised about our group, we are not a registered charity. We did attempt to register but were told our aims were too overtly political to qualify as a charity. So yes we are a non-profit, entirely voluntary I should add, we have no paid staff and committee members get nothing for their work.
On where the money goes, its pretty evenly split between supporting Chagossian community projects (including training classes and Chagos Islands football team), supporting impoverished Chagossians in times of hardship and campaigning for Chagossian right to return.
Over the past year we have done a lot on the latter as the previous Government committed to 'resolving the issue,' though then did not do so. This is everything from paying for transport to protests and printing materials to promoted posts of Facebook.
For reasons of scale we haven't in the past arranged to be audited or published full accounts as it just wouldn't have been worth it for the small amount of money and limited donor base we had. As we look to fundraise more online, however, I appreciate it is reassuring to have that bit of extra detail and I think our next AGM will publish much more substantial reports on our income and spending, which we'll be happy to make public.
The point has been made before to me that the Gmail address looks at bit dodgy and transferring it over to the @chagossuport address (which we do actually hold) is certainly on the to-do list.
Hope that's answered some of the, very legitimate, concerns raised. If anyone has any further questions, on this or anything else about the campaign, feel free to ask
To me, that means the "right price" is somewhere in that bounded range and makes eminent domain conflicts amenable to financial analysis.
Luckily, the modern pragmatist is also socially aware.
I've got ci.al (so.ci.al, fa.ci.al, etc), I think, but trying to tell someone that over voice seems... problematic.
Maybe so far out there that Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson are arguing in the other room... but its on the axis somewhere.
The question of "legally" invading someone's house is odd anyway, because legality implies some authority having deemed it appropriate. In the case of a neighbor's house, it is the government of the country containing the house. I can't think of an entity that establishes the "legal" way of creating/invading a country.
Of course this is all messed up. There's no reason a nation shouldn't be considered a nation just because it doesn't have a military.