Notices by Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca), page 4

@mcc do you use the bridge?

@cwebber I also don't share your optimism about cross-pollination. There's a reason that W3C specifications have to only have normative dependencies on specs from recognized standards bodies. Too many minefields unless you have a clear license.

I'm glad that @bnewbold is in the SocialCG and I hope we can find some opportunities to publish reports with some or all parts of the AT Proto stack.

@cwebber omg, I skipped all the way to the end and OBVIOUSLY you look at this situation from every conceivable angle, including governance, because it wouldn't be a Christine Lemmer-Webber post without it.

I appreciate the depth of analysis. I do still think that Bluesky should make a donation to Spritely if @bnewbold asked you to make a 25-page report, though.

@chad @cira @erin @spencer @Paulatics so sorry to hear it!

@trochee I don't know if the kid has seen the Big Leboo, but there's a scene where this quote is used.

It's funny because he pronounces it all Daniel Boone style, "b'ar", but they are actually sitting at a bar in a bowling alley so maybe it's a double entendre.

https://youtu.be/aPVLyB0Yc6I?si=8gQQSsMnmIU5QCbw

@trochee this is such a weird thread. 👋🏼 to the kiddo.

@BrianJohnson that's a governance issue, right? I mean, how do we make *any* collective decisions without someone hijacking them?

I think some techniques are: start with multilateral decision-making structures, add checks and balances, and have external auditing processes that demand transparency and detect abuse.

@cwebber @bnewbold I hope Bluesky Inc. made a big donation to the Spritely Institute for this huge amount of work you did.

@cwebber @bnewbold

Hey, Christine.

Did you consider that it's in Brian's and Bluesky's interest to position the difference between ActivityPub and AT Proto as one of technology and not of governance?

Also, did you think about getting your hands dirty with a proprietary protocol that has no patent or other licensing grants?

I intentionally have not done either of these things. I think Brian encouraged you to do this for his and Bluesky's own benefit.

@mighty_orbot LOL! Touché. Very fair point. Yes, I agree.

Thanks for all the replies.

I am somewhat positive. I find them interesting, but I don't think they live up to their reputation of having quasi-mystical accuracy.

I guess I'd like to have a government that at least considers questions of crimes against humanity and war crimes worthy of serious discussion. This isn't a slanderous rumour from 4chan; it's an indictment from the International Criminal Court.

@levjoy Like, why are the warrants "outrageous"? Because the allegations are so obviously untrue, and that they are clearly motivated by some other reason than enforcing international law? Then say that. Or because the ICC only applies to member countries, and the membership of the State of Palestine, a state that the US does not recognize, is insufficient to justify indictments over crimes committed in territory putatively governed by that state? Then say *that*.

@levjoy I think questions of crimes against humanity and war crimes are some of the most serious issues that human beings can discuss. Using this indirect and evasive language in that context is really unsettling. It seems like a topic on which one should speak as plainly and directly as possible.

"The crimes alleged in this warrant are very serious; the United States will not tolerate crimes against humanity or war crimes anywhere in the world. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the ICC do not provide such evidence that the actions of Messrs. Gallant and Netanyahu have been anything but well inside the bounds of international law."

@alisonw I agree with you; I think the huge amount of evidence puts it at least within the realm of possibility that Israel has violated international law.

I think that a statement by a government that thinks Israel has *not* violated international law should probably include that opinion somewhere in the text. If they don't include that, it really seems like the US government thinks the actions outlined were true and that they violate norms.

@levjoy I mean, it's kind of damning that the only thing has to say about the warrants is that they were issued at the same time as the one for Mohammed Deif. Is there really nothing else wrong with the warrants? It feels like a tacit admission that the allegations are at least credible, if not proven true.

"We call on all nations of the world to ignore the warrants against Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mister Gallant, and to overhaul the structure of the ICC to prevent this sort of overreach again."

"International law sets limits on acceptable military action. Israel's leaders have complied with international law and should not be subject to warrants. The overreach of the Court in this matter shows the grave danger of political courts, which is one of the reason the United States is not a party to the ICC.

I do not feel reassured by these words. I wish it said something like this:

"The allegations of the International Criminal Court are untrue. The actions of these leaders do not meet international or US standards for crimes against humanity or war crimes. Regrettably, democratically-elected leaders sometimes need to take military action to defend their nations.