“In the free world, there is no one who can beat the problem of Facebook” – Companies

What is the common denominator between digitization, climate, pandemic and financial markets? It symbolizes the gap between the political questions of our time and the basic political institutions, the sovereign nation-states. Political questions are transnational, even global. There is a structural incompatibility between architecture and the finality of collective action that we know as political decision-making.

Humanity has held 26 global climate summits, but still lacks a sound climate policy. If political actors are unable to meet the political challenges, only two options can be conceivable: either the challenge fails or it is resolved by other actors. In climate policy, there is a noticeable difference between the United States and the state of California, between Australia and the state of South Australia, between Europe and Sweden or Denmark. Individual countries sometimes do better at translating the mix of interests in the energy transition into a win-win scenario than the world at large at the climate summit. The same is true for cities that are actively leading the way with their climate ambitions more than nations, including Belgium.

Then there are the companies. Remarkably, dozens of multinational companies entered into the so-called climate pledge to be climate neutral by 2040, ten years before the Paris climate agreement. in the financial markets, green finance The new heresy. The Glasgow Financial Alliance unites 450 investors with a firepower of $130 trillion, all focused on net zero. I’m not aware of any studies on this topic, but I suspect the business community is more committed to climate solutions than the average citizen. This is part good citizenship as a responsible company, part branding, and part good business. Tesla was forced to switch to electric driving with her own hands. Consequently, battery technology has improved and it is now cheaper for politicians to choose them more easily. Meanwhile, Tesla is worth over $1 trillion.

In the free world, there is no single body that can handle the problem of Facebook.

Innovation will save us, but sometimes it also requires new political action. Which brings me to Facebook, which has nearly 3 billion users worldwide. Who sets and protects the boundaries of interaction, privacy and freedom of expression? Some authoritarian regimes, most notably China, opt for bans or strict censorship. But in the free and democratic world, there is no single body that can deal with the problem of Facebook. Then Facebook itself, where tens of thousands of worker ants control the constant flow of content, along with a combination of self-regulation, public debate and a technocratic oversight board. This dominates the problem to some extent, but it is not a legitimate solution for those who want to uphold the democratic rule of law.

And this is only the beginning. Facebook leads the dance that takes us in virtual reality metaverse You must pull. We will one day live in an alternate digital life, changing the digital self, currencies, possessions, etc. All the problems of the current Facebook will become exponentially greater: it is no longer about language and images, but about behavior and living together, about a different version of the entire physical world. Will we leave this world for corporate self-regulation? Nobody really wants that, it just happens because there is no alternative. The existence of a world government is inconceivable, and so is the global political consensus. But if the world’s free nation-states do not learn how to organize internationally more quickly, we will now face the tipping point when multinational corporations, facilitated by artificial intelligence finally, take over the role of states.

What is the common denominator between digitization, climate, pandemic and financial markets? It symbolizes the gap between the political questions of our time and the basic political institutions, the sovereign nation-states. Political questions are transnational, even global. There is a structural mismatch between the structural and the finality of collective action that we know as political decision-making, humanity has held 26 global climate summits, but it still lacks a sound climate policy. If political actors are unable to meet the political challenges, only two options can be conceivable: either the challenge fails or it is resolved by other actors. In climate policy, there is a noticeable difference between the United States and the state of California, between Australia and the state of South Australia, between Europe and Sweden or Denmark. Individual countries sometimes do better at translating the mix of interests in the energy transition into a win-win scenario than the world at large at the climate summit. The same is true for cities that are actively leading the way with their climate ambitions more than nations, including in Belgium, and then there are businesses. Remarkably, dozens of multinational companies entered into the so-called climate pledge to be climate neutral by 2040, ten years before the Paris climate agreement. Green finance is the new fashion in the financial markets. The Glasgow Financial Alliance unites 450 investors with a firepower of $130 trillion, all focused on net zero. I’m not aware of any studies on this topic, but I suspect the business community is more committed to climate solutions than the average citizen. This is part good citizenship as a responsible company, part branding, and part good business. Tesla was forced to switch to electric driving with her own hands. Consequently, battery technology has improved and it is now cheaper for politicians to choose them more easily. Meanwhile, Tesla is worth over $1 trillion. Innovation will save us, but sometimes it also requires new political action. Which brings me to Facebook, which has nearly 3 billion users worldwide. Who sets and protects the boundaries of interaction, privacy and freedom of expression? Some authoritarian regimes, most notably China, opt for bans or strict censorship. But in the free and democratic world, there is no single body that can deal with the problem of Facebook. Then Facebook itself, where tens of thousands of worker ants control the constant flow of content, along with a combination of self-regulation, public debate and a technocratic oversight board. This dominates the problem to some extent, but it is not a legitimate solution for those who want to preserve the democratic rule of law, and this is only the beginning. Facebook is leading the jig that should draw us into the virtual metaverse. We will one day live in an alternate digital life, changing the digital self, currencies, possessions, etc. All the problems of the current Facebook will become exponentially greater: it is no longer about language and images, but about behavior and living together, about a different version of the entire physical world. Will we leave this world for corporate self-regulation? Nobody really wants that, it just happens because there is no alternative. The existence of a world government is inconceivable, and so is the global political consensus. But if the world’s free nation-states do not learn how to organize internationally more quickly, we will now face the tipping point when multinational corporations, facilitated by artificial intelligence finally, take over the role of states.