|
Top-level
 @jq @danjac @Gargron How much control over a product depends on the contract set up when an entity buys the product. Apple, Tesla, & Starlink (via SpaceX) retain great control after a client purchases their product. Governments signing those contracts are begrudgingly obliged to follow them or risk losing access to those products & services. It's a classic power move. 3 comments
@danjac @darnell @Gargron It's possible I inadvertently derailed that line of conversation so I'll put it back right now. I'm interested in governments building schools. I'm not interested in governments sanctioning, and supporting, superstition as education. We can fund the building and we can set completely independent educational standards. Funding a building is not a tacit or explicit endorsement of what goes on inside. That's separate. @darnell @danjac @Gargron That why I'm suggesting that we need a world group, or at least a coalition of national governments, who protect (that is their job) against those private abuses. You used Apple as an example, so not to pick on them, but let's go with it. If Apple wants to retain control, backdoors, etc, the controlling entity has a kill switch. Fuck with us, we'll just push the big red button. And we won't let you have so much control that doing so would be catastrophic. Just inconvenient. |
Gregory's Server
@darnell @jq @Gargron right, this is the difference and what I mean by ceding control to the private sector.
It's one thing to hire contractors to build a school. It's quite another to have privately-run (but publicly-funded) schools.