Was surfing Westlaw and found the thought below. Remarkable, how little things have actually changed since 1997.
“The question facing Estonia is whether its independence can co-exist with Russian strength. The answer to this question likely depends on Estonia’s reconciling itself to the paradox that, while it can be independent of Russia, it can never be free of Russia. An important step in this reconciliation will be the realization on the part of Estonia that it cannot be restored to its relative ethnic purity of 1940. Rather, Estonia must move beyond ethnic nationalism and pursue a civic-based model of the nation state which will foster a shared identity and loyalty between its ethnic Estonian and ethnic Russian populations. Quite simply, restoration does not require exclusion.”
Source: CREATING THE ETHNIC ELECTORATE THROUGH LEGAL RESTORATIONISM: CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS IN ESTONIA Richard C. Visek, Harvard International Law Journal Spring, 1997
Unfortunately it is not possible to rely only on peasant common sense when thwarting hostile attacks to influence us, because big states use billions for this war without frontiers. Estonia needs an immune system. Our national psychological defence must be constructed to a wide and strong base. Then the external influences and crises will not break our internal connections, society and the state as a whole during bad times. (my translation)
No, this is not a quote from ‘1984′. It is from the speech made on the occasion of the 92nd birthday of the Republic of Estonia by the head of our defence forces. I have never understood why a high-ranking military person should be allowed to make these kind of political speeches at all, but using this kind of Orwellian rhetoric and nobody really caring about it is for me a dangerous sign. Connect it to the recent gaffe by our Minister of Defence who claimed that Estonian independence was a “triumph of national will” which seemed similar to the title of Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will.
Nationalism is dangerous: the national unification function it provides threatens individual liberties, and discourages dissent or unpopular opinions, which in turn makes the society more closed. Do not get me wrong, I consider myself proud to be Estonian, but I do understand that the fact that I was born Estonian is random and does not mean that I am somehow better than someone who was born with a different nationality.
In my opinion our concept of nation state must be reconsidered. It is difficult to justify in today’s world the preservation of the Estonian nation as the primary reason for having the Republic of Estonia. We need a separation of the nation and the state.
I think the Apple iPad will be amazing and that most tech critics just don’t get it, because they are too distant from the needs of the casual users. Therefore I trust Steve Jobs on this rather than anyone else. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong.
Some quotes from the respected tech journalists on Apple devices in the past:
The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things.
(John C. Dvorak on the introduction of the original Apple Macintosh in San Francisco Examiner, 19 February 1984)
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
(Slashdot editor CmdrTaco comments on the release of the iPod, 23 January 2001)
The original iPhone was also almost universally criticised for lack of many features (some of which have appeared in iPhone 3G and 3GS). So with Apple it is best not to listen to the reviews, but try these things out on your own.
Last week, relatively unknown Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton were chosen by the EU’s Heads of State over dinner as the EU’s president and foreign minister, respectively. Or that’s how the media story is spun.
In reality, the media and most commentators have got it wrong. The EU has worked exactly how it is supposed to work, and having flashier or more popular (or populist) persons chosen would have been the exception, not the way things worked out. The fact is that Lisbon treaty did not change all that much, it was evolutinary, rather than revolutionary development. Even when it was still called the Constitutional Treaty, it was never intended to usher in a new era of a different EU. Things that needed fixing were fixed and fine-tuned and the world will not be much different from 1 December 2009. With Lisbon there has been an added layer to the already existing foundation, nothing more.
I think that van Rompuy and Lady Ashton are perfect because they are not so well known. The EU is not about simplistic populist slogans or strong figureheads, but it is about concensus and being able to make the multi-layered and multi-level governance system work. And for that those two are good candidates.
The EU is not, and does not work like a state. That’s why the EU’s “president” (actually the President of the European Council) and “foreign minister” (actually the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) are not like presidents or foreign ministers of countries. It is also why the European Parliament is not like state parliament or why decision-making process is completely different of that of a state. However, this complexity is not easy to explain.
I have already voted at the upcoming local government elections in Estonia, but I have been thinking about my choice (or rather lack of good choices). Here is my take on the Estonian politicial party landscape:
1. Keskerakond (Centre Party): They are dishonest and populist to the extreme. Although they have certain redeeming features in what they want to achieve, I could not vote for them because of how they behave in politics.
2. Reformierakond (Reform Party): I have been disappointed with them in recent years. In their hunt for popularity they have let go of their principles and become more populist than I would have expected. If you have to change your principles in order to get more votes, then what point is there to having power if you cannot do what you would want? They have disappointed me with many things, but mostly with dropping their fight to end compulsory military service. They have changed from a less popular party that got things done to more popular party that gets nothing substantial done.
3. Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (Pro Patria and Res Publica Union): They are simply too conservative, nationalistic and sometimes even fascist to appeal to me. I cannot consider voting for them until they become less radical.
4. Sotsiaaldemokraatlik Partei (Social Democrat Party): They lack consistent ideology that would offer a specific plan for Estonia. They have locked themselves to oppositionary thinking and rather than coming up with new and interesting ideas, they just rehash the same old stuff. They are economically not credible and their leadership is completely uncharismatic.
5. Erakond Eestimaa Rohelised (Greens): It is just a big mess, not a party. They are not organised, which means they will remain marginal. I have severe issues with several people who belong to that party.
6. Rahvaliit (People’s Union): Like Centre Party Light, but with no clout or support. Politically a lame duck, deservedly. Hopefully these elections will end their misery and they will finally disintegrate completely.
I made the choice reluctantly by voting for the party I thought might be least capable of completely screwing up, but for a long time there has not been anyone to really vote for.
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
In the memokraat blog, the Short Guide to Catching Trolls (Lühike trolliküti käsiraamat ehk ettepanekud online diskussioonitehnoloogia arendamiseks Eestis) was posted discussing the issue of trolling at the reader comment sections of Estonian online news media sites. I briefly participated in the debate, but now will provide here an overview of some issues and questions that I have been thinking about since then.
1. Defining the troll. The Guide defines troll as someone who posts insulting comments in an online environment with the purpose of provoking others and disturb the discussion. What constitutes an insult, provocation or disturbance is subjective to a certain level and depends on the cultural and social background of a person. My comments for the Guide as posted in the comment thread could be considered trolling as at least some people thought that part of my arguments were arrogant (when I suggested that people who are so thin-skinned that they could not tolerate hostile commentary should not read it), the style I write and express my opinions is usually a little provocational and some people might think that it disturbed the discussion. Thus in a wide reading of the definition I am a troll and so is nearly anyone who does not conform to a certain subjective criteria defined by the owner of the site. The banning of such trolls as myself results in discussions that are perhaps non-insulting and uncontroversial, but at the same time also rather valueless in terms of expanding the scope of discussion and bringing in alternative views.
2. Defining the problems? The trollhunters claim that the problems are caused by the technology used for commenting at Estonian online news sites. They claim the technology used is to blame for the exclusion of certain other people (who in a bizarre twist are claimed to be unable to freely use their freedom of speech because they are afraid of others also using it but critically), that this leads to radicalisation of public opinion and intolerance and distorts public opinion. All these claims lack evidence, studies or any research: we are expected to accept these premises as self-evident, when they are actually not.
The biggest unsupported assumption the authors of the Guide make* is that the root of all evil is anonymous commenting, which may or may not be the case.
3. Freedom of speech in an online setting. It is true that freedom of speech is not absolute and the exercise of it also requires responsibility for one’s opinions. However, for acts that bring criminal liability there already is a possibility to identify almost anyone online so the anonymity is only superficial. Thus it is possible at least in theory to make people accountable for their words also now.
50 years ago internet did not exist and therefore the human rights standards we have need to be adopted to the internet era. Certain principles remain the same, but the internet might change the content of certain rights subtantially, including freedom of speech. Offline analogies do not always work in the global unregulated internet with low barriers to entry.
4. Self-regulation is not always best when dealing with human rights issues. The trollhunters state that the least they want is state intervention or regulation. They propose a system of self-regulation, whereby the parties who control the commentary space make an agreement which is then adopted and implemented. In my mind it is dangerous when private entities make deals that involve limits to freedom of speech, because questions of accountability and transparency rise. I also believe that this might be even worse than state regulation, because the state is much more bound by international human rights obligations. So in cases that involve human rights I think it is preferential to have state regulation, rather than allow for private parties who control substantial public discussion space to make their own agreements to limit certain aspects of online activities. In many many spheres self-regulation is possible and works very well, but I am not sure if this is it.
—
In general terms there is another fundamental point why I think any regulation of online commentary space is not beneficial. Net neutrality means that content providers should not restrict specific parts of the internet depending on subjective criteria. The internet has flourished partly because of the freedom it provides and the abscence of walled gardens. What the trollhunters want to create is a walled garden, admittedly with very low walls, but still access to commenting would become more limited.
I also disagree that this discussion should be framed in terms of media freedom. Online commentaries do not constitute media or journalism in my opinion, it is a separate issue and therefore references to media and press freedom indexes do not really matter. The public debate in the matter has also included mostly people from the media sphere and not other areas who have framed the debate in their own terms.
Short rebuttal of the trollhunters critique of anonymity online:
1. The whistle-blower effect. The trollhunters claim that an anonymous tip option might be sufficient cannot be accepted because it is media-centric and would require an interested journalist to pursue the topic and lack of self-censorship in the media. Anonymous hints cannot replace anonymous commentary, they are different things. The trollhunters agree that certain levels of anonymity might be necessary for informing the public, I say it is essential.
2. Balance between insulting and constructive comments. This depends on the topic, but in most cases I would say based on my experience that insulting comments do not prevail over more insightful ones. Again, there are no studies made or statistical data available other than Delfi claiming that insulting comments are only a fraction of the total body of comments. Even if the majority of comments would bring nothing to the debate, is it worth not having the few that do?
3. Censorship. The trollhunters here refer to the right of newspaper editors to choose what to publish. The commentary space is not in my understanding part of the newspaper and can function without it. The fact that newspapers have always edited their stories have been due to physical lack of room in the paper and the need to provide a concentrated overview. The internet does not have these physical limits and there is nothing lost with adding to concentrated overviews and officially sanctioned opinions other stuff as well. The claims of this leading to mob censorship are speculation.
4. Impact of insulting anonymous comments. It is true that some people are more sensitive to criticism and insults than others, but again, there is no need to censor everyone because of this. Some views are controversial and people get offended. If I want to claim that there is no god, then this is offends people and I will be branded a troll. I believe that online commentary space must allow for expression of those less conformist views, which are not published by newspapers. I disagree that it is right to take away the freedom of expression from one group for the benefit of another.
5. Strength or importance of message. See above. I still refuse to accept the approach that it is somehow justified to prefer one group of people to another in terms of who may or may not express their views.
6. Vox populi, vox dei. I agree with the trollhunters that there needs to be no correlation between general public opinion and views expressed in comments, but I think it also depends on the topic. Likewise, I have seen no statistics which confirm that people believe that views expressed in online commentaries represent the general views in the society.
7. Video game violence argument. The idea is that people can insult others virtually so they will not do it offline. I think there is no correlation here, but no studies have been provided saying one thing or the other. The anger people have is in my own opinion a consequence, and not a cause of the processes in the society.
8. Moderated comments loses valuable discussion. This is subjective. If in some specialist finance related forum it works and likeminded people can express themselves better and feel good about it then fine. I do not think that discussion space for general public should work the same way (the danger to stifling of dissent and danger of conformism).
9. Too many comments to moderate. I think the notice and take-down system works pretty well.
10. Topic already discussed. Nothing to say here. Everything should be open for discussion.
11. Notice and take-down. Probably the system could be improved, I think it is disproportional to ban all anonymous comments due to imperfections of the notice and take-down system.
12. Turn to police. In case there is no real threat police should not be involved. If a person says to another that go jump off a cliff then this obviously is not a real threat. Again, in those cases where there is real threat police should be involved. It does not mean that all anonymous comments need to be banned because police does not do their work.
13. Economic factor. I am not sure if the commenting option is ecnomically beneficial or not, but of course that should not be the prevailing argument for or against limiting free speech online.
14. Freedom of speech is why comments are kept. Not a convincing argument, I agree. But I do think that once they have been introduced, stopping the ability to comment wold be problematic as it has almost become a service of general public interest.
15. Historical perspectives. There has been no time like this and therefore parallels with the past might or might not provide insight into dealing with the issue at hand.
* As pointed out by Daniel, I have put words in the mouths of the trollhunters that they think that anonymous commenting is the root of all evil. The trollhunter guide does not state this and it was an exaggeration on my part. However, I still think that the general tone of the Guide seems to connect anonymous expression with the existence of insulting and derogatory comments. I guess it would be fair to say that the authors consider it as a not an insignificant part of all evil
Estonian higher education is deeply, systematically flawed. The greatest flaw is not the lack of cooperation among Estonian universities, but rather forced cooperation where competition should be encouraged. Dreams of one and only “Estonian University” or the University of Tartu’s dream of them as the only university in Estonia will end up a nightmare where there are no substantial universities in Estonia at all.
The main problem of Estonian universities is the small pond effect. Universities, and Ministers of Education seem to see only Estonian higher education space, where they should see at least European or global higher education space. Today’s academic world is not constrained by boundaries and the more time we spend closing our higher education space off for foreigners the worse off we will be. If we want our universities to be European class or regional centres of academy we need to do the following things:
1. Forget about Estonian-language higher education: This single biggest thing holding back Estonian universities is the lack of teaching and studying in English. Using English as the only language for studies will be an enormous benefit. Today, Estonian institutions of higher education work against, not towards internationalisation, mostly due to the lack of English language skills of faculty and staff.
2. Stop discriminatory practices in admissions, forget about state exams: SAIS only for Estonians with Estonian ID cards has perhaps made it easier to administer the admissions process, but it has also separated Estonians from other students.
3. Admit the failure of state regulation, give universities their freedom. Forced migration to 3+2 is an ongoing disaster that has resulted in terrible loss of academic quality and competitiveness. The same applies to all state mandated reforms that no one really needs. At the moment Estonian universities are extensions of the Ministry of Education and Research, they are being pushed and pulled by different reforms and practices. Forget about state funded places, forget about state funded research libraries: just give the money to universities so that they can be responsible and choose their own means of providing access to universities for disadvantaged students or decide which books, databases etc to buy.
I think it is worth to try this radical new approach instead of driving off the cliff, but faster.
People tend to think of municipal politicians all over the world as more corrupt and less talented as those governing a state. Tallinn however is in a class of its own. All traditional elements of corruption are present: nepotism, favouritism, special deals with certain businessmen, shady advisors, city officials forced to become members of the ruling party, increasing propaganda-machine to hold power, rigorous court actions to defend against supervision etc. Corruption in Tallinn has become so commonplace that people have ceased to expect more and kind of accepted dishonesty as a part of a political ideology used by the Centre Party. No one in their right mind would tolerate the kind of behaviour exhibited by those governing Tallinn among their friends, or in their workplace.
“They are all the same” is just another way for them to shift blame for corruptive acts to someone else, to the democratic system.
The idea for this blog came, as I took trolleybus no 3 back home from work I saw the new “conductor” the Centrist city government has put to many of the public transport buses, trolleybuses and trams in order to create “social” jobs ahead of the local government elections in October. There is nothing social about these people, to me this particular individual seemed to be bored out of his mind. No-one spoke to him, no-one even looked at him during the 25 minute ride. He strolled back and forth through the trolley-bus (which fortunately was not very crowded), fiddled with his phone and tried hard to look important.
In my opinion these people are not conductors, rather they are people who the city government pays to ride the buses and trolleybuses and trams the whole day. I think that being paid to be a commuter is a horrible job, because commuting already for half and hour is quite difficult task. I probably would not survive the full workday in this meanial, boring job. This reminds me of the film where it showed how Nazis tried to break the will of their prisoners in concentration camps by having them move a pile of rocks back and forth between one place and another. I don’t understand why they don’t just pay these “professional commuters” their small salary and let them do something productive. Or put them all in one bus that takes more diverse, scenic routes and where they could play chess, read books. This saves us, the commuters who are not paid to commute, some space and allows to travel comfortably, without having to tolerate watching a person who is in the brink of being bored to death.
I plan to vote for someone who is sane and sensible in the coming local elections and not for someone who only looks at everything through narrow ideological perpective.
Recent Comments