Autocracy, Inc by Anne Applebaum

Gone are the days when a charismatic person full of rhetoric was able to usurp the power, and maintain it with an iron hand.

The latest form of autocracy has become decentralized in a true sense. Which means that all the autocrats that we see around are not in their position because they persuaded a larger population to follow their lead. Today, it is more complex with financial structures, state power, and propaganda machinery keep them where they are. This brings a longevity not because they are more stable but there are many more vested interests in keeping them in power. Which leads to a crackdown on free speech,  systemic graft, and a class of people who thrive in the proximity of such an eco system.

But what is the legacy of such systems/people? Most likely this is not the case of leaving a legacy. This is the lunacy of coming and staying in power for now, and as long as possible without giving any thought to the consequences or the legacy that it is leaving. The decentralization helps a lot with only one face in public and everything else hiding behind that. So, even if it ends, it is difficult to trace the connection between the systems, and bring them to justice. Once, it is over, the whole machinery moves on to building a new eco system to keep it working.

The face always stay in public domain as long as it can be kept. But only the power of people can depose this. But this leaves a vacuum for the others to fill that gap which is where it is important to keep a check on who replaces it.

Peace

Exponential by Azeem Azhar

The technology around us is growing so fast, and it is getting more and more complicated. This novelty of usage and implementation leads to a lot of void between the tow groups - the one who create this, and the one who need to find a way to regulate it.

There is no doubt that the regulation has been lacking in understanding of how to fill this gap. This is not an easy question specially when it requires two disjointed set of people to come and discuss in one language. This gap in communication has created a lot of loopholes and distrust.

What is important is that we understand and assign the liability or any new tech without limiting the functioning and scope of innovation. And this should come from both sides. Of course, tech can keep innovating new things but they should also need to understand that when this tech is released in a public domain, the safeguards are in place to avoid any misuse of it. Novelty makes it a bit difficult to put these checks in place but that can't be the reason to let the things growing unchecked.

Of course, a lot of the arguments go into a direction of potential stifling the freedom to build and choose but this is where a positive discussions and policies play an important role.

Peace