So much commentary on Trump bans from social media seems to ignore that this is literally the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" exception to freedom of speech.
Of course Twitter and Facebook, as private actors, can do what they want on their platforms without it infringing freedom of speech.
But clearly in their "public square" rhetoric they take the approach of supporting as much speech as possible.
But all but the very fringiest conceptions of free speech have always supported restraints in the event of imminent risk to the safety of individuals.
And Trump has been using his social media accounts to foment a putsch.
Indonesia has a terrible reputation for air safety. Its carriers were banned from Europe from 2007 to 2018 because standards were felt to be so lax.
But why was the ban lifted in 2018? Because standards are now a lot better.
When aviation was deregulated in the late 1990s after the Asian financial crisis and fall of Suharto, a huge number of dodgy small airlines opened, with regulation too lax to handle the vast growth in air traffic.
The result was a series of well-publicized disasters.
Was listening to @WesleyLivesay podcast on the rise of Mussolini while I did some housework.
One really telling thing is how important *impunity* was to the fascists' Proud Boys, the squadristi.
They weren't *that* numerous, but the reluctance of courts and police to punish their violence — even as they aggressively punished defensive counterviolence by socialists and anti-fascists — made it much more powerful.
Mussolini didn't seize power. He was handed power by a King who thought giving the fascists what they wanted when they marched on the capital was a better option than calling a state of siege and letting the influence of the left rise any further.
We all know about how "Advance Australia Fair" was first performed in the middle of a outbreak of race riots, right?
As @LukeLPearson points out here, the cosmetic change of one word is pretty pathetic.
But we've genuinely forgotten the context in which the song was written: an outbreak of anti-Chinese violence in 1870s Sydney, which ultimately led to Federation.
Before 2009 of course the destination of choice for BoP surplus funds was U.S. Treasuries. 2019 clearly does break that trend too at ~0.75% of the BoP surplus going into BRI projects.
But the decline in 2018 was really pretty much in line with the previous decade. In fact a higher share of the surplus went to BRI that year than in 2015, when 4x the dollar amount was invested.
That to me looks like sampling bias of some sort, or maybe survey response changes such as whether you consider making dinner to be "childcare" or not. Perhaps also something to do with the decline of domestic service?
I don't want to look like a feckless parent, but did the average parent in Denmark in 1965 really spend no more than ~10 minutes a day "washing, feeding, preparing food, putting to bed, supervising and playing with children"?