BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unsurprisingly, having originated in America and Europe, the internet brings with it a host of weste...

Unsurprisingly, having originated in America and Europe, the internet brings with it a host of western firms, either interacting directly with people and governments as in the case of Google or Yahoo, or investing in home-grown technology firms, for example through joint ventures in China. In the same way as the education of members of the Chinese elite at US business schools like Harvard and Stanford will likely lead to more liberal policies imposed from the top, the interaction with Western businesses required by the internet will bring about an exchange of values. Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. Similarly, the listing of ICBC on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock exchanges, which brought about large-scale personal share ownership and hence a stake in companies, is a product of the information age.
The internet allows access not just to free information in general, but to the specific types of inf...

People do not use the internet for the laudable aims of free access to information which would highlight the problems with their governments in the way that the proposition would like everyone to believe. As the song from the famous musical ‘Avenue Q’ says, “The Internet is for Porn”. Over 500m of the sites in the indexes of the major search engines are pornographic, the majority of internet bandwidth usage is for the downloading of porn. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, initially made his money by setting up an adult search engine. Even Rob Deibert, the founder of the ‘Siphon’ tool to evade the eyes of anti-democratic states admits that the majority of usage of his software is for accessing porn under the net of state control. This is symptomatic of the behaviour of internet users who use the web not to subvert governments or spread democratic messages, but rather to post amusing videos on YouTube and stay within their own comfort zones. Five of the twenty most visited websites on the internet are for illegal file downloads, porn, videos and online games. The internet maybe a great source of fun, but it isn’t a source of democracy.
The internet allows access not just to free information in general, but to the specific types of inf...

The internet allows access not just to free information in general, but to the specific types of information that are likely to help the development of democracy. ‘Push’ factors include information about human rights abuses from independent organisations such as Human Rights Watch which would otherwise be suppressed by the government. Knowledge about the problems in governance experienced by other authoritarian regimes can also encourage citizens to action, for example the way the Orange Revolution in Ukraine stimulated similar popular movements in Kyrgyzstan and Georgia. ‘Pull’ factors include the proliferation of advertising for Western consumer goods, which are often not available in left-wing repressive regimes, or information about religious freedoms that are not available in some authoritarian states. Above all, the internet provides the kind of information which promotes political consciousness that has been systematically erased from libraries, newspapers and the broadcast media in these countries. For example, articles about political parties, parliaments, policy disputes, blogs about how political disagreements can be settled in a legislative sphere, or campaigns about mistreatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay. Governments can effectively wipe this out of the domestic media, but the internet is saturated with such information.
The single greatest force behind the spread of democracy is the free flow of information, exactly th...

Internet access around the world, whilst growing, is not enough for the internet to act as a force for democracy. In May 2007 there were 1.1bn internet users worldwide, but nearly 600m of them are in liberal, already democratic countries in Western Europe, America and Oceania. In the Middle East, where regimes such as Syria keep power by heavily regulating the availability of information from outside the country, there are less than 20m users, and there are only 30m users in the whole of Africa (less than 4% of the population). In short, there isn’t a sufficiently high level of internet penetration in non-democratic countries for it to allow change. Further, the numbers of people in anti-democratic states who actually get access to information which might encourage democracy by evading state controls is incredibly small. Users of the ‘Siphon’ tool which allows web users in mainland China to evade state controls number only in the tens of thousands, a tiny proportion of overall usage.
The single greatest force behind the spread of democracy is the free flow of information, exactly th...

The single greatest force behind the spread of democracy is the free flow of information, exactly the argument presented by those who dislike sanctions. Wikipedia allows people in non-democratic regimes to find out information their government wishes to keep from them. Google allows the searching of the entire web rather than just a restricted portion. RSS feeds allow news from unfiltered sources to be streamed around the world. All of these factors increase the free flow of information into a country, making it harder for the regimes to suppress information and forging a sense of independence and participation among populations. The internet also allows information to flow the other way, with blogs providing information on what is happening inside regimes such as Zimbabwe which ban the presence of independent, Western media outlets. As soon as 1 million people in a country have access to free and fair information about their regime from multiple sources, it becomes impossible for the regime to continue to suppress that information and so the internet has helped fringe democracies to reach a ‘tipping point’ in the spread of information.
It is true that in much of the world diseases such as Cholera and HIV are the major killers, but the...

The world’s attention seems to now be focussed on the internet as an agent of democratisation. This has resulted in the dangerous mis-allocation of resources. Does the developing world really need another 100,000 Geocities homepages hosting the Dancing Hamster or Youtube videos of cats flushing toilets? Ten countries are set to invest funds running into millions of USD in buying $100 laptops for schoolchildren and setting up an internet backbone. Countries like Rwanda, Libya and Cambodia could instead be spending this money on post-conflict resolution to create a stable base for democracy, or on increasing education levels which could create a middle-class to support democracy.\ The other side of the misallocation is that the spread of the internet and of censorship is that it is no longer judges which make censorship decisions, but rather technicians on the ground. Indirectly, the effect of the internet and its inevitable regulation is to take power away from the judiciaries which form the only check on anti-democratic governments, and put it into the hands of technicians at the low levels of the apparatus.
It is true that in much of the world diseases such as Cholera and HIV are the major killers, but the...

It is true that in much of the world diseases such as Cholera and HIV are the major killers, but these are not the crunch points in a debate about the role of the internet. The key countries are those on the fringe of democratisation where governments keep power by satisfying citizens who know no better and where levels of active repression are tacit and relatively low. In these countries, substantial development in the internet infrastructure leaves the government unable to keep up until they eventually realise that they are fighting a losing battle and stop censoring online material. Some of the top cyber-criminals in the world are turning their attention from breaking the codes which copy-protect DVDs to undermining the Great Firewall of China instead.\ Similarly, the One Laptop Per Child program promises to create wireless networks which will allow children in different areas to interact, broadening understanding, but also taking education beyond the limitations of old textbooks. The internet is a key facilitator of education in these countries and it is the creation of an educated middle class which is seen as the key to an inevitable transition to democracy.
The internet widens the array of tools available to those who seek to subvert oppressive regimes. T...

Not only is the internet not a force for democracy, it can also be used as a tool to repress democracy by anti-democratic states. The internet makes it much easier for states to target and locate dissidents, as shown by the large number of bloggers from Egypt and Syria who have been arrested over the past two years, located by their IP addresses or records kept by internet cafes. Before the internet, dissidents were able to escape the surveillance of the state, but now as soon as they log on they can be tracked down and arrested, be it in internet cafes in Belarus or by tracking VOIP calls in the Middle East.\ The power of the internet in the hands of the state is not just obvious in targeting dissidents, but also in how these states filter and skew the content available. 25 countries in the world actively censor the internet as of May 2007, giving their governments a false legitimacy by removing material critical of anti-democratic policies and so acting as a psychological bulwark against discontent and dissent.
The internet widens the array of tools available to those who seek to subvert oppressive regimes. T...

The internet widens the array of tools available to those who seek to subvert oppressive regimes. The Burmese PDP have used the internet extensively outside Burma to provide information informing non-Burmese about the military junta and to coordinate actions of activists. Internally, whilst once dissidents were reduced to scrawling graffiti on walls or publishing pamphlets in underground print shops, now entire sets of documents can be made available online to a much wider audience at the touch of a button. The internet has also decreased the cost of being such a dissident, leading to a younger, wider group of people in Taiwan being involved in illegal link-ups with teenagers on the Chinese mainland over the web. Any individual with a mobile phone or access to an internet connection can simply evade filtering controls put in place, using tools like ‘Siphon’, unblocked proxies or mirror sites which guarantee unfettered access. The sheer number of dissidents and the fact that they leave few electronic traces makes them harder to trace and spreads dissidence from the hardened few to the many, a key step in the process of democratization.
Economic. The sheer size and financial power of Hollywood’s major studios allows them to dominate f...

Economic. The sheer size and financial power of Hollywood’s major studios allows them to dominate foreign cinemas at the expense of domestic industries which cannot compete with them. This is achieved through big budgets associated with very expensive special effects, huge salaries for star actors from around the world, who may be lost to their own film industry as a result, and immense marketing budgets. Hollywood has also lobbied the US very effectively over decades to ensure cultural exports are classed as just another form of trade in international agreements, and to help it gain control over distribution networks abroad.
Artistic. Hollywood films are poor, lowest-common denominator pulp, relying on special effects and ...

Hollywood movies are internationally successful because they are popular. Films made in Hollywood can be rubbish, but they can also be terrific – as can films made anywhere else in the world. In any case, it is elitist to condemn films made purely for lightweight escapism for lack of “artistic credibility”. If the public wanted “artistic credibility” it would be profitable and be provided by the studios.
Moral. Hollywood films glorify sex and violence, attacking the moral values of all societies and le...

Again,not all Hollywood movies are the same – some are pornographic or gratuitously violent, but this is true of cinema elsewhere too. Taken as a whole, Hollywood movies actually tend to promote liberal values of universal significance, e.g. women’s rights, the evils of tyranny, the independent worth of each human life, and the possibilities of individual success through hard work. It is hardly surprising that those countries which most wish to ban American films are those who least value these values, e.g. China.
Cultural. Hollywood imposes American entertainment and its language on the world, at the expense of...

Hollywood’s success does not mean failure for domestic film industries elsewhere in the world, e.g. India’s hugely successful Bollywood, and the recently thriving French, Spanish, Iranian and Chinese-language cinema. Instead the attraction of Hollywood movies may help to create an infrastructure of cinemas and marketing methods, as well as a film-going public eager for a more varied diet of entertainment, stimulating the development of thriving indigenous film studios.
Political. Hollywood promotes a biased and peculiarly American view of the world. Hollywood portra...

Hollywood is far from typically or monolithically American, instead its concentration of creative resources have made it an international centre for the production of entertainment. Many of its most successful producers, directors and stars have in fact been foreigners, coming to the USA either as refugees or because they sought the international audience which Hollywood can provide. Recently cross-fertilisation has taken place, with acclaimed directors from a variety of non-English language film cultures bringing new perspectives to Hollywood at the same time as creating internationally successful hit movies.
Economic. The sheer size and financial power of Hollywood’s major studios allows them to dominate f...

If money guaranteed success then small-budget 'foreign' films such as “The Full Monty” would never become international hits, and expensive monsters such as “Waterworld” would always succeed. Similarly, the French government has been throwing money at its domestic film industry for years, yet the market share of American films in France has continued to rise. In any case, most of the major studios in Hollywood are, of have recently been, owned by non-American companies.
Political. Hollywood promotes a biased and peculiarly American view of the world. Hollywood portra...

Political. Hollywood promotes a biased and peculiarly American view of the world. Hollywood portrays a simplistic good vs. evil view of international conflicts, in which stereotyped and negative images of Muslims, Russians, South Americans, etc. are presented as the enemies of freedom and progress. Hollywood even distorts history, with numerous second-world war films downplaying the contribution of other nations to allied victory, and anachronistic innovations in period drama designed to show Americans in a favourable light.
The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive subs...

Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Instead monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits.
The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive subs...

The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. Security costs are also very high.
Royal families have become national embarrassments. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longe...

Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).
Royal families have become national embarrassments. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longe...

Royal families have become national embarrassments. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned. How many people travelling abroad like to find their Head of State, and by extension their whole country, is a source of much amusement to foreigners?
Monarchs no longer have divine right to rule. For centuries the main justification of royal authori...

Monarchy can lead public opinion. Although above party politics, modern monarchs have proved able to raise important and sometimes unpopular issues that would otherwise have been ignored. For example, in the U.K. Prince Charles has legitimised discussion of environmental issues and stimulated a lively debate about the purpose of architecture, while Princess Diana’s work with Aids sufferers helped shift public opinion.
Monarchs no longer have divine right to rule. For centuries the main justification of royal authori...

Monarchs no longer have divine right to rule. For centuries the main justification of royal authority was a religious one. Catholic rulers had their legitimacy supported by the Papacy, Protestants rulers often headed their own state churches; in both the monarch’s rightful authority was preached in church every Sunday, while the ruler in turn protected a single national church. Today societies are increasingly multi-faith and many people have no religion at all; hardly anyone believes the monarch has a spiritual right to exercise authority. Indeed, those whose religion differs from that of the monarch (often ethnic minorities) may be actively alienated by the way in which a particular faith seems to be privileged.
The concept of monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers (a...

Constitutional monarchy is a very effective political system. A hereditary Head of State acts as an important element of continuity within a democratic system. The real powers (as opposed to purely theoretical ones – no British ruler has actually vetoed an Act of Parliament since c1720) of European monarchs are negligible. But as unelected figures above the political conflicts of the day, they retain an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity (very important in Belgium, for example). In Britain their right “to advise, encourage and warn” the Prime Minister of the day has acted as a check against overly radical policies, in Spain King Juan Carlos actually faced down a military coup in the 1980s.
The concept of monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers (a...

The concept of monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers (as they do in Belgium and the U.K. for example) these are unjustifiable. Why should the opinion of just one person, in office purely by accident of birth, be able to influence the outcome of elections (e.g. in the U.K. if no party has an overall majority in parliament) or of political decision-making (e.g. the U.K. and Belgium again, where the monarch has to sign legislation before it becomes law)? Monarchy may also be used to prop up other unjustifiable elements within the constitution, e.g. the House of Lords in the U.K.
The concept of monarchy is also inegalitarian. Even if the monarchy retains little or no political ...

Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing.
The concept of monarchy is also inegalitarian. Even if the monarchy retains little or no political ...

The concept of monarchy is also inegalitarian. Even if the monarchy retains little or no political power, its presence sustains the traditional class system, sending out a message that who you are born matters more than what you make of yourself. This can stifle aspirations and lead to a culture of deference, where entrepreneurialism and individual ability are not valued. A system of royal honours may be used to tie achievers into the traditional social structures, making radical social and political change less possible.
Intercept evidence is often not decisive to a case, but it is very useful for showing associations b...

There are serious problems with the quality of intercept evidence. Whilst it is good at showing links between people, it is bad at proving that they are actually doing anything, which is why intercepts make good intelligence but bad evidence. Further, because of this, the vast majority of intercept material could only be corroborative, supporting other evidence but not by itself leading to a conviction. However, its presence would most likely cause more cases to be brought to trial and more trials to collapse as a result. Wiretap evidence is not in the same league as DNA evidence but rather heavily open to interpretation by the jury and so requires extensive cross-examination. Voice analysis techniques can only provide a percentage matching probability. The problems of video intercept evidence were shown by the video which purported to show Morgan Tsvangirai, the Zimbabwean opposition leader conspiring against the government, when in fact he was somewhere else at the time. The problem of intercept evidence is not just that it is bad, but that it will breed over-reliance by prosecutors, ultimately leading to more cases collapsing and verdicts being overturned in the long-run.
Claims about the revelation of intelligence-gathering capabilities due to open trials and the Europe...

A blanket prohibition on wiretap evidence would be useful because it removes problems created in disclosure rules by the current ambiguity. Under the ECHR the defence team can ask for all evidence collected by the prosecution to be disclosed, whether or not it is presented to the court. This either means that sensitive information will definitely be revealed to terrorist and organised crime suspects (not what we want if they then go free), or that the intelligence services, knowing this, will deliberately withhold information, including information which would help the defence. A blanket prohibition would prevent power in the justice system from being held by unaccountable, secretive spies.