BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Second dimension of power

Bachrach and Baratz include the “confining the scope of decision-making to relatively ‘safe’ issues” [[Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, ‘Two Faces of power’, The American Political Science Review, Vol.56, No.4, (Dec., 1962), pp.947-952, p.948.]] as being an exercise of power. Basically they include agenda setting as a form of power as well as directly influencing a decision. “To the extent that a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power.”[[ibid, p.949.]] The example of Mr Yan could also illustrate this as the communist party is consciously trying to keep critiques of China’s “Dickensian capitalism” from being aired or discussed.[[economist, cyber-talk, p.27.]] Or more generally China’s attempt to control the Internet is to prevent democracy getting onto the agenda. For Dahl to define a key political issue it would be “A necessary although possibly not sufficient condition that the issue should involve actual disagreement in preferences among two or more groups.”[[Dahl, Robert A., ‘A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model’, The American Political Science Review, Vol.52, No.2, (Jun., 1958), pp.463-469., p.467.]] However for Bachrach and Baratz this is an insufficient definition because groups can disagree on unimportant as well as important issues.[[Bachrach & Baratz, Two, p.950]] In their view an important issue would be any challenge to the predominant values,[[ibid, p.950.]] these would be precisely the issues that the dominant actor would be keeping off the agenda.
Redefining the three dimensions of power

Digiser’s fourth face(see the no points below) probably links in better with Hay’s two conceptions of power, rather than being added onto Lukes 3rd face. The slow shaping of a norm is a long term version of context-shaping, it changes the environment, the rules and norms around us, this is the context of the decision. This would move the number of faces of power back up to three.
Redefining the three dimensions of power

Hay suggests that Lukes problems with the third face of power stem from “his attempt to revise and modify rather than reject and replace the behavioural and actor centred definition of power” [[Colin Hay, Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2002 p.184.]] therefore Hay wishes to redefine the faces of power controversy. Hay wishes to have a positive power, power of rather than power over.[[ibid, p.185.]] Hay’ redefinition of power reduces power to having two “different conceptions of power” effectively two faces by merging the second face into both the first and third faces. Direct power, power as conduct-shaping, is when “A gets B to do something that s/he would not otherwise do” this power is “immediate, visible and behavioural”.[[ibid, p.186.]] This would include the first face of power but would also include confining issues to safe issues therefore the second face’s agenda setting. So this would be, as with the first face, the suppression of students in Tiananmen Square, but also Deng Xiaoping’s hope that concentrating on an economic miracle would keep democratic rights off the agenda preserving communist rule.[[Lucian W. Pye, ‘Chinese democracy and constitutional development’, in Fumio itoh ed., China in the twenty-first century: Politics, Economy and Society, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 1997, pp.205-218, p.207.]] Indirect power, power as context-shaping, is “about the capacity of actors to redefine the parameters of what is socially, politically and economically possible for others.” This would therefore include Lukes third face of power but also Bachrach and Baratz’ mobilisation of bias. So this would mean the mobilisation of propaganda or use of the state trade union. Hay defines this context-shaping power as “the ability of actors (whether individual or collective) to ‘have an effect’ upon the context which defines the range of possibilities of others”. This redefinition also allows for power over, as an actor A can have the ability to transform the context in which B finds itself, without B being able to transform A’s context.[[Hay, Analysis, p.185.]] This eliminates the problem of value-judgements as an exercise of power does not have to violate ‘real’ interests.
Third dimension of power

Lukes argument that has been attacked is his definition of power in terms of interests. Kernohan argues that this is circular. “you cannot define the concept of powering terms of its effects on people’s real interests, and then characterise real interests in terms of their autonomy from the effects of power.”[[Andrew Kernohan, ‘Social Power and Human Agency’, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.86, No.12, (Dec., 1989), pp.712-726, p.713.]] The problem is that we cannot identify absence of power without first identifying that power but Lukes definition gives no way of identifying power.[[ibid, p.715.]] Lukes definition is “A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests.”[[Lukes, Radical, p.37.]] So to find A’s power over B’s choice of interests we must identify B’s choice of interests without A’s Power over him, which would in turn have to be defined in terms of an absence of power which cant be known unless we know what A’s power is.[[Kernohan, Social, pp.715-716.]] Hay also criticises Lukes on the issue of interests. For Lukes A’s preference shaping means that B acts in a way contrary to B’s ‘real’ interests, however who is to know B’s ‘real’ interests if B himself does not? Lukes implies that the academic, having a privileged vantage point, does; “Not only is this wretched individual incapable of perceiving his/her true interests, pacified as s/he is by the hallucinogenic effects of the bourgeois (or other) indoctrination. But, to confound matters, rising above the ideological mists which tame the masses is the enlightened academic who from a high perch in the ivory tower may look down to discern the genuine interests of those not similarly privileged.”[[Hay, Analysis, p.179.]] The problem with finding these objective interests is that they depend on the perception of these interests, the process to which one goes through to arrive at these objective interests is not objective. This is particularly the case given perfect knowledge can never be had so the objective interests will be recast with hindsight. The relationship between power and interests in the third face of power forces an ethical judgement about ‘real’ interests thus “Lukes generates a situation in which no two theorists are ever likely to agree on what constitutes a power relationship.”[[ibid, p.181-184.]] This renders the concept of power relative.
Third dimension of power

Lukes solution to this is to introduce a third face to power. “What one may have is a latent conflict, which consists in a contradiction between the interests of those exercising power and the real interests of those they exclude.”[[Lukes, Steven, Power A Radical View, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2005, p.28.]] This means that there may not be an actual conflict if power is used to blind someone from being able to see his or her real interests. A person having power over them being used may not realise that a conflict of interests exists because they have been prevented socially or culturally from seeing what their real interests are. “Indeed, is it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires you want them to have – that is to secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires?”[[ibid, p.27.]] This kind of power is often exercised through ideology. This, in China for example, was done through the creation of a permanent propaganda network from 1951 by installing ‘propagandists’ in every party branch who were supposed to be constantly disseminating propaganda, the number of ‘propagandists’ in some areas could be as much as 1% of the population. Their purpose was to promulgate anti-American propaganda during the Korean War, encourage greater production and prevent counterrevolutionary propaganda.[[Frederick C.T. Yu, ‘The Control of the Mind’ in William T. Liu ed. Chinese Society under Communism: A Reader, John Wiley and Sons, London, 1967, pp.121-130, pp.122-3, 127.]]
No need for grievance for power to be exercised

Lukes does himself point out some difficulties with the third face of power. “How is one to identify the process or mechanism of an alleged exercise of power, on the three-dimensional view?” i.e. how can this power be studied. Lukes argues that in the case of suppression of a potential issue by inaction may well have specific consequences, such as a political issue not appearing, a causal relationship can be established. The third face of power can be exercised unconsciously; either the actor exercising power is unaware of its ‘real’ motive. Or the actor may be unaware of how its action is interpreted by others. Or else the actor could be unaware of the consequences of its action.[[Lukes, Radical, pp.52-53]] In this third case Lukes believes that power is only exercised if the actor could have found out the consequences of its action, however if the knowledge is not available “the talk of an exercise of power appears to loose all its point.” In the case of the exercise of power by a collective or group, it has to be “in the exerciser’s or exercisers’ power to act differently” otherwise it is structurally determined.[[ibid, pp.54, 57.]] Responsibility has to be able to be fixed on an actor for power to be exercised.
No need for grievance for power to be exercised

With the Third face of power there is not necessarily a grievance as the person whose ‘real’ interests are being ignored has accepted their role in the existing order.[[Lukes, Radical, p.28.]] This on the surface benefits both the exerciser of power and the person over whom power is being exercised however this consensus is the product of a manipulation. The person over whom power is being exercised would be better off realising his real interests and acting to fulfil them. In China Trade Unions are probably good examples. Despite being one of the major supports for the communist take over they were merged together, while they were still supposed to do welfare work their other goals were in line with the states priorities, to help boost production and to do political and ideological work.[[Peking Review, ‘Trade Unions in communist China’ in William T. Liu ed. Chinese Society under Communism: A Reader, John Wiley and Sons, London, 1967, pp.329-334, pp.330-332.]] It would probably be much more in the workers ‘real’ interests to not have a state run trade union that would contest attempts to force longer work hours, higher productivity etc.
Some citizens don’t just have political differences with the current government, but are fundamental...

Some citizens don’t just have political differences with the current government, but are fundamentally opposed to the democratic state and are willing to use violence against state and society. To protect itself, society and most importantly, the lives of other citizens, it’s necessary for a government to sometimes want to keep a close eye on some of their own citizens. A democratically elected government has both the authority and the legitimacy to order such surveillance, and can be held accountable for the way in which it uses its powers.
Domestic intelligence does require the collection of information, but this is not fundamentally diff...

Domestic intelligence does require the collection of information, but this is not fundamentally different from a standard police investigation. Furthermore, the rights, duties and powers of a domestic intelligence service are carefully restricted by law. For example, under Dutch law, the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) is only allowed to wiretap someone after permission granted by the Minister of Interior Affairs (the UK situation is very similar). Generally speaking, for every surveillance action the domestic intelligence can take, it needs to weigh whether the action satisfies the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, meaning that the invasiveness of a surveillance method should be proportional to the risk the person poses, and that the method chosen should be the least invasive of all possible methods.
It is quite possible to put checks on the power of a domestic intelligence agency in order to preven...

It is quite possible to put checks on the power of a domestic intelligence agency in order to prevent abuse of authority. An important way in which individual citizens can actually control the intelligence service, is through lodging an information request at the domestic intelligence service. In a democracy, the service is obliged to share if it has a dossier on that citizen, and if it’s unfounded, can request the deletion of it. Of course, the dossier will not include specific intelligence gathering methods used nor mention sources, but overall, it will provide a good picture of what the intelligence service has been investigating so far.
Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficien...

Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficient political and judicial control. An example of this is a recent case involving the Dutch AIVD, which started wiretapping journalists after they had found a source within the AIVD to leak about the run-up to the Iraq War. The journalists were wiretapped but when the case came to court, the court judged that the AIVD was in error, should stop harassing the journalists, and must delete the files on the journalists immediately.
Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that are capable of performing counterintel...

Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that are capable of performing counterintelligence. They have the capacity and the authority to detect foreign spies in the national jurisdiction, and experience with local surveillance and investigation. Part of the job of domestic intelligence is to maintain a network of informers and agents, and this can be used to find and track foreign intelligence services on a mission – these functions can’t be easily performed by the military or foreign intelligence.
Some citizens don’t just have political differences with the current government, but are fundamental...

The government should not want to spy on its own citizens – that is the mark of a totalitarian regime. If some citizens disagree with the current government or current form of government, it is their fundamental democratic right to do so, and the government has no right to judge their different political preferences as ‘dangerous’. And experience shows that elected governments are not always able to control their domestic intelligence services, which may develop their own views of what constitutes subversive behaviour. In the 1970s MI5 kept files upon Labour Party MPs, including ministers in the UK Government. Elsewhere, fragile democracies such as Pakistan and Turkey have seen military coups launched against elected governments with the involvement of the domestic intelligence services which were supposed to be guarding them.
Domestic intelligence does require the collection of information, but this is not fundamentally diff...

For intelligence to be effective, the government will need to collect personal information, like bank transactions, emails, phone records, and more, without the citizen in question knowing this. However, democracy works on the assumption that each citizen has a private sphere, separate from the public sphere, of private information, thoughts and opinions, and that the citizen decides who to let into that sphere. Put differently, the citizen has control over when to release private information, and when not. Investigating them without their knowledge means taking away that control, and that is a violation of the right to privacy. The analogy with a police investigation doesn’t hold for exactly this reason: the police are generally obliged to inform a citizen when he or she is subject to a criminal investigation, and can generally only investigate a citizen without their knowledge after seeking specific permission from the judiciary, not just by a minister signing off a whole batch of requests.
It is quite possible to put checks on the power of a domestic intelligence agency in order to preven...

There are no effective ways of controlling the activities of a domestic intelligence agency. With an information request, an investigated citizen has no way of being sure what the intelligence service in question actually does with the information, once it has gathered it, and whether the service actually upheld the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality described above, because the methods used are not described. Also, the intelligence service might promise to delete a file after a court honoured a request, but no one can ever be sure that the intelligence service didn’t make an extra, secret copy.
Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficien...

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to their conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing.
Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that are capable of performing counterintel...

The military or foreign intelligence or just as able to conduct counterintelligence, because the potential targets for foreign intelligence services are well known. But even if a domestic intelligence service is best placed for counter-intelligence, this is just an argument for limiting their functions to counter-intelligence, where they won’t harm citizen’s privacy as much. The arguments above deal with the other work a domestic intelligence does, and that work is illegitimate.
No matter how long ago these crimes were committed, their horrific nature can leave no doubt that th...

No matter how long ago these crimes were committed, their horrific nature can leave no doubt that their perpetrators must be hunted to the ends of the earth. That time has elapsed is not a legal defence; if the evidence had been available at the end of the war they would have been prosecuted then. We must do justice equally to all war criminals, or we are seemly allowing that fleeing justice is a valid option for avoiding prosecution. No legal system can establish such a precedent.
No matter how long ago these crimes were committed, their horrific nature can leave no doubt that th...

There comes a point when prosecution based on crimes long ago serves no purpose. The people uncovered now were usually very young and of low rank. They were also frequently not German and in fear of the consequences of non-cooperation. Most of the major figures responsible for atrocities are now dead, and their crimes are remembered anyway by events such as Remembrance Day. Prosecuting in these circumstances, and after such a long time, serves no purpose.
We owe it to those who perished in the terrible atrocities of the war to fight on in their name agai...

Although this may be true for the actual leaders in charge of policy, who are all dead now, such reasoning is less relevant to the low-level participation we are dealing with here. These people were merely following orders, and did not necessarily believe in the cause they felt compelled to follow. On a more practical level, as experience has shown, such prosecutions are likely to fail, given the problems of identification and proof after so much time.
Child education and communication

Children all over the world have now got mobiles, PC, gaming consoles (including things like ipod, PSP, DS, etc.) which are affecting their education. This also leads to the most important, CYBER BULLYING. Cyber bullying is leading to more frequent deaths to people under 18 such as suicidal deaths. Technology is leading us to the worst for our future. The children wont get proper jobs when they grow up and they will end up on the streets.
It could become out of control

However this has not yet happened. Until it does or seriously threatens to do so then technology is still good. At the moment we are a long way off the sci-fi doomsday scenario from such films as the Terminator. So long as we ensure that we think through all decisions then the idea of a robot army running riot on humanity is nothing but a bad dream (Or a good film). The debate that robots will take over the world wouldnt be technologies fault, but how the people used it. We have learned and are still learning that we need to look at all possible outcomes before we add new technology or create 'robot soldiers'.
click here

Technology can also help us find solutions to global warming. Without computers we wouldn't be able to run simulations to determine what the probable outcomes of the environmental damage. Modern Technology may increase the temperature of the planet but also supports the existence of 6-7 billion humans for which without technology would simply no be sustainable. Global Warming is a process that occurs naturally anyway, though we are expediting the current process we can pretty much guarantee that we know what will happen as a result (An ice age of the likes of previous ones). Technology helped us (humans) through the last one and will help us through the next one too. >>> The world goes through cycles of "ice age' and "global warming" and it always has (according to history). But in the end, the whole recent scam of global warming was just that, a scam. The scientists being paid by the US government to research global warming ended up finding out that global warming isn't actually occurring. Upon investigation the government found out these scientists were bringing up this scare to keep the money from the government lining their pockets. So currently global warming isn't happening, but it will be inevitable.
It could lead us to the end of the world earlier then it should naturally

Life existed before money... obviously if someone stole all the money that one person would be cut out of the loop, have their money invalidated by the world and they'd start over.. money is controlled by governments and technically plays by their rules. (They can print more or just not accept a currency). Sure a bomb could end the world.. we technically have 'planet crackers' of a kind, we've had nuclear warheads thousands of times stronger than the Hiroshima bomb, 40 years ago the Tsar 'kind of bombs' was detonated and that was only half its potential because it might kill too much.. Technology is knowledge and is not by itself a bad thing, it is in fact our wisdom of using such knowledge that leads to catastrophes.. Sure without the knowledge that probably couldn't happen, but without continual progress we would not be able to support society as it grows. The power generated by nuclear weapons has also stopped world wars due to the fear of 'mutual annihilation' and currently provides a great percentage of the power requirements of the modern world which otherwise would be burning fossil fuels and trees to the point of exhausting those resources.