'Judged,' I said, not 'prejudged;' for example I would like to see certain responsible individuals, as well as (I guess now Meta indirectly but beneficially d/b/a) Facebook the corporate entity, answer charges in some competent and not currently extant court of knowing complicity in at least one genocide. (The talking shop and mutual disadmiration society called the International Criminal Court has for decades lacked competence on the obvious grounds that enforcement scales in inverse proportion to the geopolitical relevance of the judgment. A law so unevenly enforced is no law an honest American should recognize, though I grant we seem somewhat thin on the ground these days.)

In any case what's dystopic in desiring that a system of governance under law function basically as designed? I realize the idea of any kind of international cooperation beyond the scope of new mercantile or Hanseatic Leagues is lately much out of fashion, but as noted I'm a touch old-fashioned myself, enough so still to consider that what's good for the goose is, broadly and taking one thing with another, likely about as tasty a dressing for the gander. Certainly in either case the bird seems lately about equally cooked.

If we have supranational corporations - Facebook claims half the species, which I might believe 10% exaggerated at most - and thus supranational crimes, then we should, always as a norm if not at all times in practical effect, have supranational courts and like-scoped means of deterring bad behavior. Lacking those, we face a return more or less to the days of the East India Companies, or - for younger folks, who may more intuitively grasp fictional examples inspired by that history - Weyland-Yutani and the like.