Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 425 posts

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#51

Post by MikeGale »

Facebook does this already. Not only posts and comments but also messages between two people.

The system is used to hide content, change content, shadow ban and the like.

Even by its own standards it's typically used incorrectly, but most users have no workable way to appeal.

The content reviewed is often visible to low paid workers in various countries. Similar systems have been infiltrated by hostile governments. (Twitter is a case in point.)

(If you use FB you can sometimes probe the system and better establish the details.)

The system is also used to prevent one user informing another that they've been squelched.

My guess, this would give rise to even less competent implementations and actual elimination of political opponents and the like.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#52

Post by AiaAidan »

throwaway892238 wrote: post #23

This is when I get super hopeful that more draconian bullshit like this gets passed. The only way to get regular people to stop accepting their government's bullshit is to severely outrage them. Tiny outrages just get accepted as the new norm.

There are too many countries in the world with oppressive regimes where people seem willing to accept the status quo without much resistance to be as optimistic as you about people's desire for freedom. Even in countries where extreme suffering and censorship exist, like N.Korea or, less known, Turkmenistan (which, by the way, is the craziest country of the former USSR - the cult of personality in Turkmenistan has been taken to the extent of idiocy, censorship works like in the worst times of Stalin, and people suffer from hunger, poverty, and constant fear) protests and uprisings are rare. I personally know people who demand even more control in some of these countries, and after hearing about their extreme complacency (think mobilization in russia), I'm not as hopeful that people truly want to be free anymore. IMHO the only form of freedom that is attainable is personal "nomadic" freedom, as in Sovereign Citizen book. We need to vote with our feet and wallets, and choose to live in places where our individual freedoms are respected and protected. I'm sorry if this all sounds a bit bleak, it's personal...

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#53

Post by TechBro8615 »

mongol wrote: post #15
cardosof wrote: post #11

If I lived in the EU I'd want to know who are proposing this kind of stuff and help with anything that gets them far from public and government -related jobs forever, but hey, that's me. Lots of people like to give up a bit of freedom and privacy in exchange for an increased sense of security.

It is EU commissioner Ylva Johansson. Unfortunately, there is not much you can do. She is not elected to this position, but appointed, and in this case by a former government who is no longer in power.

But remember, it's racists in the UK who wanted to leave this organization.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#54

Post by worik »

Supermancho wrote: post #47
photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

> Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" I'm probably in the minority on HN, but I think this is a good thing. It should be a matter of course, in a democratic society. Free speech doesn't live solely in digital communication (universally owned by some company) any more than it does in the classified ads in a newspaper.

It would be world changing, the complete abolition of all privacy.

Little drones that followed everybody around, everywhere, broadcasting and storing every thing everybody does, or says, everywhere they go, and what they do.

No. I do not recommend it. But the thought experiment is interesting.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#55

Post by yosito »

TOMDM wrote: post #2

This is especially important in the age of LLM's. Large scale surveillance while abusive and harmful has historically been limited in scale by the ability of those in control to trawl through data. Automated "moderation" of dragnet communications collection with modern AI holds the potential for a scale of abusive privacy invasion at unprecedented scales.

I'd be surprised if the NSA hasn't already had LLMs for some time.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#56

Post by kurthr »

photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

While you're at it there should be a 1 year look back. So if you want to run for election you have to start recording a year earlier so we can compare your actions to that of the other Big Brother^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d candidates.

I do suspect that having a hot spouse and active sex life would become a significant advantage when running.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#57

Post by yosito »

sundvor wrote: post #13

I happen to be reading 1984 for the first time right now - that book was published in 1949, and gee did Orwell have the EU scoped out - even though he kind of missed by a couple of decades. There's so many real life parallels that I'm getting the chills.

[flagged]

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#58

Post by bjornsing »

maxilevi wrote: post #7

Why every 12 months the European Commission comes up with a total dumb and authoritarian proposal and we have to actively fight it? It’s just tiring

The EU has always been the bureaucrats’ paradise. Now it’s slowly (but perhaps not surprisingly) turning into everybody else’s nightmare.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#59

Post by Supermancho »

worik wrote: post #54
Supermancho wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" I'm probably in the minority on HN, but I think this is a good thing. It should be a matter of course, in a democratic society. Free speech doesn't live solely in digital communication (universally owned by some company) any more than it does in the classified ads in a newspaper.

It would be world changing, the complete abolition of all privacy. Little drones that followed everybody around, everywhere, broadcasting and storing every thing everybody does, or says, everywhere they go, and what they do. No. I do not recommend it. But the thought experiment is interesting.

> It would be world changing, the complete abolition of all privacy.

> Little drones that followed everybody around, everywhere, broadcasting and storing every thing everybody does, or says, everywhere they go, and what they do.

That's an interesting 0-100% (eclipse all possible free speech possibilities!) imaginary scenario. I don't subscribe to it.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#60

Post by chickencatsoup »

The fact that this being justified with the pretense of being "for the children" seems like such a transparent way to play on people's emotions.

From the start of the proposal itself:

"At least one in five children falls victim to sexual violence during childhood 3 . A 2021 global study found that more than one in three respondents had been asked to do something sexually explicit online during their childhood, and over half had experienced a form of child sexual abuse online"

I am (obviously) against child sexual abuse. I can also say, with very high certainty, that those numbers are being blown completely out-of-proportion, with the widest definition possible used.

To justify such a wide-reaching proposal behind this thin veneer of justification is absolutely nuts to me.

Post reply on HN