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

151–160 of 425 posts

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

#151

Post by zirgs »

revelio wrote: post #114
Jensson wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of EU the member states would just leave if the union starts becoming too corrupt. Until they create a no-leave rule there isn't much to worry about. When they create a no-leave rule then we should start worry, since then EU is heading towards becoming USA.

Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency. Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.

They could reintroduce their own currency after leaving. Montenegro is using the Euro despite not being part of the EU or Eurozone. They can switch to other currency if they want to.

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

#152

Post by wizzwizz4 »

dover wrote: post #146
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's highly regional and cultural. Few people probably believe the idea you have in your head, but, then, few people are probably espousing it.

[flagged]

Again, culturally- and regionally-specific. My anecdotal evidence is that the people I've talked to (a narrow, biased group of people) have more nuanced views than the surveys pick up. Where I live, more people support the death penalty than are transphobic (according to polling, no less!).

Most people don't know the first thing about anything. Ask them what we should do about climate change, and they'll say "household recycling". Ask them whether they're okay with the environmental impact of a nuclear power station, and they'll say they're outraged about it. The uninformed opinion of people who haven't really thought very hard, when presented with a loaded question, is not particularly indicative of the process they use to form their views: it's more indicative of your sampling method.

I don't know much about how sanctuaries and safe spaces are run, but it's my understanding that they don't generally have "we accept anyone who meets this sentence-long description" policies. Round these parts, shelters have always been able to discriminate against trans people with reason, and they haven't been doing so, and it hasn't been an issue: public sentiment is just that. People have been medically-transitioning in English-speaking cultures for well over a century, now, and it's only been a Big Deal in the last couple of decades. Politics.

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

#153

Post by Hamuko »

revelio wrote: post #114
Jensson wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of EU the member states would just leave if the union starts becoming too corrupt. Until they create a no-leave rule there isn't much to worry about. When they create a no-leave rule then we should start worry, since then EU is heading towards becoming USA.

Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency. Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.

EU has no army so it can't keep EU countries locked in if they don't want to stay.

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

#154

Post by slg »

dover wrote: post #111
concordDance wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect initially only those who are unpopular and unlikely to be defended by the public will be prosecuted. Then over time more political enemies (probably starting with "trans women aren't women" activists) will be prosecuted and the slow slide begins...

[flagged]

Funny that you are so confident this is a popular opinion and yet still feel the need to create a throwaway account to voice that opinion.

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

#155

Post by dover »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #152
dover wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Again, culturally- and regionally-specific. My anecdotal evidence is that the people I've talked to (a narrow, biased group of people) have more nuanced views than the surveys pick up. Where I live, more people support the death penalty than are transphobic (according to polling , no less!). Most people don't know the first thing about anything. Ask them what we should do about climate change, and they'll say "househ…

[flagged]

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

#156

Post by hutzlibu »

fanagra32 wrote: post #137
atlgator wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an opt-in scenario. People aren't forced to be politicians.

Politics already suffers heavily from not getting the best-of-the-best. Making it even less attractive to become a politician is unlikely to improve upon that. In the totality of all politicians out there that you have an opinion about, which fraction of them do you like, in terms of thinking they are the right person for the job? Do you think this fraction would improve with that opt-in scenario implemented?

"Politics already suffers heavily from not getting the best-of-the-best"

It is repeated often, but is this really true?

Number 1 trait of a politician should be honesty and integrity in my opinion - and I don't think that you can increase that factor, just with throwing more money on them. Then you maybe just get more smart people, who are in it for the money and use their smarts and cunning to extract even more money. I think politicians should want that job, because they primarily feel the call to achieve something bigger.

So a adequate payrise is alright in my opinion, but I don't want the top managers who run a big compony for profit to also run states. As states are (or should not be) profit orientated, but to serve the greater good of its people.

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

#157

Post by dover »

slg wrote: post #154
dover wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Funny that you are so confident this is a popular opinion and yet still feel the need to create a throwaway account to voice that opinion.

That I'm commenting on a new account doesn't invalidate anything I've said. This is a weak and irrelevant criticism.

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

#158

Post by ben_w »

notahacker wrote: post #138
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm totally fine with raising their paychecks by a factor of 10 for their loss of privacy if we implement this... the amount of money we'd save elswhere dur to less corruption would be a few orders of magnitude higher.

We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...

Public figures kinda need to be narcissistic just to be able to face seeing themselves so much each day. And that includes the good ones.

I'm more worried about the fact that humans are, collectively at least, so hypocritical.

For the following examples, bare in mind that neither I nor the general public understand the actual laws, so any nits you pick need to be the kind that even a non-lawyer will accept:

I'm old enough to remember Clinton being impeached for lying about his affairs, and yet Republicans (collectively) are defending Trump for lying about affairs.

Or vice versa, Trump's classified documents at home vs. Biden's.

Probably the same elsewhere, but I don't trust that I'm not part of the problem with regard to UK politics (where I'm from), and my German isn't good enough to pay attention to what's happening where I now live.

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

#159

Post by johndunne »

fanagra32 wrote: post #137
atlgator wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an opt-in scenario. People aren't forced to be politicians.

Politics already suffers heavily from not getting the best-of-the-best. Making it even less attractive to become a politician is unlikely to improve upon that. In the totality of all politicians out there that you have an opinion about, which fraction of them do you like, in terms of thinking they are the right person for the job? Do you think this fraction would improve with that opt-in scenario implemented?

If we're not getting the best of the best, then this 'opt-in politicians must submit to the record so their paymasters can vet them' idea would protect us from the one's who take the job for the 'side perks'.
Post reply on HN