Live data from Hacker News

The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

mullvad.net

241–250 of 425 posts

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

#241
post #225

Are there democratic societies on this planet?

The symbolism articulated by the Greeks seems to indicate not.

Consider the logic that a government has an ever-greater interest in promoting its Nation as quintessentially democratic the more antidemocratic that it becomes.

In this case, superficial public participation and the government's elusive visible validity scale together.

Whereas in the archetype of a truly democratic society (I say archetype because it may not exist), the government arguably has a motivation to discourage the promotional image of and participation in democracy.

Because in this case, democratic participation is an actual threat to power.

This theory only holds for nations that have any democratic pretense. Which likely has more to do with foreign policy than anything else.

How many Western Nations fall over themselves to align themselves with democracy?

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

#242
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll add: the current fuss about "protecting women's spaces" is pointless > rather than just appealing to hypothetical situations These aren't hypothetical situations. In some jurisdictions, prisoners are housed based on their self-declared "gender identity". So men who declare themselves as women are being incarcerated in the female prison estate. Women inmates have been raped, sexually assaulted, and even impregn…

just because there are (very) bad apples in a group doesn't mean that the entire group purely and only exists to take advantage of others. By your logic cis women also should be imprisoned for their identity because cisgender women have sexually assaulted others in prison

> bad apples

The full expression this term is taken from is: "a few bad apples rot the whole barrel".

Women don't know in advance who the bad apples are amongst men, so in contexts where women are particularly vulnerable to predation from such men, the whole barrel must be considered as being rotten. This is why we have sex-segregated spaces.

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

#243
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commission needs a passing vote of approval from the parliament and its president is elected by the parliament. It is a democratic system.

It's not a democratic system and would be easily recognized as such if it were implemented anywhere other than Europe. Parliament approving what the Commission does is of no use for repealing laws. The President is not elected by the Parliament. They experimented with that in the Juncker era, now it's back to being controlled (in theory) by the Council. The Parliament was given a "vote" that consisted of a list of op…

> They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all.

that's how confidence votes work on most parliamentary republics.

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

#244
post #88

It doesn't matter, the EU has already crossed the point of no return. Europe is either collapsed or an authoritarian dystopia by the 2030s, no in-betweens. I've been saying this for years and it will be funny to see europeans to catch up to this fact in real time.

Is there anywhere in the world left that's neither on the way to becoming a dystopia nor already a hellhole unless you're a male local?

Depends on your definition of "dystopia".

Switzerland and Costa Rica might be candidates, but I don't know enough to be sure.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you possibly be this naive? In reality it's always Michel's Iron law of Oligarchy. It doesn't matter what political system you think you have. In the end what you have is always an oligarchy.

How can you possibly be this cynical? There are bad actors and corruption in every political system. But different systems and different implementations of them have different levels of these. I would say most governments do an OK job (compared to say 1000 years ago, or compared to what any bloody revolution could do within 10 years), given how difficult the task is of governing a lot of people with vastly different…

> How can you possibly be this cynical?

It sounds cynical - yes, but we have to deal with reality as it is. Not as we would wish it to be. Surely that is the lesson on the last 10-15 years of poltics.

Power simply doesn't work this way. Power always collects in the hands of an organized minority - be it a king and his inner circle, or in the power brokers, government institutions, political party internal governmental structures, media hacks, NGOs, and state institutions, and the money power of western democracies.

Understand this.

There is no vote you can cast to evict any of these people.

Furthermore, they control the information dissemination aparatus. Like kafabe in pro-wrestling, they have complete control over the narrative story arcs, and they define the oppinions that are acceptable in society.

Take the US government, for example. Just think about the vast - almost boundless state power they have amassed. They spy on every single communication anyone makes on the internet. They even assassinated a sitting US president, for goodness sake.

Do you think if you just meekly ask them, they'll simply hand over the whole structure into the hands of their sworn enemies? No - it won't ever happen. Your guy will be installed, and he will find his every action is thwarted. He will be effectively powerless. And if you complain, they'll laugh in your face.

More generally:

A mass of people is powerless. You must know this from real life: you can't expect a group of 1000 people to take responsibility for achieving some objective. The group will instinctively look to a leader to guide them, and they will wait for someone to take charge. That person will then need a group of lieutenants to administrate his leadership, and hey presto: there's your oligarchy.

There's nothing wrong with this. The Iron Law of Oligarchy is a reflection of human nature. There is nothing wrong with "kings", various "lords" and officials, if they have the people's best intests in mind.

The problem is democracy is that it allows responsibility to be diffused among the people. Who will ever be held responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawall debacle? Or for the Iraq war? Or for the Snowden files? Or for the trillions of US government debt? ..to name just a few.

No one will ever be held responsible, because democracy allows the oligarchs to point the finger back at the people, and blame us for our choices, when in reality we really have no control over the matter whatsoever.

At least our ancestors could pick up pitch forks and carry their heads out on pikes if things became untennable.

We cannot hold power to account in any way at all. They don't fear us in the slightest. In 2023, this should be pretty obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

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

#246

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...

You mean Zelensky?

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

#247
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it your claim that this doesn't happen? Here are some search terms for you, these are examples of men in women's prisons who have sexually assaulted or raped women inmates while incarcerated: Janiah Monroe, Karen White, Ramel Blount. None of these men should have been there in the first place, of course.

Clearly (to anyone conversant in English) I am not claiming no such thing has happened. I am asking how frequently this happens and, in hard risk terms, how does it compare to the risks faced by inmates of being raped by other women or by prison guards. I assume you are not claiming these events do not happen. So again I ask - do you have any relevant links re: comparative frequency, absolute occurrence, etc.

Even one case of women prisoners being raped by men who are incarcerated in a women's prisons is sufficient to show that this recent experiment in removing this safeguarding measure for women inmates has been a failure, and must be abandoned.

That we have several documented cases already only supports this point further.

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

#250
post #196
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why do you think 'whataboutism' is a bad thing? It is comparison. Comparison is a fine tool for reasoning about policy. Not the end of the conversation, but something to consider. 2. The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern. If they think so little of privacy that they are willing to vote for laws like this, then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all. Corruption in governm…

> The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern Yes. I never said otherwise. > then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all That's the funny bit: they won't. They - and their family - will have the same if they use the same platforms. Which is why I firmly believe this isn't about corruption, this is about false beliefs and zealots who genuinely believe the internet and open communi…

Except that these platforms often have 'government' specific offerings that are not the same as everyone else.
Post reply on HN