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

411–420 of 425 posts

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

#411

Post by noduerme »

Jensson wrote: post #72
cryptonector wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP means that the dictator only needs to win without violence once, but the rebels -while it's true that they only need to win once- may have to resort to violence because the dictator certainly will resort to violence to crush its opposition.

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.

No offense, but it's extremely myopic to think that any EU state would protest over privacy rights when so many more economically and geopolitically important considerations exist. And yet this is still how fascism and totalitarianism advances. No one will be left out now, because all EU states are too weak alone without Germany.

It's funny that the results of WWII were for America to enable a soft version of the fourth Reich and the Japanese east asian coprosperity sphere. BUT we built it under our auspices, with the rule being that free speech was somewhat necessary for a free market. (skip the part about torturing Muslims and communists). Here we are. Will Europe now become Hungary or Turkey??!

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

#412

Post by pjc50 »

blitzar wrote: post #276
pjc50 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We never did find out who leaked the security camera footage from inside a "secure area" of Matt Hancock, UK health secretary, kissing his aide: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matt-hancock-... A horrifyingly large amount of UK political decision-making that should be minuted is instead carried out secretly on whatsapp.

Your two statements seem to be a contradiction - decision meetings should be public, but the meeting where you are getting a blowie from your assistant on the sofa in your office should be private?

There's a third outcome between "fully public" and "fully private" that's actually worse, which is "known to blackmailers".

That is, who's collecting kompromat on UK ministers, and for what purpose, and in exchange for what? (It's the press, isn't it)

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

#413

Post by nicky0 »

twixfel wrote: post #110
nicky0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little early to judge, it's been 2 years.

It's not too early to judge, it's going badly right now, that's clear.

Oh, it's clear? Why did nobody tell me. I take it back then. I am glad to hear a complex evolving geopolitical situation can be easily reducted to a simple judgement like that. It's a relief.

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

#414

Post by pastacacioepepe »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #395
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels just like punishing governments and their families for doing their jobs. We already have elections and law enforcement, thats all we need to "punish" corrupt officials. What we lack to make elections effective is more information available to the public about what they do and why they do it. More accountability and transparency, not punishment for their children if they want to tax big corps. The threat of…

That's what they want you to believe. Government is NOT a job. Government is Public Service. Emphasis on 'service' If you are not ready to do your service or duty, you are not fit to work in government. The honor and duty of being a king came with the downside of the risks (beheading) to you and to your royal family, if you did a particularly bad job. Current government officials have all the upside (revolving door)…

> We need to make them accountable

Yes that's exactly what I said. How about we forbid them from ever trading in stocks or participate in any investment where they might even have a remote conflict of interest?

I feel that would be the best way to keep crooks like Pelosi out of politics.

> Them, and their families.

This is nonsense but you must hate politicians apparently. I don't, I hate corruption.

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

#415

Post by dsfyu404ed »

omniglottal wrote: post #337
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm more worried about the fact that humans are, collectively at least, so hypocritical. Humans are violent too. If we tried as hard to train it out of people we'd make good progress.

Violence serves a purpose - although it doesn't serve this purppose well , it stands in place as a last resort. Removing that resort, what do you propose replaces it for the purposes which must be served?

I meant that we could train out hypocrisy the same way we train out most of the violence.

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

#416

Post by blitzar »

pjc50 wrote: post #412
blitzar wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your two statements seem to be a contradiction - decision meetings should be public, but the meeting where you are getting a blowie from your assistant on the sofa in your office should be private?

There's a third outcome between "fully public" and "fully private" that's actually worse, which is "known to blackmailers". That is, who's collecting kompromat on UK ministers, and for what purpose, and in exchange for what? (It's the press, isn't it)

> (It's the press, isn't it)

Yes. Once one meets a journalist or two, you become aware that every scandal that comes to light was known by everyone for a long time.

There is someone else, however, the Whip. While the end recipient would ultimatley be the press, the power they hold is by collecting up little secrets like which Prime Minister was having an affair with their Chancellor ...

https://www.politicalite.com/exclusive/dirty-dossier-full-li...

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

#417

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #414
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they want you to believe. Government is NOT a job. Government is Public Service. Emphasis on 'service' If you are not ready to do your service or duty, you are not fit to work in government. The honor and duty of being a king came with the downside of the risks (beheading) to you and to your royal family, if you did a particularly bad job. Current government officials have all the upside (revolving door)…

> We need to make them accountable Yes that's exactly what I said. How about we forbid them from ever trading in stocks or participate in any investment where they might even have a remote conflict of interest? I feel that would be the best way to keep crooks like Pelosi out of politics. > Them, and their families. This is nonsense but you must hate politicians apparently. I don't, I hate corruption.

I dont hate politicians.

I hate the kind of people it attracts.

We dont need politicians. We do need statemen.

I think you live fantayland if you think restricting their investment options will result in less politicians. Whats simply going to happen is that they will shift their activities to other income avenues. Less stock trading. More board jobs and speaking fees. The river of corruption keeps flowing even if in a different direction.

Instead, id like less incentives to corruption. That means eat what you kill. Id like more lincolns that take tremendous personal risk to themselves and their families, and declare wars against global superpowers, to then "close shop" and go back to their farm to retire.

Instead we have pelosis, mccains advancing the war lobby, or obamas making bank on "speaking fees"

Stock prohibition wont do a thing. You need to cut the incentive to sell favors. You need to re-introduce risk.

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

#418

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

themitigating wrote: post #397
JacobThreeThree wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a government official doesn't abide by his own lockdown rules, that's corruption.

why? If a politician votes for a law that reduces the speed limit to 50mph then is caught speeding is that corruption? I think corruption is when someone abuses their position of power. This isn't abuse they just violated their own rules.

It's corruption because they know they won't be punished.

If more laws were objective (like speeding) and politicians were as surveilled as everyone else it wouldn't be an issue.

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

#419

Post by randominsomnia »

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…

You have my vote.

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

#420

Post by wizzwizz4 »

naasking wrote: post #279
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why draw the boundary there ? Men are a problem because of the society that lets them do what they want. Society doesn't treat trans women like men – and, largely, it does treat trans men like men. Isn't it dangerous to have trans men – many of whom will have testosterone running through their systems – in vulnerable women's spaces? Treating someone who seems like a woman, acts like a woman, is at risk from the g…

> Isn't it dangerous to have trans men – many of whom will have testosterone running through their systems – in vulnerable women's spaces? To be fair to the OP, I don't think there exists a history of abuse of females from trans men, which strengthens their allegation that the underlying sex might be an important factor to consider in these scenarios. The sex hormones alone maybe just aren't a factor. It's likely not…

> which strengthens their allegation that the underlying sex might be an important factor to consider in these scenarios.

"Underlying sex" isn't a particularly coherent concept to begin with. By what potential mechanism could "underlying sex" influence behaviour, other than hormonally?

Lacking an answer to this question doesn't mean we should rule out the possibility while investigating, but we shouldn't take too much heed of the possibility until we have a reason to believe it. «"Excess male violence in prisons" problem is a consequence of the patriarchy» is a concise explanation, introducing no additional entities or mechanisms, consistent with the observations mentioned in this thread, and… well, as far as I'm aware, it's the mainstream feminist position on this matter.

> Come to think of it, that seems almost obvious in retrospect.

I've had thoughts like that, on occasion. Unfortunately, segregationist policies are a much more politically feasible approach than anything like what you're proposing, and I don't think that will change any time soon. How to segregate is the question: whether to segregate is a pretty radical question to be asking.

I don't think your proposal is quite perfect, but it's a start.

Post reply on HN