61–70 of 360 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it’s now opt-in. But if you don’t opt in, you can no longer send photos or videos.
That seems so arbitrary, where does ascii art fall?
Preventing the spreading of CSAM is one of the key ideas behind the regulation.
I wonder what happens with pictures sent as base64 text blobs though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly. Although megacorps at least still have some incentives to compete with each other and therefore try to appease the consumers. Unfortunately the EU does not.
There isn’t much incentive for them to compete. They have demonstrated numerous times they would gladly work together and not compete openly if it were entirely legal. Non compete clauses are an example of this. Additionally, as we’ve seen with asbestos & lead use in personal care and beauty products after it was demonstrated to be horribly toxic, many corporations would gladly even kill their own customers as long a…
Sure but privacy is still a selling point (e.g. Apple has different incentives than ad companies like Google and (regardless of how abusive their policies regarding app publishing are) was pushing the industry towards a positive direct on their own).
> achieve such a goal the EU cannot be going forward with these changes that put more power into the hands of megacorps who will have no problem complying, as they do in China.
I don't see how this policy specifically is putting more power into the hands of megacorps, it's hardly something they ever really wanted (even if it's certainly not a hill they are willing to die on). Don't get me wrong, their power needs to be curtailed but I just don't see how can we get just the DMA but no Chat Control (it's not like the EU bureaucrats are driven by anything besides self interest, they might get some things right now and then but IMHO consumers generally have more real direct influence on what the megacorps are doing than them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signal isn't big enough to play that game. They'll just be blocked from the app store for EU users and their user base in the EU will drop to near zero within a year.
I think it would be feasible for Whatsapp, Telegram and Signal to form a coalition that pledges to withdraw from any country or market that tries to pull these shenanigans, such that the sum of them is big enough to play that game. The hardest to convince would be Whatsapp, but I think that Zuckerberg is one of the few big tech CEOs that still has principles, at least sometimes. I think it could happen.
"Still"? I'm not aware of a time when he's publicly shown any sort of principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly. Although megacorps at least still have some incentives to compete with each other and therefore try to appease the consumers. Unfortunately the EU does not.
There isn’t much incentive for them to compete. They have demonstrated numerous times they would gladly work together and not compete openly if it were entirely legal. Non compete clauses are an example of this. Additionally, as we’ve seen with asbestos & lead use in personal care and beauty products after it was demonstrated to be horribly toxic, many corporations would gladly even kill their own customers as long a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> widespread expectation among many that it's morally imperative for them to be able to elect their own government. So any moves by the government to limit this will be met by fierce resistance. That's not really true as far as it comes to the EU though? The EU parliament has always been a joke with limited power (both because of structural reasons and because most of it's members are clueless and extremely easy to i…
In the same vein, EU does not have an idea of sanctity of free speech. Various forms of censorship exist in various EU members, all for apparently good causes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
This is why the roles of the major players in society (government, monopolies) need to be circumscribed. Large organizations will always try to grow in size and power. We need some sort of human right for digital privacy to make this sort of thing illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech absolutists like myself got run over culturally with hate speech laws so for anyone continuing on the fight I wish you the best of luck.
Anti-hate speech got you? What were you trying to say exactly? One can go on X right now and spew any hate speech that one wants. How about just political opinions? How quickly we forgot "free speech zones." This is the government actually limiting public speech in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone BTW, I am not for this regulation in any way. I just don't see the connection to hate speech.
Will TLS have to be redone with a third snooping party in the mix? Is that what we're going for here?
[1] https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2024/05/2024-05-28_Cou...
The proposal leaked a few weeks ago[1] is extremely vague on this matter and does not clarify how providers should detect CSAM "prior to transmission". Is anyone aware of any sort of scanning technology that can be implemented purely on the client side? Note that the leaked text says that it should be able to detect known and new abuse material. [1] https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2024/05/2024-05-28_Cou...
Apple: Their CSAM detection system that was lambasted not too long ago[0]
[0] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_...