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

EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 360 posts

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#111

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

chgs wrote: post #66
FredPret wrote: post #4

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.

The largest organisations are the trillion dollar ones we interact with every day, not the eu or even the German or us governments .

The US Government spending is an order of magnitude bigger than the largest private companies in the world...

WalMart is the largest private spender in the world at around ~$400B per year. The US Federal Government alone spends >$400B per month...

That doesn't even include state and local governments which basically doubles that.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#112

Post by squarefoot »

Wytwwww wrote: post #36
b112 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Signal, unwilling to implement easy to build software to comply with EU regulations, likely due to fiscal concerns, has shown itself placing profit far above the care and concerns of our next generation, our children, and the pedophiles that prey upon them, such heinous creators of child porn." signed EU press release. And so, 96% of people now think Signal is evil.

> And so, 96% of people now think Signal is evil. The overwhelming majority of people living in the EU won't really care or even notice this new law/directive/(?) because they don't really pay any attention to what the EU is doing but yeah for most of of the remaining ones that will probably suffice.

Especially if the new law is very conveniently enacted during the most important sports event in the EU, with 99.99% eyeballs looking elsewhere. A very common tactic pretty much everywhere, but that doesn't make it stink less.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#113

Post by brigandish »

StrLght wrote: post #109
cjbgkagh wrote: post #22

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.

Honest question: why would a free speech absolutist start a discussion here, on this site? I have a feeling that plenty of rules here [0] wouldn't be accepted by such a crowd. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Why would a vegetarian shop at a supermarket that also sells meat?

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#114

Post by hot_gril »

Spivak wrote: post #99
consumer451 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free Speech Absolutism was/is connected with hate speech because sites that hold up such an ideal end up being the landing pad for the very worst people who were banned everywhere else. There aren't enough normal people who vote with their money/time/engagement to reach critical mass on those platforms. And turns out very few people want actually free speech. We're in a forum with strong moderation and the discussion…

Wanting free speech on internet forums is different from wanting it at the government level. I'm not sure what Free Speech Absolutism is, but if it means unmoderated internet forums, yeah that usually doesn't end well even if only a small minority has bad intent.

Big online forums with any kind of global popularity already have an inherent problem despite the moderation, not because of hate speech but because of ragebait and other forms of grifting. Especially with anonymous users.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#115

Post by fallingsquirrel »

StrLght wrote: post #109
cjbgkagh wrote: post #22

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.

Honest question: why would a free speech absolutist start a discussion here, on this site? I have a feeling that plenty of rules here [0] wouldn't be accepted by such a crowd. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Free speech doesn't mean you can force anyone to listen.

The government should not make any speech illegal on a federal level, but individual private businesses or websites (like HN) can still decide what's tolerated on their property.

And the corollary -- I believe in free speech but there are some people I'll never listen to, even though I believe in their right to speak.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#116

Post by llm_trw »

StrLght wrote: post #109
cjbgkagh wrote: post #22

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.

Honest question: why would a free speech absolutist start a discussion here, on this site? I have a feeling that plenty of rules here [0] wouldn't be accepted by such a crowd. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Because 15 years ago this was the default point of view everywhere online. Then the unwashed masses came and banned us.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#117

Post by ls612 »

It will be very interesting to see the responses of WhatsApp and Apple if this moves forward. Do their commitments to E2EE mean anything or not. Will iMessage and WhatsApp leave the EU or not. That would be extremely telling as to the actual quality of the security guarantees they purport to provide.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#118

Post by rolph »

pantalaimon wrote: post #16
Lichtso wrote: post #2

Already was somewhat degraded by the EU parliament: https://proton.me/blog/eu-parliament-chat-control

Sure it’s now opt-in. But if you don’t opt in, you can no longer send photos or videos.

before bittorrent such primal tools like uuencode, or mpeg2ascii were the way to move media thru a domain that filtered it.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#119

Post by realce »

squigz wrote: post #103
realce wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sort of rhetoric is dangerous How?

Because it implies the only way forward is with violence, a premise I thoroughly reject.

It states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope repeated countless times in history, and it will occur again.

Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#120

Post by brigandish »

consumer451 wrote: post #72
dauertewigkeit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course abused by evil people. Moreover, what counts as hate speech can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge, and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still be used…

I am not directing this at you, or anyone here, truly. However, this XKCD always come to mind whenever I hear the topics of hate speech and free speech mentioned within proximity of each other: https://xkcd.com/1357/

That XKCD, ironically but not intentionally ironically, starts off by claiming the opponent (the "asshole") is conflating the first amendment with free speech rights, then goes on to conflate the first amendment with free speech rights in service of limiting someone's speech.

Maybe it's easier to see if you're not American and thus aren't covered by the first amendment.

Post reply on HN