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

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#141

Post by throwaway89201 »

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #135
throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

Maximum of at least one year? Is there some kind of award for how nonsensical a law can be?

Member states will implement this into national law. So in the case they will need to implement a maximum of one year or more (but not less). The final law as applied by a judge will just read "punishable by a maximum of [i.e.] fourteen months".

Re: Fight Chat Control

#142

Post by bombela »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #73
shark1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like any other crime. They cannot stop you from stealing, for example. By doing it, you will not be a lawful citizen.

You mean "an illegal?"

nah they meant unlawful. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unlawful

Re: Fight Chat Control

#143

Post by lucideer »

x775 wrote: post #100
lucideer wrote: post #60

A little context here since this website is highly misleading: - EU Council holds more power in Europe than EU Parliament - EU Council is pushing this regulation - this website misrepresents the positions of most members of EU Parliament - it shows "Supports" despite most of them being "Unknown" Overall, while people should be encouraged to contact their MEPs, I suspect many are already very informed on this & strong…

Ultimately, both the EU Council and the European Parliament must agree on legislation for it to pass. The Parliament acts as a co-legislator with equal legislative power in this process, effectively representing the citizens while the Council represents the member states governments. Both have to agree. In the case of Chat Control, Denmark, as the current EU Council Presidency, revived the proposal (after it previous…

To be clear, I wasn't saying Parliament wouldn't have a say - mainly pointing out that the website's information about MEP's current position on the regulation is incorrect.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#144

Post by CM30 »

zubspace wrote: post #21
9dev wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only need to succeed one time . People are generally preoccupied with a lot of other things right now, so maybe this is their lucky shot…

It's a shitty system, if one side just needs to succeed one time while the other side needs to succeed over and over again. What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. Once a mass surveillance proposal like this is defeated, it shouldn't be allowed to be constantly rebranded and reintroduced. We need a firewall in our legislative process that automatically rejects any future attempt…

I wonder if it'd be possible to fix a lot of these issues by having a constitution with damn near impossibly strict standards for changing it that rely on the entire population agreeing (or close to it)?

So there might be a right to privacy or freedom of speech enshrined in law, and the only way to change it would be for 90+% of the population to agree to change it. That way, it'd only take a minority disagreeing with a bad law to make it impossible to pass said law. Reactionaries and extremists would basically be defanged entirely, since they'd have to get most of their opponents to agree with any changes they propose, not just their own followers.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#145

Post by 0x000xca0xfe »

9dev wrote: post #136
gardenhedge wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no 'saving' the EU imo. I would consider voting to exit if given the opportunity

To what end though? What is your country’s opinion worth globally without the EU? It’s not that I like the current state of affairs, but the alternative is so much worse.

If not being in the EU is so awful, you should tell the Swiss about it. They must have missed it. /s

On a serious note, I think EU was a good idea but it has decayed a lot, especially after how the Greek crisis was handled and because of multiple legal design flaws. It needs a big restructuring, otherwise it will continue to decline and be used as a dumping ground for unpopular laws like Chat Control.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#146

Post by dragonwriter »

demiters wrote: post #139
throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

That's not only asinine but also poorly worded. How is this getting approved?

Its properly worded, as it is an EU law declaring atandards for national laws and the implementing national law must specify a penalty range where the maximum is at least one year (but can be more).

It seems worded poorly if you think of it as if the phrase was from a criminal law and not a law mandating and setting parameters for criminal laws.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#147

Post by thaumasiotes »

Disposal8433 wrote: post #9

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS ( https://grapheneos.org/donate ). Democracy is dead for me.

Note that chat control has been a top concern of governments since there were governments.

The Roman Empire banned private clubs, seeing them as a source of revolution.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#148

Post by BlueTemplar »

OldfieldFund wrote: post #103
medlazik wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you call the "so-called left", but the actual left (LFI) certainly doesn't support Chat Control

probably they call "so-called left" the liberals

Nobody would call them "left", especially not during Macron's 2nd term, the Walkers (or whatever is their new moniker) have firmly solidified as liberals in the right-wing sense (rather than in the bottom-wing sense).

Re: Fight Chat Control

#149

Post by ncr100 »

WTFF. Fight !!

Why is this Thought Policing tolerated?

Are we so End Stage Growth Economy that EVERY power broker see now as the time to employer (IC)Enforcement?

Gestapo much, anyone?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#150

Post by ukprogrammer »

drapado wrote: post #125
ukprogrammer wrote: post #109

HN applauds this vibe-coded “privacy” site yet condemns decentralized messaging. States control what’s centralized; incentives ensure they keep doing so. Protesting it is like arguing with a thermostat—it can’t hear you, and it’s built to tighten control. As technologists, we have a lot more power than we realise. (Yes, I’m speaking to the blob, but the Venn overlap of anti-crypto and pro-this seems big.)

Genuely curious. What would the problem be if it was vibe-coded? It's an easy to read site that succeeds in communicating what it wants.

there's no problem with it being vibe-coded

The point is that the site, contacting your local MEP, and all the discussion in this thread, is pointless to affect some kind of durable societal change

Pointing out that it's vibe-coded just emphasises that all of the above actions are just low-effort cope

Post reply on HN