181–190 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.
we can learn from our American friends and call it something like CHILDREN SAFETY ACT. So you want to hurt children, huh? I hope not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's perfect is the marketing campaign to call it by what it actually wanted to do, ie Chat Control. Whoever did this was so successful that we didn't even know the bill's official name, instead knowing it by what it actually wanted to achieve. Good thing the EU didn't take a page out of the US' book, because things like the PATRIOT act are already pithy and hard to outmarket. If RPCCSA were actually called PROTECT…
It's just a HN thing though. Ask a European who isn't in tech, and they won't know what you're talking about. Maybe they will today specifically, this vote is bound to get some press, but in general, mainstream media doesn't care much about this bill. Even Europeans in tech who aren't in the "tech equivalent of gun nuts" culture that HN seems to exemplify are 50/50.
It’s not. People on Reddit, Mastodon, and other websites are also aware (of course not everyone, but not everyone on HN either).
> Ask a European who isn't in tech, and they won't know what you're talking about.
People who haven’t heard about Chat Control haven’t heard the bill’s real name either. That’s true of the overwhelming majority of EU regulation, Chat Control isn’t special in that regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
> People need to directly elect the MPs ... We do? What did you think the European Parliament elections every four years were for? > directly elect some kind of president. Why? Nowhere in Western Europe except very arguably France (France, as always, has to be a bit weird about everything, and has a hybrid system) has a directly elected executive. True executive presidential systems are only really a thing in the Ame…
imagine system where we directly elect the whole cabinet. only people with electoral approval should get to be ministers. and the prime ministers or presidents job is to only manage that group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can never discuss it again". You could put it in the constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a constitution, but is not referred to as such because it annoys nationa…
That constitution sure did stop Giuliani from having the cops shake down all those black guys. At the end of the day you still need people to actually believe it, for whatever "it" is.
Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.
Told you so.
It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.
That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties i…
Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with Ministers writing laws from their own services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People need to directly elect the MPs ... We do? What did you think the European Parliament elections every four years were for? > directly elect some kind of president. Why? Nowhere in Western Europe except very arguably France (France, as always, has to be a bit weird about everything, and has a hybrid system) has a directly elected executive. True executive presidential systems are only really a thing in the Ame…
i always found it odd that the most powerful person in many european countries, the prime minister, is not directly elected. but the problem is not really there. the problem in my opinion is the concentration of power in one person. and the influence of political parties to decide who gets to be a candidate. imagine system where we directly elect the whole cabinet. only people with electoral approval should get to be…
Generally, a prime minister is less powerful than an executive president, often much less powerful.
> and the prime ministers or presidents job is to only manage that group.
On the face of it, that is the PM's primary role in a parliamentary democracy. Now, the complication is that, in many parliamentary systems, the PM has significant power over the ministers (either via the ability to directly appoint them, or via being the head of the ruling party/coalition/or various other means). But generally, the PM is less powerful in nearly all systems than, say, the US president; in particular the finance minister is often a separate semi-independent power within the cabinet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Checks and balances means some folks should NOT be directly elected. if everyone is , then you have checked and balanced by . Which is to say, not at all. :-P
You could have a system where everyone is directly elected while keeping checks and balances, if voting were restricted , eg. maybe everyone can vote for a president/prime minister, but only non-teachers can vote for an education minister, and only non-finance people can vote for something like the Fed chief, etc. The point being the checks and balances now happen because other groups keep your group in check by voti…
Why exclude teachers from picking the education minister? If we're restricting votes, shouldn't they be the only ones doing so instead?
This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany. This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy. I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly inv…
I agree that it's an act of state sponsored terrorism. Don't let the down votes make you feel alone.