111–120 of 278 posts
Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.
Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re indirectly elected through national governments and parliament. That’s different from being directly elected by citizens. Being appointed by elected politicians doesn’t make someone directly accountable to voters. Citizens don’t vote for commissioners, and it’s much harder for voters to remove or reward them based on their policies.
Ao is the prime minister in any country that adopts parliamentarism. I am still to see as many people getting riled up about how those countries are not democratic.
Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They are not unelected. After how many layers does the democratic part get watered down and is just members of the elite picking other elites? Role | Chosen by | Direct citizen vote? -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------- Commission President | European Council proposes, European Parliament elects| No (indirect via EP) European Council Presid…
I live in a country where the prime minister is picked by the parliament. I don't directly vote for him. By your own ridiculous standards, I don't live in a democracy. I fact, any paliamentarism would not be democratic based on that.
When you vote in your elections, you almost certainly know who's going to lead the country.
Not so with the EU: look up Spitzenkandidat method and the deviations from it, including von der Leyen in 2019 being parachuted into her post not based on any vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case you're against the people currently in government, not the body itself, i.e. some people against Chat Control ask for the dissolution of the EU, but would they ask for the dissolution of their national state if a similar law was passed in their national parliament? I think no
I've never seen anyone ask for the dissolution of the EU in chat control threads, and I read every one of them. What I see people (Europeans) lamenting is how undemocratic the EU is. As much as I think von der Leyen should be imprisoned, the issue is not the people in the government, but the institution itself. The Commission and the Council are the ones pushing these things, every time. The people in government are…
The Euroskeptics want to go about this backwards. They correctly see the anti-democratic nature of the current EU structure and conclude that this is the only way European integration could happen, ergo we should not integrate Europe. The problem with this is that, even as 27 individual sovereigns, the former EU member states would still need to form agreements with one another and with other countries. Except this negotiation process is completely outside the democratic process even more than the EU currently is.
The underlying problem is that democracies do not stack or sum. Two democracies negotiating with one another become a dictatorship of whoever is doing the negotiating. The only way to preserve democracy is to give the people of both countries equal control over the matters assigned to the whole. The people must rule as one or they cease to rule at all.
Thus, discontinuing the permit to use these techniques did have enforcement numbers of those crimes found drop significantly.
I'm wondering if they've given up real policing of these crimes completely?!
Spreading pedo content on Facebook, those people have to be the dumbest of the dumb? Everyone spending even a single critical thought on their crimes won't be caught by this.
And they say enforcement numbers drop significantly? Meaning they don't catch many other people? What the fuck are they even doing? Did they completely give up trying to find the real criminals, and instead fall back on sugar-coated figures to conceal that failure?
The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated. The amount of questionable decisions coming from those three in the recent (15) years is extremely unsettling. The parliament and courts are practically the only institutions preventing things from hitting the fan at this point, and struggling to do so, it seems.
The government will investigate the government and find that the government did nothing wrong. A subsequent government review of the government's investigation of the government will find no wrongdoing on the part of the government. Ain't democracy grand?
For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here. Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, b…
Also, another key fact to bring up here once again: The institution that forced this through is the EU Council, the body that represents national governments and is composed of heads of government . The reason they have to force it through and couldn't do 2.0 is because the EU Parliament stopped them. In other words, it's the nation states that want this and the EU institutions that are blocking it, not the other way…
In some, in some not. Not everyone is the UK. Many nations which had a totalitarian government in the 20th century are more wary about this sort of sweeping surveillance power.
The "charm" of pushing this through the circuitous path via Brussels is that few people and even few media outlets are paying attention to what happens in Brussels. Everyone is still obsessed with their national politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not suggesting that at all. I am simply suggesting that bureaucracies have their own specific failure models. I am very pro regulation.
Ok, theres defo a lot of idiots on HN and in USA who disagree with you. Still, kinda weird to complain about bureaucracy and regulations in this context cus its the only solution to these problems of egality and corruption which humanity has been struggling with ever since the dawn of civilisation. Tho, It's kind of a solved problem too. We should all just try to be like Denmark, they at the top or near the top of pr…
Wait, but doesn't Denmark have the strictest immigration policies in the entire EU?
> they at the top or near the top of practially every metric. Happiness, corruption index, Gini, Quality of life, healthcare, education, carbon.
I don't understand. Are you suggesting deporting all migrants to improve the statistics to Denmark's level? But that's impossible in our legal system. We've been actively importing culturally incompatible foreigners for decades now, and many already have citizenship. You can't just strip people of their citizenship in an attempt to improve the statistics.