Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

111–120 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#111
post #99
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.

[flagged]

did your AI train on the Potsdam meeting notes that leaked to journalists?

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#113

Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.

Yep, and this is a perfect example of a base rate fallacy situation... even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.

Funny you bring this up.

Back in the day when I was like 15 and DC++ was still a thing, I used to browse people's shared folders. One day I came across a file called "the paradox of false positive". It was a 1 pager that described how a machine which is 99.9% accurate at identifying terrorists would be completely useless due to this false positive base rate fallacy you're describing.

It really stuck with me throughout the years. It's kind o remarkable how even a 99.9% accurate heuristic is insufficient at scale.

Which begs the question: lets assume the intentions are pure (which we know they're not but lets be generous), what other options are there when 99.9% heuristic is not good enough? how do you design systems when they're guaranteed to fail as they scale up?

edit: and what do you know, I just saw this as I scrolled down on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48816959

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Dismantling the EU is like burning down your own house just to get rid of flies. I don't like this comparison at all. Europe, the land that housed, fed and scarified my ancestors, is my house, not this supra-governmental corrupt bureaucratic institution called the EU that does not represent me nor speak in my name. Empires, monarchies, governments and all such man-made institutions like the EU get torn down all time…

I agree on the base of the argument. EU after all was created because of one tragedy. I'm absolutely sure that there will be more gruesome wars on the continent and I even wouldn't rule out the collapse in the future because petty tribalism holding everything back as always. But this is the hatred you are talking about? https://www.politico.eu/article/europeans-embrace-eu-gloom-w...

"Eurobarometer by the EU shows Europeans love the EU"

seems legit lol

Probably because most Europeans are clueless and brainwashed by MSM pro-EU propaganda, and never hear about the nasty things the EU tries to do like chat control, age-ID, car surveillance, or taxing parcels.

To most Europeans EU just means going to Spain on vacation and going to work in Germany for more money, anything else stupid the EU does never reaches them directly until much later when the second order effects hit but then it must be because the fault of Putin or Trump.

Most Europeans are pretty detached from EU politics. If you ask them who their EU MEPs /representative are most have no clue without googling, they just know some of the ones in their own country, but EU politics might as well be on another planet.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#115
post #66

They claim to protect consumers and privacy and then push this creepy surveillance state.

Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?

I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowing on a particular day. And they are legally entitled to hold a gun to your head or kill you if you don't comply.

These are not the same level of risk. Yet more hysterical attention is paid to the former instead of the latter. This is dumb.

Be more worried about governments. Read more history.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#116
post #99
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.

[flagged]

I see nothing here rebuking the above claim. Maybe you would’ve had better luck coming up with something if you had bothered to write it yourself.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#117

Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.

CSA makes ppl lose all logic, so is used to justify illogical things. Reminder that none of this has any evidence that it helps CSA, but nobody cares about the actual children.

I feel like the world cares more about stopping the spread of CSAM than it does the actual abusive actions against children.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either the EU opens Hormuz or the EU pays twice the pre war rate for gas / oil indefinitely. Of course at least they can put the subjects that bitch about it in jail now.

how is EU supposed to open hormuz? do you expect them to raise armies and go to war over a shipping lane? I think US demonstrated plenty enough this is not a viable strategy (this was known for the past 50 years)

yes that's what's known for the past million years, if you hurt people they stop bothering you and do what you want

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#119
post #5

EU politicians spend more time on chat control than on the reopening of Hormuz or EU energy security. It is a complete joke.

> EU politicians spend more time on chat control than on the reopening of Hormuz I thought I'd heard it all here on HN, but expecting EU to clean up after the US shooting itself in the foot with a completely unnecessary war probably comes somewhere in top 5 easily.

[deleted]

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on the base of the argument. EU after all was created because of one tragedy. I'm absolutely sure that there will be more gruesome wars on the continent and I even wouldn't rule out the collapse in the future because petty tribalism holding everything back as always. But this is the hatred you are talking about? https://www.politico.eu/article/europeans-embrace-eu-gloom-w...

"Eurobarometer by the EU shows Europeans love the EU" seems legit lol Probably because most Europeans are clueless and brainwashed by MSM pro-EU propaganda, and never hear about the nasty things the EU tries to do like chat control, age-ID, car surveillance, or taxing parcels. To most Europeans EU just means going to Spain on vacation and going to work in Germany for more money, anything else stupid the EU does never…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN