[flagged]
[flagged]
You do not need to be perfect to call out flaws in others
Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
251–260 of 385 posts
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions. Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power. In general I would agree that say, walmart, is mostly interested in…
> Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions. No. My point is you should fear centralized power in general, and in exact proportion to the scope of the power being centralized. All power gets abused. Governments are centralized power on a scale that makes the most pow…
Wtf are you talking about if NSA PRISM was discovered 10+ years ago which proved all private companies cooperated with govt to spy on you?
You say that govt is holding a gun to citizen's head, but govt also holding a gun at private company's head.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 throughou…
The system we got for this is called parenting. And there is a saying where I grew up: you need a village to raise a kid, I feel like we lost track of that and feel the issues of that now. Btw, von der leyen is trying to get stuff like this written down as laws since 2009, it got her the nickname Zensursula.
>Btw, von der leyen is trying to get stuff like this written down as laws since 2009, it got her the nickname Zensursula.
And Germans and Europeans looked at that and thought the best place for her is leading the EU?!
Remind me again how she got elected in that position?
Because it seems like the entire EU population knew her being infamous for that, except for the few elites who appointed her there via "democratic process" to the head of the EU.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservatives and right-wing. Gives them more control. It‘s a pattern that gets obvious once you see it. It’s so they can hide their own secrets better. In Germany, we have a law that grants you access to information, the "Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“. This was used in the past to uncover morally wrong or illegal behavior, mostly done by the conservative party. This party, as they are currently in charge, is now acti…
Sadly does not really seems tied to left or right directly. In Spain (you can see this in the website) our traditional left and right parties are largely in favor, while the parties in both ends of the spectrum (at the lack of better term: far left and far right) seem to be largely against. The sad thing is that it seems that the parties that are already established or likely to alternative in power are the ones that…
Interesting - maybe my view is biased. So it's about the people that are in power or more likely to be in power. Hm. Makes sense, thinking about it. Maybe power does, in fact, change your principles.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Google have already caused significant hardship to a father for such kinds of photos. What's particularly galling is how they've continued to maintain they were in the right, despite the police saying no crime had been committed. https://www.koffellaw.com/blog/google-ai-technology-flags-da...
Of course google and every other big-tech platform is gonna insta-wipe every account containing detected nudes of children, regardless if you're the parent.
The corporate liability of such content being found on their cloud is so insanely nuclear, that they're not gonna wait and ask you "hey are those nudes your own kids or are you a pedo?" before they wipe the account with all pics off their servers.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system we got for this is called parenting. And there is a saying where I grew up: you need a village to raise a kid, I feel like we lost track of that and feel the issues of that now. Btw, von der leyen is trying to get stuff like this written down as laws since 2009, it got her the nickname Zensursula.
> The system we got for this is called parenting And it fails miserably.
>And it fails miserably.
No it doesn't. That's just needlessly reductionist doomerist take with no argumentation to back that up.
Define failure and success of the system in this context.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#257So, ChatControl 1.0 (the volontary, limited one that expired and is being revived) has been active for about 2 years now.
Concretely, are there documented examples of abuses ? Are the checks & balance sufficient ? I understand ChatControl 2.0 goes way beyond, be it goes "beyond" enough that it does not get a majority in parlement, and can't move forward.
But for CC1.0 we don't need to imagine anymore - we have 2 years of application. Is that enough to evaluate ?
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been working for tens of thousands of years. What changed in the last few decades wasn't parenting or technology. It was the rise of the nanny state where the parents gave up the parenting of their kids and entrusted that to educational institutions instead.
It both works and fails, like many other things. But if you hold the goal that it must never fail in sufficiently high esteem, you invariably end up with a system like the one we have now.
If the goal of a system is to never fail, then the bureaucrats in charge of running that system will just game the metrics and cover up all the issue, while it fails first very slowly then very suddenly.
In fact that's why nothing ever gets done to improve things in the EU/west, because we expect perfect outcome in every new change and we want potential risks to be zero before something new is implemented, so it's easier for leaders to just never do anything, never change anything, just sit and maintain the status quo while we go through managed decline complaining things keep slowly getting worse.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU has quite successfully decoupled from Russia already, we aren't heavily dependent on Russian energy or other natural resources anymore. Also, EU countries in Eastern Europe do already have a high military spending, and even Western European countries are improving. The situation is less than ideal but not hopeless.
> Also, EU countries in Eastern Europe do already have a high military spending, and even Western European countries are improving. I would really challenge that idea that increasing military spending will create a solid and useful military force. Most of the money you inject within the military industrial complex is wasted and stolen. At some point it can become counterproductive, we can see it with the US military…
>I would really challenge that idea that increasing military spending will create a solid and useful military force.
Germany is the EU proof of that. It outpends France at defense spending but its military is massively smaller and less capable, and also non-nuclear to boot. So they're getting a very poor bang for their buck. Mostly because of bureaucracy and corruption are eating most of their money before it gets spent on the troops.
>Most of the money you inject within the military industrial complex is wasted and stolen.
That's why I'm not holding my breath at the whole "German rearmament" propaganda. Most of the money will go to boost the stock of Rheinmetall and friends, not boost the troops.