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

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#301

Post by fc417fc802 »

vrganj wrote: post #289
fc417fc802 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bad, that does change things. Somewhat surprising that they would include that item as it alone tips the legal scales against them dramatically. I was skeptical enough to look over the linked correctiv article and I notice that while those contacted are generally quoted as dodging most of the other questions they invariably come out against expulsion of legal citizens. > And all those who campaigned for refugees c…

I'm from the country Sellner is from - the same country Hitler was from! - and he is indeed comic book villain levels of evil. For example, he was in contact with the Christchurch shooter before he committed his terrorist acts. Just read his Wikipedia article [0] and you'll find out more about his character, like this gem: > Sellner said that Jews were a problem in the 1920s and made references to the "Jewish questio…

My intent wasn't to ask about that specific meeting but rather about the reported positions of the individuals involved. No matter how reputable I wouldn't want to take a single source as fact when the claim is that someone secretly holds reprehensible views in private that contradict what he says in public.

Setting aside the other attendees wikipedia more than covers sellner in that regard.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#302

Post by master-lincoln »

u8080 wrote: post #299
master-lincoln wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said it's undemocratic? Throwing out citizens because of some birth attribute they can not influence could be seen as inhumane. Would you think it's ok to throw out everybody with a certain eye color?

You said "foreign culture", now you are moving goalposts. Culture is not birth attribute.

ok fair, I interpreted their language.

But then it needs to be defined what is local culture and what is foreign. And people would need to get the same treatment independently of their background. That is not what the AfD argues.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#303

Post by DiggyJohnson »

wesammikhail wrote: post #225
latentsea wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The system we got for this is called parenting And it fails miserably.

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.

I genuinely think it’s all three:

1. The cultural factor is rising expectations for children and their parents, costing both time and money;

2. The political/social factor is nanny states and academic institutions that the public expects to not only teach but raise their kids;

3. Technology. Especially the Internet, mobile devices, social media, and short form content. Technology distracts and isolates both kids and parents.

An example of the three factors at work is the all-too-common local news trope of ”Nosy neighbor calls CPS because the family next door lets their kids walk to school. Whole family traumatized as a result.”

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#304

Post by vrganj »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #301
vrganj wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from the country Sellner is from - the same country Hitler was from! - and he is indeed comic book villain levels of evil. For example, he was in contact with the Christchurch shooter before he committed his terrorist acts. Just read his Wikipedia article [0] and you'll find out more about his character, like this gem: > Sellner said that Jews were a problem in the 1920s and made references to the "Jewish questio…

My intent wasn't to ask about that specific meeting but rather about the reported positions of the individuals involved. No matter how reputable I wouldn't want to take a single source as fact when the claim is that someone secretly holds reprehensible views in private that contradict what he says in public. Setting aside the other attendees wikipedia more than covers sellner in that regard.

"Hiding your power levels" is a key strategy of the neofascist right. Make yourself look reasonable until you have enough power to do the despicable.

This explains why they are publicly denying what they are plotting in private.

Here's some choice quotes, translated to English.

"We must proceed completely peacefully and deliberately, adapt if necessary and butter up the opponent [literally: smear honey on their mouths], but when we are finally ready, we will put them all against the wall. (...) Dig a pit, all in and quicklime on top."

-- Holger Arppe, former AfD Vice Chair [0]

"The worse Germany is doing, the better it is for the AfD. [...] Therefore we have to consider a tactic between: How bad can things get for Germany? And: How much can we provoke? [...] Because then the AfD does better. We can always just shoot them all later. That's not an issue at all. Or gas them, or however you want. I don't care!"

-- Christian Lüth, AfD Press spokesman [1]

"It doesn't matter, nothing will change, even if we were to eat chalk [act harmless]. Even if we said: yes, we are separating from X, Y and Z now and acting moderate here."

-- Hans-Christoph Berndt, AfD Brandenburg senate leader [2]

[0] https://taz.de/Frueherer-AfD-Fraktionsvize-verurteilt/!56167... [1] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/afd-sprecher-wollte-fluc... [2] https://mik.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/Einstufungsver...

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#305

Post by keremimo »

Gigachad wrote: post #176
earth-tattoo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are in betweens of an iphone and analog camera. You can use a digital camera with an SD card that you plug into a laptop that never connects to internet.

So the average person is having to set up an air gapped system to store normal family photos while while Epstein's clients and co conspirators communicate over plain text Gmail and for some reason we can't do anything about it.

You aren't that rich, so you are correct.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#306

Post by Closi »

kvgr wrote: post #285

What i found the most fascinating, is that they say its to protect children. But when you look at real child abuse cases, there are huge gaps in sentencing, policing and protecting kids in all countries. Where i live child abuser will get lower sentence than someone who sold weed. There is a lot of real police work that can be done, honey trap pedos on roblox, infiltrate public whatsapp groups to check and monitor fo…

It's 100% about control - it's the same in the UK.

Last year it was about having to scan your face to verify your age to access porn (to protect the children). They said: It's not about control, it's about protecting children.

Last month the same government announced they will use the same technology to prevent access to Youtube and Twitter without giving over your ID and confirming who you are... Still under the 'protecting the children' banner.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#309

Post by u8080 »

master-lincoln wrote: post #302
u8080 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said "foreign culture", now you are moving goalposts. Culture is not birth attribute.

ok fair, I interpreted their language. But then it needs to be defined what is local culture and what is foreign. And people would need to get the same treatment independently of their background. That is not what the AfD argues.

>people would need to get the same treatment independently of their background

This point of view is seems actually widely represented in German politics

>That is not what the AfD argues.

Ironically AfD leader is a lesbian married with immigrant Sri-lankian woman, so I doubt your claims.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#310

Post by joenot443 »

berkes wrote: post #294
pembrook wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blowin…

Companies fall under the government. So what a company harvests (to sell more toilet bowl cleaner), is accessible to the government it falls under. By that logic, you should fear companies at least as much as their governments when handing them your data. But companies have additional goals: to increase profit. Which can be achieved by selling more toilet bowl cleaner. But also by externalising harm/pollution/costs,…

Governments have a monopoly on violence, companies generally do not.

This fact alone makes the comparison you’re trying to make pretty silly. You have far, far more to fear from the country from which you’re a citizen than the company for which you’re a customer.

Read more history.

Post reply on HN