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

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#521

Post by NikolaNovak »

rayiner wrote: post #504
Lio wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I do. I think the main purpose of the EU is to prevent wars between European states by providing a forum for compromise and cooperation. I’d say it’s succeeded in that nicely since its founding. Not one war between member states despite ongoing disputes. Seems like a very good idea. I hate this law though, it’s undemocratic.

Okay, but couldn’t a more transparent and accountable structure have accomplished the same result? Why do you need a system with seven different bodies, more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws? For example, why have an elected parliament that can’t even originate law, but an unelected commission that can make regulations that are effectively laws?

That's implementation details though; one can absolutely think that "EU is a good idea" and "specific EU systems need improving" simultaneously, without contradiction.

It's like thinking "I like Canada and am a proud Canadian, though I think there's still a lot of inequality and many policies can be improved upon and we can certainly be more efficient".

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#522

Post by protocolture »

thin_carapace wrote: post #484
dyauspitr wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet is pretty stupid now and needs to be reigned in so our sons and daughters aren’t wide eyed zombies. Most of you won’t agree with me but it’s true and something needs to be done so I laud this.

"give me a boy until he is seven and I will tell you the man he becomes" there will be at least 1 entire generation of western kids that spectated short form content on screens since the moment of birth. based on aristotle, this entire generation is going to be retarded. the EU legislature in question enables legal spectation of content exchanged by a generation of the retarded. the optimal path forward seems to be e…

Why will basing them on Aristotle make them retarded?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#523

Post by XorNot »

bko wrote: post #430
spikels wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only was Chat Control 1.0 already rejected twice by the European Parliament but: - This vote took place on last day of the session when many MEPs had already left for Summer vacation - 112 MEPs of 719 didn't vote. - The vote was called only two days before as an "Rule 170 - Urgent procedure" - 73 MEPs missed the vote making it "urgent". Normally it takes months of procedure to come up for a final vote.

That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote. Even relying on people to vote no is not enough.

The sheer optimism of posting this as an American right now...

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#524

Post by hunter-gatherer »

quantum_magpie wrote: post #431
joe_mamba wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. When I need to take my summer vacation, I need to request it to my manager in due time so the team can plan customer deliveries accordingly, and in my last day before leaving I need to do a handover of my open tasks to whoever will do the work in my absence. I can't just spontaneously decide one day that tomorrow I'm leaving for 2-4 weeks on vacation with no notice and no handover to my team. What's stopping ME…

Oh, so it's also your fault when you plan, and get approved a vacation, and then in the middle of it (lets's say on week 2 out of 4) you're notified that in two days you must be in the office, or, according to you, you should get canned?

I don't know... I'm not European so I don't really care, but I feel like there are some jobs that have an existing overlap of _duty_. I was in the military, and PTO was viewed as a privilege, and sometimes leave was cancelled, but that makes sense because of the position. Other civilian jobs, like firefighters, police, maybe some medical practitioners, might have this same thing. Politicians I would say is definitely one of those positions, where you should actually be in "public service". Officials in a democracy are supposed to be elected not because we need people to fill vacant jobs, but because we need people to be on duty to make the hard decisions.

Basically, I don't think politicians should be held to the same standard as some SWE making note-taking apps.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#525

Post by BeetleB »

aliasxneo wrote: post #517
BeetleB wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For you , yes. But not for some other folks in the US. If you want to invoke statistics, I'm sure 99% of UK citizens are confident they won't get arrested over a social media post either. They probably worry about it a lot less than you would if you moved there.

Well, sure, I tend to ground my feelings about matters in statistics. If others don't do that, then it makes total sense they might feel worried about it. But I mean there's entire groups of people saying, quite loudly, that they don't like the social media arrests and how they feel draconian. You don't really need to "guess" about a sentiment. Clearly enough people are concerned that it's being talked about at a nat…

190,000 is less than 1%, and anything from The Daily Mail is suspect anyway.

You seem to be trying to knock down a straw man, as I never claimed it was worse in the US.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#526

Post by greatgib »

hintymad wrote: post #398
teekert wrote: post #38

This is a nice piece of democracy right here: "a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. As a result, mass scanning is now permitted again until 2028." "Oh no we can't get a majority to…

Honest question: when Europeans give so much power to EU and usually favor regulations by the government, isn't it natural that the government will try to implement more control? And it looks EU officials do not have to accountable for anything. They will not suffer personally even when their policies wreck havoc. I don't quite understand why Europeans can trust EU at all. Case in point, EU HQs shut down its air cond…

Just to be clear, here you see the EU, but behind this there are a few corrupt national government officials that are pushing hard for this.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#527

Post by gorwell »

greatgib wrote: post #526
hintymad wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: when Europeans give so much power to EU and usually favor regulations by the government, isn't it natural that the government will try to implement more control? And it looks EU officials do not have to accountable for anything. They will not suffer personally even when their policies wreck havoc. I don't quite understand why Europeans can trust EU at all. Case in point, EU HQs shut down its air cond…

Just to be clear, here you see the EU, but behind this there are a few corrupt national government officials that are pushing hard for this.

But hundreds voted?

314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#528

Post by Barrin92 »

rayiner wrote: post #504
Lio wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I do. I think the main purpose of the EU is to prevent wars between European states by providing a forum for compromise and cooperation. I’d say it’s succeeded in that nicely since its founding. Not one war between member states despite ongoing disputes. Seems like a very good idea. I hate this law though, it’s undemocratic.

Okay, but couldn’t a more transparent and accountable structure have accomplished the same result? Why do you need a system with seven different bodies, more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws? For example, why have an elected parliament that can’t even originate law, but an unelected commission that can make regulations that are effectively laws?

>Why do you need a system with seven different bodies more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws?

because the European Union contains more than 600 million people and almost 30 very diverse countries (and is a supranational, not federal body). It's institutions also do mirror the structures of most other large unions.

The Commission is an executive body, the parliament is a legislative body, and the council is comparable to the state bodies in bicameral governments. You may as well ask why you have a Senate or Bundesrat when you have a HoR and Bundestag. Because minoritarian and majoritarian interests need to be balanced, even more so in the EU. If even actual nation states a fraction the size of the EU and bona fide countries aren't governed in unitary fashion, why do you expect anybody would centralize so much power in the EU.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#529

Post by mikestorrent »

mvdtnz wrote: post #468
mflaherty22 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very reductionist comment- if you're an elected representative and you leave early to take a vacation knowing you'll be missing votes, you're not doing your job..

Ever worked with Europeans? This is how they treat work. In their culture taking vacation and actually switching off is part of the job. I'm not making a value judgement but their approach to work is very different to what some of us are used to.

So they should prorogue the entire Parliament and they all take a month off together. Why the fuck should some particular province or riding or whatever miss out on representation on an important issue just because their rep is out for a week on an island somewhere? Could they not have a proxy / surrogate??

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#530

Post by aliasxneo »

BeetleB wrote: post #525
aliasxneo wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sure, I tend to ground my feelings about matters in statistics. If others don't do that, then it makes total sense they might feel worried about it. But I mean there's entire groups of people saying, quite loudly, that they don't like the social media arrests and how they feel draconian. You don't really need to "guess" about a sentiment. Clearly enough people are concerned that it's being talked about at a nat…

190,000 is less than 1%, and anything from The Daily Mail is suspect anyway. You seem to be trying to knock down a straw man, as I never claimed it was worse in the US.

No, was just pushing back at the idea that the social media arrest isn't a concern to 99% of the British population. Typically 190,000 is considered the floor because there's a wide margin of people either too busy or too scared to sign their signature. Same is true in the U.S.

But sure, obviously we're never going to agree here. I've provided my logic/evidence and you're not convinced. Fair enough. I'm content to let others review the same evidence and form their own opinions on the matter.

Post reply on HN