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

561–570 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#561

Post by thin_carapace »

protocolture wrote: post #522
thin_carapace wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

the opening quote is attributed to aristotle

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#562

Post by canadiantim »

guelo wrote: post #554
gorwell wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit still thinks the EU represents democracy.

Reddit is one of the few remaining platforms where reach is determined democratically. You demean that populous by calling it the singular "reddit", as if it's a single hive mind. But you'll probably get your way, I imagine the billionaire censorship campaign will come for it too eventually. Then you'll only ever get to hear thoughts you agree with, glorious day ey?

Reddit is the most censored platform out there… posts and users that are not aligned with subreddit mods get banned or deleted prolifically. Subreddits that do not align similarly soon find themselves banned

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#563

Post by thin_carapace »

Eueudhsbsj32 wrote: post #540
thin_carapace wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 just western kids? Cell phone and tablet use by little kids in Asia is on a whole other level.

I have no experience with the way children are raised in asia and am horrified that this phenomenon is not constrained to one particular region

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#564

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #516
bko wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure any country actually has a Constitution with rights that are not up for a vote. There is generally a separate, harder procedure for changing the "basic law" or Constitution of a country -- for example, 2/3 of delegates or a 2/3 of states or something of that nature -- but I'd be surprised if there's a country where they have literally no way to change it at all.

The US constitution doesn't grant rights. It's sort of the whole deal which the rest of the western world doesn't really understand, much less Americans themselves.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#565

Post by gorgoiler »

joe_mamba wrote: post #392
selfmodruntime wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time now even the most pro-european EU defender will realise that what was once a trade union has slowly transformed itself into an undemocratic, bureaucratic monster.

Only in some bubbles. But most normies I know are massive EU fanboys and showing them the malicious things the EU is doing, they just shrug at best, or call you a Putin supporter at worst. They'll only realize this when the jackboot is on their neck. But probably not even then because in some EU countries government obedience is like a religion.

I recommend my own personal democracy metric: your level of democracy is proportional to how easily you can shout “moron!” at your representative and have them hear you. Do you know who they are, can you find them at a public meeting, and will they be able to hear you? For the EU, all three combine to give a pretty low score.

As we’re seeing in the UK right now, if you stump up £500 and find ten people to counter-sign your candidacy, you can even run against your MP as a novelty candidate. If you choose your novelty name right you also get to stand next to them at the alphabetically-ordered result announcement.

Compare with comatose Kentucky senators on their deathbed or EU commissioners based in a country with French train signs. Neither are insurmountable obstacles to democracy — hold up a sign? Google Translate? — but, by my metric, they are lesser options to something more local and accountable.

I’m sure, back in the day, rural folk took umbrage at having to ride their donkey to the local town just to be able to throw cowpats at their despised burghers. We of course can do it on TikTok nowadays but nothing beats yelling in person.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#566

Post by nine_k »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #516
bko wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure any country actually has a Constitution with rights that are not up for a vote. There is generally a separate, harder procedure for changing the "basic law" or Constitution of a country -- for example, 2/3 of delegates or a 2/3 of states or something of that nature -- but I'd be surprised if there's a country where they have literally no way to change it at all.

Amending the US Constitution takes a lot of voting, with very large majorities in Congress / Senate and state legislatures. This has been achieved a number of times, and some of these decisions were rather unwise, like the Prohibition (18th amendment).

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#567

Post by nine_k »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #564
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure any country actually has a Constitution with rights that are not up for a vote. There is generally a separate, harder procedure for changing the "basic law" or Constitution of a country -- for example, 2/3 of delegates or a 2/3 of states or something of that nature -- but I'd be surprised if there's a country where they have literally no way to change it at all.

The US constitution doesn't grant rights. It's sort of the whole deal which the rest of the western world doesn't really understand, much less Americans themselves.

Mr Madison, and a bunch of other Founding Fathers, might disagree a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#568

Post by WatchDog »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #564
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure any country actually has a Constitution with rights that are not up for a vote. There is generally a separate, harder procedure for changing the "basic law" or Constitution of a country -- for example, 2/3 of delegates or a 2/3 of states or something of that nature -- but I'd be surprised if there's a country where they have literally no way to change it at all.

The US constitution doesn't grant rights. It's sort of the whole deal which the rest of the western world doesn't really understand, much less Americans themselves.

The US constitution is one of the few constitutions that _does_ grant rights[0].

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#569

Post by hunter-gatherer »

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #543
hunter-gatherer wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a deeply American (and Puritan) view of work, and I can say that as an American who works in public service. PTO is not a “privilege.” In fact, it is a documented right as part of the employment agreement your company makes you, when you sign that document about the handbook. It should be a legal agreement, but somehow we’ve convinced people their purpose in life is to work for 50-60 years for 40+ hours a wee…

I didn't say it was a privilege. I said it was viewed as such when I was in the military.

I wasn't talking about work agreements with civil companies. You brought that in. My comment was in regards to public service only.

I don't disagree about public servants having more time off or more money. But I believe they should be on call. If that means cancelling vacation to vote, so be it. You don't want to have that life style? Don't run for public office.

FWIW, I've had skin in that game. I was stop lossed when I had 4 months left on my enlistment for a 15 month combat deployment. That's public service. Elected officials should be present and ready to serve.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#570

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

WatchDog wrote: post #568
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US constitution doesn't grant rights. It's sort of the whole deal which the rest of the western world doesn't really understand, much less Americans themselves.

The US constitution is one of the few constitutions that _does_ grant rights[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

That page specifically says the constitution grants rights to the government and reserves the rights of the people. There is a lot in there about the case against the bill of rights, a big part of which is that itemizing the rights implies that they are limited to the list.

Editing to clarify that this isn't just semantics: under the 'grant rights to the people' model, a government that grants one set of rights is just as legitimate as one that grants another. It was the position of the founders that governments which deny certain rights are infringing on the pre-existing rights of the people. This is the basis for their position on revolution.

Post reply on HN