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

821–830 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#821

Post by dyauspitr »

Scroll_Swe wrote: post #712
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.

The internet is not the problem, the algo is. With the internet I have free MIT lessons, documentaries, debates on Youtube! I have access to scientific journals. I can access every book ever written in the world. The internet is not the issue here. The homepages/fyp on youtube, tiktok, instagram is. Books and the correct asthetic needs to be prioritized.

That internet will still exist, you just won’t be anonymous while accessing those resources.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#822

Post by aliasxneo »

gib444 wrote: post #633
aliasxneo wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's called "luck". I think it's actually called statistics. In 2026, it would seem I'm statistically less likely to get arrested for a social media post in the US than the UK. I mean it's not like the reason is hidden. Arrests typically require crossing into narrow unprotected categories under the First Amendment: true threats (Virginia v. Black standard), incitement to imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Oh…

Got a link for those UK stats? Last time I went looking, even a Parliamentary report expressed that the stats are difficult to find, because the crime is eg malicious communications which covers a lot of acts. Your links in another comment do not contain nearly enough detail to support the argument you're attempting to make. The 2 laws mentioned therein are broad and could cover many acts. It's like a newspaper looki…

Well, that presents a problem when the news organizations that did investigate are just outright dismissed. The Times did a FOI request and are the ones who published the 12,183 figure which ultimately demonstrated the massive increase year over year.

The fact that there were signed petitions, two reports from supposably untrustworthy news organizations (that I could fine, there's probably more), and that it's been discussed at the national level multiple times, will either convince someone that it's 100% fabricated if they lean one way politically or that it's true if they lean the other way.

More and more I've found that it has nothing to do with data anymore. People will just ignore whatever isn't suitable to their beliefs.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#823

Post by hk__2 »

root-parent wrote: post #803
hk__2 wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her name is von der Leyen. "Ursula" is fine for your friends, but it’s awkward for a public figure. Do you write "Donald" as well?

You have 3 million threads here to police, talking about Elon. Get on with it...

Come on, "Elon" is the exception.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#824

Post by Oranguru »

zkmon wrote: post #754
fosk wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the voice of the EU voters has been suppressed on this matter despite the Parliament (elected by them) voted twice on denying this full proposal. By any definition of the term, this is not a democracy and it's a technocracy at best. Edit: I am Italian.

Are you saying EU Council made an illegal Act that violates the provisions in other Acts? Why don't anyone talk about references to those violations?

They didn't say that; they simply said this is not the way of democracy. Legality has nothing to do with it.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#825

Post by petesergeant »

LtWorf wrote: post #735
petesergeant wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Danish government is pro spying on its people. It would be more surprising if the organisation ultimately responsible for security did not want to.

UK is full of cameras… is it any safer?

Than the UK without cameras? Probably?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#826

Post by solidsnack9000 »

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.

Everything in the US Constitution is amendable, though -- in other words, the whole Constitution can be changed with a vote.

The US is founded on certain ideas about natural rights -- hence not granted, per se -- but that's somewhat orthogonal to this whole issue. Even if there were an unwritten constitution, a country could base its institutions, philosophy of lawmaking, jurisprudence, &c, on natural rights doctrine (and for a time, the British did exactly that).

The earlier post mentions "That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote." but if what they mean is natural rights, that goes well beyond any procedural issue around the basic law.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#827

Post by dxuh »

znpy wrote: post #221
nick486 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really surprised at the hurry. The EU, and many EU governments, have been ramming through deeply unpopular legislation at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason, lately. It feels like the last turn in a board game where everyone is busy taking points with no regard for the impact of the decisions on the theoretical next turn - because there is no next turn. Its really weird. > blame-laundering mechanism Also, I'…

My guess is that with non-left political movements on the rise better surveillance tools were needed to prevent them from winning the elections around europe. I really don’t but any other reason, as other tools (legal and technological) are already in place.

None of these will be used to attack the far-right parties on the right though. They barely investigate those parties in the individual countries, but they focus more on the moderate left already.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#828

Post by paulddraper »

gmueckl wrote: post #659
paulddraper wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the out of session time for?

For doing actual work? Getting in touch with constituents, listening to them, faction internal coordination, working on committee specific stuff, understanding proposals and motions of others, maybe filing their own... when taken seriously, this can be an intense job.

Most of that list is done in session.

This was just everyone leaving on a Friday, sort of a work day, sort of not.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#829

Post by munksbeer »

fosk wrote: post #777
munksbeer wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bizarre argument. Emmanuel Macron sits on the EU Council. He has no democratic mandate? The entire point of the EU design is that ultimately the member states national governments (the heads of) are the most powerful and set the direction. It was done this way because people didn't like the idea of EU ministers. There was even a huge objection to the change that introduced the Parliament, the MEPs that you…

The EU Council and the Council of the European Union are two different bodies. Macron sits in the EU Council and it has nothing to do with this.

My apologies I was. But nevertheless, these are still these are elected representatives of the member states. These are not unknown "bureaucrats from Brussels".

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#830

Post by solidsnack9000 »

int_19h wrote: post #580
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.

Germany is one prominent example for obvious historical reasons. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause are not all that uncommon in general.

The page you link contains many interesting examples; but many of them are simply cases of making the vote harder -- requiring unanimous consent to change English-French bilingualism in Canada, for example -- rather than cases where the law simply can not ever be changed by a vote.

With regards to Germany, the page says:

...if a constitution provides for a mechanism of its own abolition or replacement, like the German Basic Law does in Article 146, this by necessity provides a "back door" for getting rid of the "eternity clause", too.

It's really hard to have a legal system that literally can not be changed by any legitimate vote -- only by revolution -- because what sits at the bottom of most of them (all of them?) is that the consent of some body politic is necessary and sufficient to legitimate a law.

Post reply on HN