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

841–850 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#841

Post by boltzmann-brain »

hk__2 wrote: post #785
flossly wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear. The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody…

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?

It's very usual to name famous people by their first name. like John, Ringo, George, or Paul. Or Steve and Bill. Or Sam and Dario.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#842

Post by boltzmann-brain »

winterismute wrote: post #801
fosk wrote: post #719

The EU is a farce, an undemocratic virtue signaling organization, and this is why: - The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, the first time they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully. - The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it. - Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes…

While I agree that this setup is not very good, the EU Commission is essentially the equivalent of a government in a parliamentary or presidential democracy, and almost all such democracies I know about either have or have developed "ways" for the government to "push through" the will of the "chamber(s)". However, we do not consider those as farces as well, or so it seems to me, I guess mostly because those governmen…

> However, we do not consider those as farces as well

Speak for yourself. A lot of people do.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#843

Post by Fnoord »

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...

Because in the name Elon Musk, Elon stands out.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#844

Post by Fnoord »

ktosobcy wrote: post #835
rayiner wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to explain to my wife (American lawyer) how the EU Commissioners are selected and she told me "I'm not having fun understanding this." I had thought it was just the heads of government from each member state. That would make sense given the immense power of the body. But that's apparently not how it works.

You are mixing it with Council ;) Yeah, EU setup is absurdly convoluted but it's simply a result of the consensus that tires to balance difference sources of power (the people and the countries). Ideally the whole EU population should just vote for MEPs in EU parliment, which the would form the government. But that would completely sidestep member states government which they won't ever agree to. And any even mention…

Yup, classic, mixed EP with EC. Makes you wonder if he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified.

I don't like the way US presidents are elected either, ignoring popular vote, and including gerrymandering. I also don't like how the US president is allowed to bypass Congress.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#845

Post by dbdr »

miroljub wrote: post #98
dbdr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely legitimate to be upset. However, identifying a lawfare trick in a close vote to a dictatorship is serious hyperbole. I'm afraid that's counterproductive.

Close vote? They passed a regulation with 276 votes in favor, 314 votes against, and 17 abstained. The minority decided instead of the majority. If this is not a dictatorship, what is it then? In any case, it has nothing to do with the democracy.

My point is that this was a minority of 46.7% making that decision (because of a technicality that has been pointed out already). In a dictatorship, a minority of 1 against a million or more makes all the decisions. Even though you can say 46.7% and 0.0001% are both below 50%, it's missing a lot of nuance to claim they are of the same nature.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#846

Post by gib444 »

aliasxneo wrote: post #822
gib444 wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

You don't have the data on arrests specifically over social media posts, because they don't exist, so you chose to dismiss my reply and attempt an ad hominem.

I am not leaning one way or the other 100%, as indicated in my earlier reply. You are just reading what you want to read

I agree when there is not precise data available, inferences can be made from other data, but you must not state things like "statistically less likely to get arrested for a social media post in the US than the UK" when you don't have the actual, relevant statistics.

If you wish to argue with statistics, you must present them. And they will be cross examined, as is right and proper.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#847

Post by rayiner »

sampo wrote: post #838
rayiner wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to explain to my wife (American lawyer) how the EU Commissioners are selected and she told me "I'm not having fun understanding this." I had thought it was just the heads of government from each member state. That would make sense given the immense power of the body. But that's apparently not how it works.

(1) Replace US president with a Commission of Presidents. One from each state (well, EU only has 27 member states). Each Commissioner is appointed by state legislature, not elected. No more presidential elections. This is the EU Commission. (2) Replace US senate with a meeting of secretaries, or heads of departments from each state. Only one relevant representative from each state. But the senate composition is not f…

Thank you! I think that's all correct except (1), unless I'm misunderstanding something you wrote. My understanding is that the European Council appoints a Commission President-elect. The President-elect and the Council of Ministers then prepare a proposed slate of the other Commissioners, on suggestion from the members states. Then the European Parliament can vote on the entire slate thumbs-up or thumbs-down: https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/how-commissi....

To analogize to the U.S., it would be like if the National Governor's Association selected a Head President. Then you had a Senate of Secretaries made up of the secretaries of various executive departments in the 50 states. Then the Head President and Senate of Secretaries put together a slate for the Commission of Presidents. And Congress would then approve the slate up or down.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#848

Post by stronglikedan »

hk__2 wrote: post #785
flossly wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear. The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody…

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?

what? it's her name. people use it. it's fine. you act like politicians deserve respect

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#849

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

MaxwellJensen wrote: post #620
oofdere wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

our rights have largely held up even in the absurd world we live in, and the constitution continues to be a thorn on the side of those trying to abridge them. what we are seeing now is the conclusion of decades of eroding our rights and the tower still refuses to topple. though of course we're going to have a lot of work to do fixing it up after all is said and done.

Have you heard of the Patriot Act?

Have you heard of ACLU v. Clapper, HLP v. DoJ, Doe v. Ashcroft, or US v. Moalin? Parent acknowledges decades of degradation and points to thorns like these.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#850

Post by rayiner »

gls2ro wrote: post #837
rayiner wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have effective representation just because a vote happens somewhere in a causal chain. A body that's appointed by people who are themselves typically indirectly elected is a lot of layers of indirection. For effective representation, you need a feedback loop between the voting and the policymaking at the other end. If you add all these layers in-between, voters are going to have a hard time figuring out how…

I dont disagree. But I am also limited in seeing practical solutions to make EU better in this sense for people to feel represented at all levels directly. Please note the practical thing here cause idealist solutions I have plenty. It is just that countries are too nationalistic. Why I find it hard: EU is another abstraction on top of what we already have: local, regional, national. EU is not just an alliance but a…

It seems to me that the nationalism issue is orthogonal to the representation issue. In the current structure, the EU government is even more powerful than the U.S. federal government. The U.S. federal government can only legislate in certain areas, and cannot compel the states to enforce federal law. This restriction is strongly enforced by the judiciary. That's why, for example, U.S. states effectively legalized marijuana, even though it's illegal under federal law.[1]

As I understand it, the EU can legislate in any area it wants. And member states are required to enforce EU law as if it were their own domestic law. The EU can even sue member states for failing to implement and enforce EU law.

So it seems like the EU government is both extremely powerful (the nationalism issue), but also very insulated from European voters (the representation issue).

[1] And I think most people would say that the federal government isn't even allowed to regulate individual use of marijuana. There's a 2005 Supreme Court case to the contrary, but I don't think it would turn out the same way under the current Supreme Court.

Post reply on HN