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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#111

Post by iso1631 »

whitehexagon wrote: post #69
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

>How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? Swiss style democracy with public referendums?

plebiscite -> populism -> bad outcomes

People are not able to be experts in everything they are asked to vote on, thats why we delegate it, just like people delegate their healthcare, plumbing, flying to a holiday destination, growing food, etc.

People en-mass are just as easy to manipulate as elected members, if not easier.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#112

Post by varispeed »

This is an ongoing terrorist attack and authorities fail to stop it. Please report these people to the police as attempted terrorist attack. People behind Chat Control should be arrested.

A snippet I posted before:

If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.

The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.

It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.

The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#113

Post by btown »

Humorist2290 wrote: post #34

(6) Online child sexual abuse frequently involves the misuse of information society services offered in the Union by providers established in third countries. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the rules laid down in this Regulation and a level playing field within the internal market, those rules should apply to all providers, irrespective of their place of establishment or residence, that offer services in the…

From https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/council-presidency-lewp-csa-r... pp 35:

(f) ‘relevant information society services’ means all of the following services: (i) a hosting service; (ii) an interpersonal communications service; (iii) a software applications store; (iv) an internet access service; (v) online search engines.

And via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... pp 8:

(2) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby connectivity to virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used

===

Calling it Chat Control is itself an understatement, one that evokes "well I'm not putting anything sensitive on WhatsApp" sentiments - and that's incredibly dangerous.

This bill may very well be read to impose mandatory global backdoors on VPNs, public cloud providers, and even your home router or your laptop network card!

(Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. But it doesn't take a lawyer to see how broadly scoped this is.)

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#114

Post by lazide »

hn_acc1 wrote: post #107
lazide wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, going full autist in public is a good way to get the public angry at you and try to find a way to make your life more difficult.

You mean, going full asshole. Not all autists are assholes.

The issue isn’t that he was being an asshole - plenty of politicians can be assholes and be cheered for it.

He was being straightforward, direct, matter of fact, technical, and an asshole.

You gotta lube up the plebes, or they get butthurt, and that is what is causing the issue.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#115

Post by criley2 »

tock wrote: post #87
CamperBob2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when you get what you want, and rather than magically solving every problem confronting society, it doesn't solve anything at all, and in fact creates several more problems, as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice? What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars?

> as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice Is this true? Lots of countries with high living standards have high taxes. It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence. > What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars? 1B = 1000M. I think thats high enough. Don't see why you need to make it 1000x smaller t…

Taxes are ~irrelevant to billionaires. When you say "you can't be a billionaire" what you're saying is "you cannot own any significant amount of a large business" because billionaires aren't liquid, their status is based on their assets and primarily their shares in large businesses.

I agree that wealth inequality is horrible and taxes on the wealthy should be much higher. But if someone owns 10% of a trillion dollar company, that's $100B in shares. They can sell off 900M$ worth of shares and "not be a billionaire" in terms of income and money (and thus taxation). So what do you do?

- Seize control of their shares and thus their control over private industry

- Or, accept that billionaires exist

This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production).

Most people hate the idea of billionaires, but people generally also hate a centrally planned government where the government owns a controlling stake in all businesses preventing any insider from having any real control.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#116

Post by samdoesnothing »

afarah1 wrote: post #47
frogperson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.

This seems to be more about political power and government overreach than money. The narrative seems to be focused solely on concentration of the later, lately.

You see this happening a lot where criticisms of capitalism gets laundered in with criticisms of political power as a means to deflect.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#117

Post by samdoesnothing »

imglorp wrote: post #38
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

The States are learning the hard way that the disproportionate accumulation of wealth is an irresistible force which will eventually erode all checks and balances, corrupt all systems, and ultimately capture the entire government. We we were doing mostly okay with "constrained capitalism" but as soon as we let our guard down, money flooded into politics and that was the end of restraint.

Chat Control isn't something being pushed in the States though, so your criticism just seems like you're taking a random shot at the USA rather than accepting the uncomfortable truth that the EU is becoming increasingly authoritarian.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#118

Post by dspillett »

impossiblefork wrote: post #77
frogperson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.

It's too bad we can't withdraw our votes for a politician continuously, with the politician having to leave office if the vote changes enough. I'm not sure it can be solved without everybody writing down their vote, but this would be one way that would make pushing through unpopular policies, whether because of changing opinions, mismatches where politicians misrepresent their plans or corruption, much more difficult…

> It's too bad we can't withdraw our votes for a politician continuously, with the politician having to leave office if the vote changes enough.

I think that would empower ill-conceived (and/or ill-willed) populist & short term movements, with everyone in constant fear of being "un-vote bombed" by armies of easily led, and likely make the lobbying problem worse.

Post reply on HN