151–160 of 163 posts
In a nutshell, there will be no more intrusions into chats, but only obligations for the companies to provide preferential channels for victims of these crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>you surely gain nothing one of the main reasons chat control keeps failing is because of protests all over Europe. without it, chat control may already be a thing
On one hand you have politicians whose job is to implement policy, on the other you have people who have to go out of their way to protest. In the end politicians win, simply because regular people have other jobs. You get initial push from protests, but in the end time works against them. So no, protest are not the solution, just a delay.
usually the people who choose not to protest for/against issues they care about do so for fear of police, fear of embarrassment, and/or laziness, not because they don't believe the countless sociological studies which have shown protest to be an effective form of political action
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the not-jumping-out experiment you mean cooking a frog? I'm not aware that the phrase refers to an experiment, rather a cooking pot, and anything with its brain removed is dead anyway? anyway, the same can equally be said for flies. if you swat fast at a landed fly it will notice and fly away; however if you bring the swatter close slowly and evenly the fly will allow it close enough that there's no escape
If you slowly boil any animal with a brain that can move out your boiling recipient, it will move out once the temperature is uncomfortable, way before any danger. The expression always seemed dumb to me, but now that I know where it came from, I'm vindicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual acts can actually have more resonance, if carried out with conviction and commitment (and if the cause is just). See Greta Thunberg; she might not have managed to save the planet yet, but she sure got the attention of the world (of course, however big a problem chat control is, climate change is a much bigger issue)
Greta Thunberg achieved nothing useful in practice and if the best mascot for a movement is an autistic teenager it bodes poorly for that movement's chances. She personally is perfectly successful, but in terms of political effectiveness people should model themselves off movements that achieved something.
The opposite forces were too strong in the end, but that doesn't mean that she didn't do a lot.
I'm not sure I see any problem with an autistic teenager as a "mascot"; I know how much a political area despises her, but if they treated a child like that, they would probably have done much worse with a normal adult.
But of course she's not enough, and expecting that she on her own will solve climate warming is delusional.
Which movements would you recommend as models?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual acts can actually have more resonance, if carried out with conviction and commitment (and if the cause is just). See Greta Thunberg; she might not have managed to save the planet yet, but she sure got the attention of the world (of course, however big a problem chat control is, climate change is a much bigger issue)
> of course, however big a problem chat control is, climate change is a much bigger issue Not quite "of course" in my opinion. An even bigger problem than (and a major cause of) climate change is how information flows to people. Or how it does not flow. Private conversations are part of that flow, I wouldn’t take that lightly.
If for some weird reason I was forced to choose between stopping chat control and stopping climate change, I'd sure, regrettably, have to choose the latter...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Greta Thunberg achieved nothing useful in practice and if the best mascot for a movement is an autistic teenager it bodes poorly for that movement's chances. She personally is perfectly successful, but in terms of political effectiveness people should model themselves off movements that achieved something.
To me it seems that she achieved a lot, compared to the rest of the activists. The opposite forces were too strong in the end, but that doesn't mean that she didn't do a lot. I'm not sure I see any problem with an autistic teenager as a "mascot"; I know how much a political area despises her, but if they treated a child like that, they would probably have done much worse with a normal adult. But of course she's not e…
If we're talking about the scale of reforming the EU, I'd say the basket of things to look at are things like the rise of capitalism, liberalism, major religions, spread of democracy, the Enlightenment. There are a lot of smaller examples of polities reforming too but those are some nice big ones. The smaller ones tend to be quieter, less flashy affairs where someone organises people together to try and make life better.
> I know how much a political area despises her, but if they treated a child like that, they would probably have done much worse with a normal adult.
I like to believe the adults are more likely to run the numbers and say "hang on, rolling back industrial society for no obvious reason is a terrible idea and I'm probably going to fail anyway with these stupid tactics - progress is hard to stop".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it seems that she achieved a lot, compared to the rest of the activists. The opposite forces were too strong in the end, but that doesn't mean that she didn't do a lot. I'm not sure I see any problem with an autistic teenager as a "mascot"; I know how much a political area despises her, but if they treated a child like that, they would probably have done much worse with a normal adult. But of course she's not e…
> Which movements would you recommend as models? If we're talking about the scale of reforming the EU, I'd say the basket of things to look at are things like the rise of capitalism, liberalism, major religions, spread of democracy, the Enlightenment. There are a lot of smaller examples of polities reforming too but those are some nice big ones. The smaller ones tend to be quieter, less flashy affairs where someone o…
I guess you're a climate change denier, there's little to discuss then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The EU" is our elected governments, not some third-party institution. An extra vote on top of the election was always foolish.
> "The EU" is our elected governments Is that why the EU MEP can't propose laws? Is that why the Commission can ignore the MEP's votes? Also, many European governments have not been elected by people voting for them but by people voting against their opponent. Hardly a vote of confidence. > An extra vote on top of the election was always foolish. Yes, so foolish to ask people their opinion. If only we could have one…
MEPs have the same power to put laws through s back benchers in the Westminster system. They have the same power to evict the executive as the house does in America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which movements would you recommend as models? If we're talking about the scale of reforming the EU, I'd say the basket of things to look at are things like the rise of capitalism, liberalism, major religions, spread of democracy, the Enlightenment. There are a lot of smaller examples of polities reforming too but those are some nice big ones. The smaller ones tend to be quieter, less flashy affairs where someone o…
> I like to believe the adults are more likely to run the numbers and say "hang on, rolling back industrial society for no obvious reason is a terrible idea I guess you're a climate change denier, there's little to discuss then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, going into details and then leaving out the crucial part. You're technically right about "regulations", which is a technical legal term with a surprise indirect meaning. The surprise is that "directives" also exist. Of course the situation is that the EU parliament HAS come up with a version of the Chat Control law. It can be summarized very succinctly: "NO" (obviously I mean that nothing passed parliament, I…
> "NO" (obviously I mean that nothing passed parliament, I do get that they did work on a couple dozen versions of the actual law too. However the final outcome really is "NO") The Parliament decided to allow negotiations on the basis of 520 amendments to the commission text (ref: A9-0364/2023), of which around 80 are full deletions. Summarising the full draft as NO is simply not accurate.
I mean, only if you want to make an incredibly, extremely generous interpretation of what's happening, but sure, what you're saying is a nanometer within what is theoretically possible. Incredibly, incredibly unlikely but possible. It doesn't explain why the commission acts at all in this case, when they almost never act after rejection, and it doesn't explain at all why the most powerful EU institution is suddenly involved. You would need to explain why this justifies the same amount of attention that the Treaty of Lisbon got (you know, when French and the Netherlands' voters rejected what could be interpreted as the existence of the EU, that's certainly how a bunch of political parties saw it)
But is it possible? Yes. Procedures allow this. Sure.
