Live data from Hacker News

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

161–170 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#161
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semantics are important when talking about matters of law. Very important, in fact.

So you’re just going to accept a digital invasion happening and not care, because of some semantics and details somewhere in a document which was penned 200 years prior to the internet being invented? I don’t know about you, but to me that seems kind of naive and short sighted.

You can object to the "digital invasion", but using the phrase "freedom of speech" as some sort of magical shield is pointless.

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The U.S. federal or state governments, courtesy of that amendment, have very limited authority to control your speech. That's where the legal authority ends.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#162

I guessed the term Chat Control had to be made up by opponents of the legislation, so searched for the real name. The official name of the legislation is: “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse” (COM/2022/209 FINAL). It is often referenced more simply as the “Child Sexual Abuse Regulation” (CSA Regulation).

How Could You Possibly Be Against This?!?!? Regulation

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#163
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just semantics. If a website which otherwise wouldn’t censor you begins to censor you because of threats from foreign nations, that’s a foreign nation pressuring an American company into suppressing rights of American citizens. That’s a foreign nation imposing on your rights. In the past that used to require an invasion, so it was a bit more obvious what was happening, but the result is still the same. Yes it’…

Semantics are important when talking about matters of law. Very important, in fact.

Semantics are literally the only reason we write laws down and argue endlessly about exactly which words to use

Outside of law, I have never once heard "that's just semantics" in a context that made sense, or said by an intelligent person. Not once. Maybe it turns out semantics are never "just semantics", and instead it's something that always matters.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#164
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that anti-big-government and pro-privacy political philosophy is not limited to (the joke that is) American right-libertarianism?

Not as a major political force to which Denmark’s Chat Control could be responding as the OP claims. Moreover, expressions like “milked and oppressed” ring American libertarianism to the ears of this European poster who is familiar with long years of European cypherpunk activism.

Cypherpunk activism is closer to anarchist ideals, and criticism of the State and its coercive power is central to its ethos. Yes, citizens are being milked and oppressed against a state and a political caste that has grown too powerful.

American right-libertarianism is a joke that originally started as an anarchist branch and has degenerated into getting in bed with the state to further its selfish ideals. Criticism of the state has nothing to do with those posers, as their goal is solely to become the state (i.e. the oppressor), rather than truly pursue the ideal of a free society.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#165
It seems it was a matter of time.

Germany first voted against chat control 2.0, then they clarified why they were against it, became "undecided". And now "Denmark" came out with a (lighter) version "some others" are more willing to vote for. [0]

What a joke. In front of our eyes.

Then they wonder why people hate their guts and are becoming increasingly violent, euro-skeptical, etc.

[0]: https://euperspectives.eu/2025/09/germany-backtracks-chat/

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#166
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semantics are important when talking about matters of law. Very important, in fact.

So you’re just going to accept a digital invasion happening and not care, because of some semantics and details somewhere in a document which was penned 200 years prior to the internet being invented? I don’t know about you, but to me that seems kind of naive and short sighted.

> accept a digital invasion

It looks like the possibilities are endless once you throw semantics out of the window, so I could see why you're so fond of doing so.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#167
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark mostly has authoritative politicians in government. Pragmatic and without ideology. The misguided tools believe they are doing us all a big favor. They handwavingly dismiss all privacy-related criticism with “well our experts say something else!” and insist there are no privacy issues - but at the same time require exemption for their own caste.

The EU and European parliaments are very much on the technocracy side, where they defer to experts and studies for everything instead of focusing on the popular interests of the public https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Look at America to see what happens when things are decided based on the popular interests vs actual data and expertise.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not continuously, there needs to be mechanisms to recall a politician (or an entire government), and re-hold elections for both failing to govern and failing to represent the interests of the people over the interest of billionaires. To use the recent US shutdown as an example. Passing a budget is like one of the basic requirements of governing. If the current government cannot accomplish that, it should immediate…

These are good ideas, but they do have some pretty big sticking points. The ability to trigger a re-election has the same problems we're trying to avoid in the larger thread: If a bad actor (say a business) wants a politician out, they can just continually issue recall votes until they wear out the population and get lucky. Unfortunately, I think the only solution here is exactly what we have: Politicians have to be…

Re-election every couple of years does not solve the issues, as demonstrated by most elected governments around the world. People are too lazy, uninformed, stupid, to vote for their own good, and will be made to vote against their own interest, time and time again. As societies we are mostly not ready mentally to vote properly. This is in the interest of the people in power. Have stupid and confused subjects, so that you can rally them for whatever cause you need them to rally for.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If not continuously, there needs to be mechanisms to recall a politician (or an entire government), and re-hold elections for both failing to govern and failing to represent the interests of the people over the interest of billionaires. To use the recent US shutdown as an example. Passing a budget is like one of the basic requirements of governing. If the current government cannot accomplish that, it should immediate…

> Passing a budget is like one of the basic requirements of governing. If the current government cannot accomplish that, it should immediately dissolve and elections be held.

It's important to note that this is a basic principle, almost the basic principle, of English-style parliamentary democracy. You have a monarch who makes decisions (through their chosen government, ever since the English cut off a few heads), and the rest of the Parliament (a bunch of nobles, clergy, and eventually representatives of commoners) is there to withdraw financing from that government when they disapprove.

> We could also have a "cooling off" period after a piece of legislation (like chat control) fails.

We usually do, it is called a "session." The problem is the inability to pass negative legislation (which also has a pretty long history) i.e. we will not do a thing. Deliberative assemblies explicitly frown on negative legislation, and instead say that purpose is served simply by not doing the thing.

The problem is that individual rights are provided by negative legislation against the government: think the US Bill of Rights. Instead, we have systems where exclusively positive legislation is passed by majorities, and repealing that legislation takes supermajorities. The only pragmatic way to create new rights becomes to challenge legislation in courts, and get a decision by opinionated, appointed judges that X piece of legislation is superseded by Y piece of legislation for unconvincing reason Z, and this new "right" is about as stable as the current lineup of the sitting justices.

What we need is to pretend like "democracy" is a meaningful word rather than an empty chant, or more often simply a euphemism for the US, Anglosphere, Western and Central Europe, and whoever they currently approve of. Democracy is rule by the ruled, and the exact processes by which the decisions are made define the degree of democracy. Somehow, elites have decided that process is the least important part of democracy, and the most important part is that elites get their preferred outcomes. Anything else is "populism."*

Decisionmaking processes in "democracies" need to be examined, justified, and codified. The EU needs either to cede a lot more leverage to its individual members (and make that stupid currency a European bancor, rather than a German weapon) OR become more directly responsive to European individuals. If you're not serving the individual states, and you're not serving the individual citizens, you're exclusively serving elites.

* A term made into meaningless invective by elites who hated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Party_(United_States), a party who believed in things that were good.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#170

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. Psycholo…

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think hyperbole is the solution.

This legislation, while reprehensible, is not terrorism. Defining terrorism is particularly difficult (the UN has been trying since the 60s and is trying again this year), but if all intimidation for political gains is terrorism then so is every other political ad from the last 30 years. Banksy would probably argue that regular advertising also qualifies - after all, that's what the "F" in "FOMO" stands for and beauty products are definitely pushing an ideology.

You don't have to like the official definition of terrorism, but that doesn't mean that you alone get to decide what it should be.

Post reply on HN