Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

Post by noqc » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:37 PM UTC

sidewndr46 wrote: post #49

McDyver wrote: post #30

They make it really difficult to fight any of this. You have to, individually - find a representative, their contact info, state your case, hope it's the correct person, hope your mail doesn't go unnoticed, hope that it will be properly read, hope it changes their mind. This is "lobbying" by the people in a disorganised way, trying to fight organised lobbying. This is a barrier that puts lots of people off, even if t…

One of the failings of most modern democracies is that if a measure doesn't pass, nothing prohibits it from being introduced again immediately. I've seen ballot initiatives simply get copy pasted onto each election by city council until they happen to pass.

Post by Kim_Bruning » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 10:55 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #186

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defining something in the negative is always tricky. What are some better designs, or design principles?

Sortition. If no one can vote, then there can't be any of the chicanery that comes from that. Political parties couldn't exist, because a party can't help someone get elected. We no longer have the problem of the only people in office being those who wanted to be in office enough to go to the trouble. No need for term limits (people are unlikely to win office twice, let alone more often). And yet it preserves everyth…

Post by LexiMax » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:13 PM UTC

rockskon wrote: post #190

LexiMax wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted you because you bring up a good point and I want to make clear that I'm not excusing their horrendous behavior or trying to imply that the good necessarily requires or even outweighs the bad. I'm merely pointing out that at the very least, there was _some_ upside to go with the downside, at least for a while, and the upside was a planned outcome by its political leadership. I don't think it was always that…

I was saying their domestic mass surveillance is not directly tied to them becoming a preeminent world power. That their rise could've just as well happened without it.

Post by sieabahlpark » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:32 PM UTC

mystraline wrote: post #127

miohtama wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to stop it is to have positive rights written in law, like right to online privacy and privacy of communications.

Yes, like the Soviet Union. Whereas the West has predominantly negative rights, the USSR had positive rights. And due to their campaign, even got the UN declaration of human rights to mostly include USSR's positive rights. https://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/regional_perspectives_on... Part of USSR constition indicating positive rights: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.... Women and men hav…

Post by lern_too_spel » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 11:37 PM UTC

deaddodo wrote: post #88

soulofmischief wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A well-funded institution will always outlast an individual or smaller organization in a war of attrition. I think a modern Constitution needs to consider 19-20th-century concepts such as game theory if it has any hope of preventing eventual corruption.

Look at SOPA/PIPA. They simultaneously pushed the same bill through both chambers to try and guarantee it would pass. Grassroots efforts led to it being overwhelmingly blocked in both cases. And then they just slowly slipped most of it's provisions through other legislation over the years.