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

German government comes out against Chat Control

xcancel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 578 posts

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#241

Post by PKop »

egeozcan wrote: post #238
zahlman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why AfD would be expected to disagree here. What, just on principle, because it's CDU/CSU?

AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.

Open communication online about the problems of mass migration is what has fueled the rise of right wing parties across the west, so no they would not support suppressing communication (which is aimed primarily at stopping this very rise).

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#242

Post by constantcrying »

Barrin92 wrote: post #182
constantcrying wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might sound insane to every American, but German law especially protects politicians from insults, slander and libel. (See https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__188.html for the actual law) Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians, which is why politicians are very active suing random supporters of their opponents, because that is an effective way to police speech, open sp…

>Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians, As Lee Kuan Yew pointed out, the idea that you should be able to slander anyone in power is a nice underdog philosophy (particularly popular in the US, where the underdog is always right) but what it gets you is a post-truth environment in which reputation means nothing. And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an ho…

>And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an honour based society

We aren't. We are a totally Americanized failed state governed by mentally ill losers who continue to destroy this country in every possible way imaginable.

The German society which was the basis for this law does not exist anymore. Politicians are all complete clueless losers who do not deserve an ounce of respect.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#243

Post by pacificmint »

codethief wrote: post #148

Netzpolitik.org says it's not decided yet: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfr... Jens Spahn, the speaker in the video OP shared, is not a member of the government but a leading member of the parliament and of one of the ruling parties. A tiny but important difference.

> but a leading member of the parliament

I think ‘a leading member’ is underselling it a little. He is the “Fraktionsvorsitzender”, which is comparable to the majority leader in the US Senate.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#244

Post by egeozcan »

varispeed wrote: post #173
ho_schi wrote: post #145

The CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it. Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nicht. Wir müssen Wachsam bleiben. Mit dem Argument das es böse Menschen gibt, wurde schon viel böses getan. Massenüberwachung zerstört jede Gesellschaft. Deutschland hat mehrfach darunter gelitten. Und die Versuche Massenüberwachung einzuführen wiederholen sich.

The reaction is very weak, though. Chat Control is an act of terrorism and it should have triggered criminal investigation why this has gone this far. Before you downvote: 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 i…

I actually upvoted this. It's a well-argued comment, but I'm not convinced.

My sticking point is the word "terrorism" itself. Words are defined by how we collectively use and understand them, and the common understanding of terrorism involves bombs and bullets, not software and surveillance.

I get your logic, however. You're breaking down the definition into intimidation for political ends, and you're not wrong that coercive control is a form of violence. But the leap to calling it "terrorism" just doesn't work for me. It feels like you've reverse-engineered a justification for a word that, on its face, is hyperbolic in this context. It's an authoritarian nightmare, for sure, but it isn't terrorism.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#245

Post by orwin »

varispeed wrote: post #173
ho_schi wrote: post #145

The CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it. Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nicht. Wir müssen Wachsam bleiben. Mit dem Argument das es böse Menschen gibt, wurde schon viel böses getan. Massenüberwachung zerstört jede Gesellschaft. Deutschland hat mehrfach darunter gelitten. Und die Versuche Massenüberwachung einzuführen wiederholen sich.

The reaction is very weak, though. Chat Control is an act of terrorism and it should have triggered criminal investigation why this has gone this far. Before you downvote: 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 i…

Sorry, but that's talk like that that cheapen the meaning of terrorism. Once you expand it to "targeting civilian or civilian infrastructure", already it's cheapened.

I agree with the expansion of meaning, but that mean nazi resistance was terrorism. Ukraine counterstrike on the crimea bridge/russian raffineries is terrorism. I do think it is, but now i do need to qualify terrorism before using the word.

If we expand to all kind of violence, not only physical, well any new policing laws is terrorism. Laws that increase poverty are terrorism, as poverty is an economic violence exerced by the society on its most frail. Taxation is violence too. I will need to add qualifiers each time i use terrorism, and that cheapen the meaning.

[edit] my la setnence cheapened my argument and could start a new side debate that doesn't interest me, i'm removing it.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#246

Post by egeozcan »

PKop wrote: post #241
egeozcan wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.

Open communication online about the problems of mass migration is what has fueled the rise of right wing parties across the west, so no they would not support suppressing communication (which is aimed primarily at stopping this very rise).

But this is not about suppressing all communication, this is ultimately about giving the ability to steer the conversation to avoid what people in power would find problematic.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#247

Post by baxtr »

whycombinetor wrote: post #210
codethief wrote: post #148

Netzpolitik.org says it's not decided yet: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfr... Jens Spahn, the speaker in the video OP shared, is not a member of the government but a leading member of the parliament and of one of the ruling parties. A tiny but important difference.

My American brain: "The legislature is a branch of the government!"

Not OP but my guess: they were thinking administration in this case.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#248

Post by SebKba »

egeozcan wrote: post #238
zahlman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why AfD would be expected to disagree here. What, just on principle, because it's CDU/CSU?

AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.

It's the classical playbook. Capture the media, declare the opposition illegal, bye bye democracy.

The public was sold this Nazi story about the AfD by the established powers to keep them down. Looking at what has been going on it's wild to me to call the AfD authoritarian compared the the Altparteien...

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#249

Post by angry_octet »

egeozcan wrote: post #238
zahlman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why AfD would be expected to disagree here. What, just on principle, because it's CDU/CSU?

AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.

They are not in government just yet. But if they gain control, expect their position to change. That's why it is critical to reverse government positions across the block, or we'll see a new authoritarian wave sweep Europe.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#250

Post by skinkestek »

varispeed wrote: post #173
ho_schi wrote: post #145

The CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it. Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nicht. Wir müssen Wachsam bleiben. Mit dem Argument das es böse Menschen gibt, wurde schon viel böses getan. Massenüberwachung zerstört jede Gesellschaft. Deutschland hat mehrfach darunter gelitten. Und die Versuche Massenüberwachung einzuführen wiederholen sich.

The reaction is very weak, though. Chat Control is an act of terrorism and it should have triggered criminal investigation why this has gone this far. Before you downvote: 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 i…

As others have mentioned, good points.

But we must stop somewhere, else we end up like the people arguing that the most democratic country in the middle east is somehow the apartheid one.

It only works if one looks away from the fact that there are so many more things that need to be declared terrorism first.

And it directly misleads people.

Post reply on HN