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

Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

threema.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 341 posts

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#301

Post by account42 »

lukan wrote: post #26
Semaphor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nothing is. Local politicians fail upwards to the EU (at least in Germany) or some private job, if they fail at all. Most of the time, you can do what you want, and the voters don’t care.

"and the voters don’t care." Then why did so many vote extremist anti EU? There just has been EU election in germany and the nationalist gained a lot. And none of the big parties otherwise said a clear no to that, so what could I do, except vote a small party against that, but too small to really do something? Voters care. But they see often no point in voting anymore.

Most people probably don't even know the EU policies of the candidates they are voting for and are just going by national party lines. Why nationalist parties are winning when the current and previous governments have been going full steam ahead in the other direction while ignoring the entirely valid concerns of the populance should surprise no one.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#302

Post by account42 »

mariusor wrote: post #278
raxxorraxor wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The level of indirection is very important and you can only elect a very small part of the council. There are a lot democratic deficiencies. It lately became en vogue to deny the problem completely and EU politics only got dumber from that.

Can you tell me what democratic deficiencies you see in this? Why is the process of having a prime minister/chancellor/etc as head of state fine in a national democratic process, but not on a european level? If I see any issue with the way EU passes laws is with the terrible overhead of having three to four bodies that govern the whole process, from proposal to legislature, not necessarily with the way some participa…

> Can you tell me what democratic deficiencies you see in this? Why is the process of having a prime minister/chancellor/etc as head of state fine in a national democratic process, but not on a european level?

Well for one because people already vode with the head of state in mind when choosing the party. Even if they were aware of the EU politicians of said party (which is never part of the campaign materials) then they now have even more things to compromise on with a single vote.

> If I see any issue with the way EU passes laws is with the terrible overhead of having three to four bodies that govern the whole process, from proposal to legislature, not necessarily with the way some participants get there.

Actually that's the EU's saving grace. The more people are affected by new legislation the more difficult and slower it should be to push that legislation through. The EU should be slow moving but instead we are constantly in a situation like this where bad laws are not far from being passed.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#303

Post by account42 »

prmoustache wrote: post #179
vladvasiliu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people did actually bother to vote in Germany? Here in France, the "extremists" got a bit over 30% of votes. But turnout was only 51%. According to [0] average turnout is 51%. Some countries have very high numbers (IIRC voting is mandatory in Belgium?), others ridiculously low. This, to me, means pretty much that "voters don't care". [0] https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/

> This, to me, means pretty much that "voters don't care". This is simplistic. Some have simply lost confidence in their representatives and/or cannot find a decent candidate.

Would be interesting if voter turnout somehow had an effect on the government. For example if the required consensus for new laws would be scaled by the turnout - e.g. for if there is only 51% turnout then any laws that need a majority consensus would need almost all politicians to agree. Could provide interesting incentives for politicians to care about voter engagement and political education.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#304

Post by account42 »

pxtail wrote: post #143
vladvasiliu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people did actually bother to vote in Germany? Here in France, the "extremists" got a bit over 30% of votes. But turnout was only 51%. According to [0] average turnout is 51%. Some countries have very high numbers (IIRC voting is mandatory in Belgium?), others ridiculously low. This, to me, means pretty much that "voters don't care". [0] https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/

> How many people did actually bother to vote in Germany? People (including me) doesn't want to bother with voting when the whole thing is a farce - it's beyond my understanding why would someone be enticed to vote for incompetent politicians who get parachuted into EU parliament to earn hefty wage - very often as a reward for outrageous behavior, there are multiple examples of this, influencer from Cyprus, that poli…

I find a better action than not voting is to vote for the smallest most extremist fracton you can find even if you don't agree with most of their policies. Low voter turnout doesn't make headlines, the "bad" parties gaining traction does.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#305

Post by account42 »

simianparrot wrote: post #57
ricardobeat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All things considered I think that’s a strong yes. Open borders, free trade, technological collaboration, and shared health, industry and consumer regulations help accelerate economic development. Can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

First two have been utter disasters however, and are directly affecting people on a daily basis now. Here in Scandinavia it’s coming to a head but it’s a similar story further south, in Germany in particular.

At least for Germany that situation is not imposed by the EU but is entirely due to the choices of the local politicians.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#306

Post by account42 »

circlefavshape wrote: post #198
blumomo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why did so many vote extremist anti EU? Is the EU really a benefit to the people? Or is it a shit pool full of scum bags providing quite some damage to societies?

Pretty much all the environmental protection legislation we have in Ireland came from the EU. So yes, a benefit

On the otherhand, Ireland's corporate-friendly laws are a negative for other EU countries.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#307

Post by account42 »

kqr wrote: post #8
Semaphor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nothing is. Local politicians fail upwards to the EU (at least in Germany) or some private job, if they fail at all. Most of the time, you can do what you want, and the voters don’t care.

And, on the flip side of the coin: once you are sufficiently disliked, almost anything can be taken as the trigger point for a scandal.

But when was the last time a "scandal" has resulted in actual negative outcomes for a politician?

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#308

Post by account42 »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #234
darby_nine wrote: post #3

I find it somewhat disturbing that this sort of thing is not considered a career killer for politicians.

One of its champions, Ursula von der Leyen, is pretty popular. One of the main reasons for that is that people don't understand what she is saying.

Popular or infamous? Never heard the nickname Zensursula?

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#309

Post by account42 »

neugiergiraffe wrote: post #58

Can someone explain to me why, over time, democratic states tend to drift into mass surveillance ? Is it beacuse a lot of people feel unsafe or is it because the people supposed to ensure our security see it as the "easiest" or most effective way to do their job? Is there so much benefit to having a fuctioning mass surveilance apparatus, and if yes, who benefits of it if not the people for whom these rules for in the…

It's because the ruling class inevitably realizes that the polulace is the main threat to their continued rule and seeks to control them.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#310

Post by account42 »

IMTDb wrote: post #125
neugiergiraffe wrote: post #58

Can someone explain to me why, over time, democratic states tend to drift into mass surveillance ? Is it beacuse a lot of people feel unsafe or is it because the people supposed to ensure our security see it as the "easiest" or most effective way to do their job? Is there so much benefit to having a fuctioning mass surveilance apparatus, and if yes, who benefits of it if not the people for whom these rules for in the…

In this case it's not really about mass surveillance. I genuinely do not believe it's the intended purpose (even if it is the actual outcome). The issue is that Europe is behind in tech; particularly big communication networks (aka: social networks). One key element here is that the amount of taxes paid by the Facebooks and co. is ridiculously low and their importance in the economy is getting bigger and bigger. This…

This doesn't make any sense. The big social networks can aren't hurt by a requirement to scan messages. At best its another operating costs.
Post reply on HN