Fight Chat Control • Hacker News Board

Re: Fight Chat Control

#331

Post by ElectroBuffoon » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 8:53 AM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #277

ngruhn wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk age restricting Instagram, TikTok etc. might be good for teenagers mental health.

I agree. If we have to have age verification laws I'd rather they be applied to social media networks over some size than to porn sites. That said, I think requiring ID is generally a bad idea regardless. Much better would be some standardized way for websites to tag the type of content in a header coupled with third party filtering solutions that could be applied at the network (ie firewall) or device level.

We already have standards:

PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...

ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...

What seem to lack is the will power to use them. Or after seeing in the linked site:

  *EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not. Demand fairness.

they really want mass surveillance for the plebs even by creating a weak point for enemies. To hell not just with rights but also defence. So any excuse will do.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#332

Post by fc417fc802 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:03 AM UTC

Krssst wrote: post #295

fc417fc802 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being temporary and being authoritarian are entirely orthogonal. In general I would imagine that cultures willing to accept temporary authoritarianism for the "right reasons" are more prone to falling to dictators.

Most democraties have provisions for times of exceptional needs and counterpowers against that. Of course that's a weakness but a weakness that's judged better than mass deaths or complete fall of the country. Those have to be limited in time and regularly subjected to control by democratically-elected institutions (actually vote to see if extended or not).

I completely agree of course. My reply was simply because I think it's important not to inadvertently conflate things, particularly when the issue is contentious. In this case the concepts of authoritarian and permanency, as well as the concepts of people who deny COVID, people who distrust vaccines, and people who were dissatisfied with the various government mandates.

Granted there is quite a bit of overlap among the latter trio.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#333

Post by fc417fc802 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:08 AM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #301

fc417fc802 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being temporary and being authoritarian are entirely orthogonal. In general I would imagine that cultures willing to accept temporary authoritarianism for the "right reasons" are more prone to falling to dictators.

It's a silly hypothetical though - the argument that some emergency measures during an international pandemic emergency are authoritarianism would only make sense if we were all still subject to the measures (like stay at home orders). The problem for your argument is that the temporary emergency measures turned out to actually be temporary. Authoritarian regimes use emergencies (often fake ones) to entrench long-ter…

I don't think so? I'll state it again - temporary and authoritarian are orthogonal. Attempting to claim that the lack of permanence demonstrates that the measures weren't authoritarian thus my claim that the two concepts are orthogonal is incorrect is begging the question (at absolute minimum).

Naturally I never claimed that a dictator was attempting to take over. Merely posited that staunch resistance to such measures as a matter of principle is probably not a bad thing for society on the whole.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#334

Post by like_any_other » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:13 AM UTC

x775 wrote: post #100

lucideer wrote: post #60

A little context here since this website is highly misleading: - EU Council holds more power in Europe than EU Parliament - EU Council is pushing this regulation - this website misrepresents the positions of most members of EU Parliament - it shows "Supports" despite most of them being "Unknown" Overall, while people should be encouraged to contact their MEPs, I suspect many are already very informed on this & strong…

Ultimately, both the EU Council and the European Parliament must agree on legislation for it to pass. The Parliament acts as a co-legislator with equal legislative power in this process, effectively representing the citizens while the Council represents the member states governments. Both have to agree. In the case of Chat Control, Denmark, as the current EU Council Presidency, revived the proposal (after it previous…

> The Parliament acts as a co-legislator with equal legislative power in this process

I think that's misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, only the Council can propose legislation, while the Parliament can only accept or reject the Council's proposals [1]. Meaning that the Parliament can neither change nor reverse course - it is completely decided by the Council. All the Parliament can do is limit how fast that course is followed.

Edit: Sorry, what I wrote about the "Council" should have been about the "EU Commission" instead. The Council may in fact have equal power, as you wrote.

[1] Which I think (but was unable to explicitly confirm) extends to removing old legislation. I.e. the Council only has to get its way once, and then we're stuck with a law, unless the Council proposes to remove it. A ratchet.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#335

Post by mettamage » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:15 AM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #188

mettamage wrote: post #176

So as a Dutchie that opposes this, is there still something for me to do? The Netherlands opposes this, so... should I sway them to oppose it even more? Not really sure what my role should be.

See https://www.chatcontrol.eu/#WhatYouCanDo under “Is your government opposing?”.

> Is your government opposing? → Great, but take a closer look at the reasoning: Some governments like Germany e.g. only object to the scanning of encrypted communications, but are fine with the indiscriminate scanning of other private and public communication, with the end of anonymous communication by requiring age verification, or with introducing a minimum age for “risky” communication apps. Also critical governments need to do more, exert their influence in the Council of the EU and agree on a joint list of necessary fundamental changes to the proposal. Absent such revision they should ask the European Commission to withdraw the chat control proposal as it stands.

Just putted it here, for easier reading.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#336

Post by ElectroBuffoon » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:27 AM UTC

thfuran wrote: post #160

Geezus_42 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exemptions for politicians is straight out of 1984.

They weren’t exempt in 1984.

Upper class could completly turn off their telescreens, meaning they have partial exemptions at least. For middle class they were always on. Proles had no telescreen because they were considered to lack brains. Even the Party had levels, Inner and Outer, with different rules.

1984 would be incomplete without the hypocrisy of "rules for thee not for me".

Re: Fight Chat Control

#337

Post by fc417fc802 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:30 AM UTC

ElectroBuffoon wrote: post #331

fc417fc802 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. If we have to have age verification laws I'd rather they be applied to social media networks over some size than to porn sites. That said, I think requiring ID is generally a bad idea regardless. Much better would be some standardized way for websites to tag the type of content in a header coupled with third party filtering solutions that could be applied at the network (ie firewall) or device level.

We already have standards: PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_... POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R... ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin... What seem to lack is the will power to use them. Or after seeing in the linked site: *EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. T…

Well don't I feel like an uninformed dumbass. Talk of standards aside, pornhub apparently includes the following header if you visit it.

rating: RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA

RTA stands for "restricted to adults". So the large websites, ie the entities that would actually be bound by any proposed legislation, are already proactively facilitating network operators and parents filtering them out. And apparently have been all along. Wild.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#338

Post by Yokolos » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:34 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #294

throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

The standard for robust and effective age verification is extremely low, given how I’ve seen anyone do age verification. It’s also pointless if we’re talking about the internet, you are essentially outsourcing your porn production to foreign countries

Foreign countries with less regulations and protections for sex workers and actresses.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#339

Post by sampo » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:45 AM UTC

like_any_other wrote: post #334

x775 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately, both the EU Council and the European Parliament must agree on legislation for it to pass. The Parliament acts as a co-legislator with equal legislative power in this process, effectively representing the citizens while the Council represents the member states governments. Both have to agree. In the case of Chat Control, Denmark, as the current EU Council Presidency, revived the proposal (after it previous…

> The Parliament acts as a co-legislator with equal legislative power in this process I think that's misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, only the Council can propose legislation, while the Parliament can only accept or reject the Council's proposals [1]. Meaning that the Parliament can neither change nor reverse course - it is completely decided by the Council. All the Parliament can do is li…

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, only the Council can propose legislation, while the Parliament can only accept or reject the Council's proposals [1].

EU Council (Meeting of EU countries' head of states): Proposes what should be done

Council of the EU (Council of ministers of EU countries): Proposes what should be done

EU Commission: Proposes legislation

EU Parliament: Approves legislation

Re: Fight Chat Control

#340

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 9:46 AM UTC

isaacremuant wrote: post #322

Krssst wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably meant January 6th rebels being pardoned giving the example that extremists that aim at preventing democratic election results from going into effect can do as they want. Which is a much bigger problem than "stay home a bit to avoid unintentionally killing people".

[flagged]

[deleted]