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

The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 425 posts

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#351

Post by mdp2021 »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #329
cardosof wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of democracy in a region or organization is the minority of votes not getting the result they want and only that. Nothing to do with privacy. Not having privacy is a consequence of authoritarianism, be it for a greater good (to find child abusers) or not (to find dissidents).

> The price of democracy in a region or organization is the minority of votes not getting the result they want and only that. The price is having to make compromises every day. It means putting together and listening to the people who say "immigration must be stopped" and "countries should have no borders" and everything in between, but no side tries to silent the others using violence. What you're talking about is t…

The point of mentioning flexing "democratic" status is, in general in these contexts (say, the EU), about unnatural distancing of government, i.e. having dramatic decisions over everybody taken by an entity "distant" from the sub-regions. As opposed to a federalism in which substantially the special rules over the special, and the broad rules only when appropriate.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#352

Post by dover »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #339
dover wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about. Please read the policies – or name them, if you have found some that work that way. California, Washington, Ireland, for example. All places where prisoners are being incarcerated based on their claims of "gender identity" rather than sex. > Nobody's disputing that (much as I'd love to live in a world where I could). You haven't demonstra…

> California, Washington, Ireland, for example. You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you. > then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it. The fact that people only seem to have the same five examples to argue otherwise – versus the many hundreds of easily-accessible examples that show that men are (for whatever reason¹) more prone to violenc…

> You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you.

Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise. Could you enlighten me please?

I mentioned those three regions because they have self-identification policies for "gender identity" that extend to prisons, and men who call themselves women are currently incarcerated in women's prisons there.

> If trans women behaved the same as men, you'd expect them to – as a population – behave the same as men. From the evidence I have access to, they don't.

Okay then, please share your evidence? Keeping in mind that any man can call himself a woman.

> One can't change how reality works by sheer force of rhetoric.

Agreed, so please refrain from implying that these men are female, as you did with your mention of "male-on-female violence". I'm sure you know they are male.

> What happens when you put people with breasts and soft features and lower-than-average physical strength in a men's prison?

You are presumably referring to men with self-induced gynecomastia. This will likely be a subset of, or at least have a significant intersection with, men who call themselves women.

The same argument I made in other comments applies to these men too - their safety is an issue for the male prison estate to deal with. Men's prisons have plenty of experience handling at-risk prisoners, for example paedophiles, ex-police officers, ex-gang members. If men with breast tissue are at elevated risk, they can be handled in the same way. There is no reason to place these men in women's prisons.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#353

Post by chasd00 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #303
CuriouslyC wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be delightful. Being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride.

> being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride Nobody I know would run for state office. They pay poorly. You have to work in the state capitol, which in most state's is awful. You lose your privacy. And for what, a marginal legislative role? The historic benefit was pride. But with nihilism in vogue and trust in government low, that reward is…

my boss knows one of the former US press secretaries. At a dinner a while back my boss went on and on (for like 30min) how she couldn't believe her acquaintance was picked and how she should have been press secretary and would have been oh so much better. I asked her why in the world would you ever want that job, the pay sucks and you're just getting yelled at all day by reporters. She couldn't believe someone would turn down a chance to work in a presidential admin. We both had a little bit too much to drink and argued for like an hour. I had a tshirt made for her with a headshot of her, apparent, nemesis haha

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#355

Post by uoaei »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #312
uoaei wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know you but I'd say no one you know is a committed public steward. However plenty of those exist outside of your bubble.

> no one you know is a committed public steward I have friends who ran for and won local and federal offices. I specifically called out state because it min-maxes the power-honor trade-off. That said, I’ll stand by my broader point. Normalised derision has made public service more taxing than it ever was. This is true globally, and has been called out by high-profile resignations in e.g. New Zealand and Scotland.

Local and federal offices are also, if not more, lucratively profitable. Maybe it's not about some Platonic notion of power-seeking behavior but rather small people pursuing their own small monopolies.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#356

Post by rs999gti »

bregma wrote: post #180
notahacker wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...

For example, how many showers a day can a person take and "forget" to get dressed?

> and "forget" to get dressed?

The old Ted Kennedy maneuver

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#357

Post by JasonFruit »

stametseater wrote: post #338
JasonFruit wrote: post #331

A minor-seeming terminology quibble that has far-reaching effects: the chat control proposal does not belong in human society. People in democratic societies don't have different rights than those under other political systems; everyone has a right to speak freely and expect privacy in their communications, absent very specific situations where there is evidence that what is being discussed is unallowably dangerous t…

Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist. The fact that such rights are not recognized in most countries means that for practical intents and purposes, they do not exist in those countries.

If what you're saying is true, then the argument that this is inappropriate to democratic societies is also undermined: what rights the people have are entirely determined by what their democratically-elected overlords grant them. The state has determined that this is appropriate; therefore, it is appropriate.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#359

Post by epups »

chasd00 wrote: post #353
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride Nobody I know would run for state office. They pay poorly. You have to work in the state capitol, which in most state's is awful. You lose your privacy. And for what, a marginal legislative role? The historic benefit was pride. But with nihilism in vogue and trust in government low, that reward is…

my boss knows one of the former US press secretaries. At a dinner a while back my boss went on and on (for like 30min) how she couldn't believe her acquaintance was picked and how she should have been press secretary and would have been oh so much better. I asked her why in the world would you ever want that job, the pay sucks and you're just getting yelled at all day by reporters. She couldn't believe someone would…

It is incredibly lucrative to take one of these jobs. The last three white house press secretaries went on to become commentators and/or high ranking politicians. It's really not that hard to understand why people want the job.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#360

Post by epups »

JasonFruit wrote: post #357
stametseater wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist. The fact that such rights are not recognized in most countries means that for practical intents and purposes, they do not exist in those countries.

If what you're saying is true, then the argument that this is inappropriate to democratic societies is also undermined: what rights the people have are entirely determined by what their democratically-elected overlords grant them. The state has determined that this is appropriate; therefore, it is appropriate.

No, in democratic societies you have the rule of law. This usually blocks incumbents from changing the rules as they wish. Yes of course natural rights don't really exist, but legal rights enforcing some of them are about as real as money.
Post reply on HN