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

351–360 of 578 posts

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#351

Post by codethief »

baxtr wrote: post #247
whycombinetor wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

True, I guess I was thinking of the meaning of "government" in German for a second. Either way, though, if you consider "government" to include all three branches (executive, legislative, judicative), then there is really no way for the "the" government to take a stance on any issue, so "German government comes out against Chat Control" would be a rather nonsensical headline.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#352

Post by slightwinder »

zahlman wrote: post #229
miohtama wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, even AfD agrees with them on this.

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

AFDs operation-mode is to be always against the government and most others, so usually they are always debating against it, just because.. And in their case its far more than the usual playing opposition, they often switch even on their own stances.

Additionally, this is something that would be in their ideological background. I guess they just fear to become victims themselves.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#353

Post by selfmodruntime »

onli wrote: post #344
selfmodruntime wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear, while not cheap, is clean . Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production. All this endless talk about nuclear and whatnot, but other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. A goal that Germany will never reach.

Nuclear is not clean. It causes toxic nuclear waste that will still be radioactive when our civilization ends, radiating the humans of the future. CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage. > other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surpri…

> Nuclear is not clean

The EU court agrees with me. I trust it to have more knowledge than either of us. Nuclear is low-carbon. End of story. You can deal with toxic waste easily. [1]

> adiating the humans of the future.

Gas and coal produce more radiation than nuclear energy.

> CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage.

But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious.

> No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please.

Sorry, mistake on my part, I meant low carbon electricity (so not burning literal poison, like Germany). Let's take France, the very country you critiqued [2]. Or Norway. Or Switzerland [3]. Now, compare it with Germany [4]. Note that every country that achieves a high score can either rely on geothermal energy or hydro, neither of which is reliably useable in Germany. So for anyone who can't make use of these technologies, nuclear is the only option.

> Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing.

There is a hard limit here for Germany. We are not a prime candidate for neither wind nor thermal energy, so our renewable mix actually decreased this year, back to 55%. [5] We need a flexible backup option for situations like this. The only option is either continuing to burn dirty fuel, go back to nuclear energy or to make ourselves eternally dependent to buy electricity from other EU states (which is the current plan).

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/europe-nuclear-energy-natural-gas...

[2]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/France

[3]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Switzerland

[4]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Germany

[5]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#354

Post by AdamN »

angry_octet wrote: post #286
pembrook wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

- All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits). - The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome... - Europe needs to spend its savings to get nuclear going…

The nuclear energy thing is a lark. The German nuclear base was already old and minimal by the time those decisions were made (unless you're talking about Greens in the 90s - but they barely had any power). Fundamentally Fukushima happened and Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had.

Anyway, nuclear just wasn't driving big energy percentages at low prices so getting rid of it had minimal impact.

The big impact was Russian gas being severed.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#355

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Hercuros wrote: post #310
tvier wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, all those things harm other people. The ban on swastikas would be considered authoritarian because it's only purpose is to limit expression. Considering Germany's recent history though, it seems like a reasonable response.

“Expression” is a bit of an overloaded word here. Carrying a swastika is considered similar to hate speech. Just like you cannot just make death threats in the U.S., even though you are just “expressing” yourself as long as you do not carry out the threat. Not saying those are exactly the same, but there are limits to expression, and spreading hate against large swathes of people is considered like that in Europe. Es…

Threats aren't illegal because of their information content, they're effectively evidence of intent to commit violence. It's like confessing to a crime. You're being punished for the crime, not for the admission, but you admitting to it sure makes it easier to prove.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#356

Post by bzzzt »

camillomiller wrote: post #271
razemio wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AfD has f'd up views on many things. I wouldn't even be surprised if they would vote for it, as soon as they are in a position of power. However in its current state, they would hurt themselfs with a chat control law. So yes, your a right. I would also not expect them to vote for it.

[flagged]

While you can force law abiding people to give up their encryption because it's against the law there's no way to prevent encryption from being used by people that are already violating several laws...

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#357

Post by selfmodruntime »

dns_snek wrote: post #347
selfmodruntime wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the defined economic model in Germany is called "Social market economy", not capitalism. It is one of the systems furthest removed from capitalism that is not yet Socialism (or similar systems). It's a regulated market economic model and it is designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism. You can read this up if you like.

Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality. > It's a regulated market economic model So is the USA.

> Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality.

Our model came first, then came the name. I explained it's origins thoroughly, it is rooted in economic theory and it is what is really happening in Germany. It's codified in Articles 20 and 14 of our constitution. Social welfare is among the best in the world and covers a lot, but taxes are high. This would never happen in any free market economic models. I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#358

Post by geremiiah »

mordae wrote: post #335
pembrook wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The only reason for your high taxes and poor living standard is that some boomers have too much cash. So they buy luxury apartments, outbidding you for construction companies capacity. Or they buy €20M luxury cars from limited 100-item series, outbidding state for engineers that could be designing next generation public transportation. Public sector has been bled almost to death by regressive taxation, you bear nearl…

100%. The biggest economic problem plaguing Germany and most of the EU is that all the capital is in the hands of incompetent old farts, so called, "business leaders", and the economic class system is way more hierarchical and old fashioned than in the US and I dare say, even China. Supposed "market capitalism", means your economy is planned, by diaper wearing boomers whose thinking and worldview are stuck in the 20th century.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#359

Post by addandsubtract »

hopelite wrote: post #236
layer8 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In simple terms, because the far right is about authoritarianism and control, not about civil liberties.

[flagged]

Nice gaslighting attempt, but no. "We types" are concerned with everyone's civil liberties. But trying to divide us is just basic, text book abusive behavior.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#360

Post by camillomiller »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #345
camillomiller wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda is painting this as something different than it is. Here we consider speech for what it is: something you can express freely, within the limits of civil society. If you pass those limits, then you incur in problems. Germany let someone speak freely a tad too much in the twenties and thirties, and they don't want to make that mistake again. I understand the point of "absolute free speech", and I would subsc…

> Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works. A literal millionare is chancellor. > reedom for us is free healthcare, Last I looked I paid 10k a year for government mandated healthcare. Where can I apply for the free one?

I wonder what is the point of debating like this on the internet.

I say billionaires, you mention a "millionaire" chancellor.

We don't have anything against becoming rich. But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.

He's a high-income lawyer who invested and has a net-worth of about 15 millions. If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.

Re: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you. That is how a social-democratic society work. The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.

Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.

Post reply on HN