351–360 of 449 posts
why are specifically the Danish so obsessed with pushing this through? it always seems to come back to them
I guess it never hurts to try and find alternate ways of placating the US in order to make them get over their Greenland obession.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> that does not lend itself to be democratic, because it is way longer than most people's attention span The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians.
Is the process democratic if citizen's opinions are irrelevant? No matter who's in charge, no matter the election results, no matter the protests - the same style of legislation is pushed. and once something's in it is almost impossible to remove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better question is how is whatever the UK is doing relevant for 4chan, which is an American company with no presence in the UK.
because 4chan's services are available to people residing in the UK the OSA is ridiculous and I hope it goes the same way as the last time they tried it, but this idea that US companies should be immune to domestic regulation in countries their services are available to is silly. even if that domestic regulation is silly. because otherwise the utterly encaptured regulatory environment of the US (plus Visa and MC) sol…
I don't understand why 4chan is obligated to be the one to ensure that UK citizens don't access the site when this should be entirely within the UK government's power, no? At the very least, the infrastructure which allows their citizens to access 4chan is on UK soil so it stands to reason that they actually have authority over that.
I feel like making the case that any site which serves an international audience on the Internet has to observe the laws of every single country represented in that audience is bad precedent and has the potential to be incredibly stifling to anyone but the type of multinational corporation which has the sort of legal apparatus that's required to operate in that sort of environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The culprit is correct. If the EU exists for political laundering, then it is the organisation which is harmful to the people's interests. Nobody voted for any of these heads of states on a platform of enacting Chat Control. That was not on the ballot or the platform of any party in any individual EU country. If it was, they would not have voted for it. If an individual party tried to initiate a chat control bill in…
You provide your own counterexample. The UK left the EU and all it got for it was a quicker passing of it's "online safety" nonsense with none of the checks and balances (EU parliament, ECHR) that would stop it in the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences YES IT DOES THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law. You are conflating extremely narrow exceptions with broad politically motivated violations of freedom of political speech
The US Constitution. What a beautiful piece of paper, such a nice theory. Yet your current president is circumventing Congress. Your president is bullying states. You don't even have a functional popular vote. Your SCOTUS is dysfunctional. And, this 1st amendment, is that why peaceful protestors got shot by rubber bullets when they were protesting against the war in Iraq? Which, as it turned out, was started for dish…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Council is a meeting of the heads of state, all of which are elected in their respective countries. Your problem is with the leadership of countries, not with the EU as an institution. I agree that it is a problem btw, but I think you got the wrong culprit. This isn't pushed on the states by the EU, this is the states using the EU to push it and launder the bad publicity.
My problem is that i as a citizen can vote for my heads of state, but if other parts of EU decided something my vote is null and void, EVEN if majority of EU citizens are against such issue. Imagine is those issues were campaign promises and part of internal(country's) elections - they aren't in reality but we can set that aside for now. as it was extremely well said by sibling post. My country is 80% against 20% in…
They then in effect elect a Prime Minister, who appoints an executive, who create laws and then put them to parliament
In the US you can vote for the leader of the executive directly. 64% of Vermont voted for Harris, yet they still got Trump.
> in practice it is even more skewed towards 'no' for chat control
My understanding is that the public as a whole do not want chat control, yet the democratically elected heads of each member government do want it. The problem here is the democratically elected heads of each member government.
Doesn't take many council members to be against it to stop it in its tracks.
Even living nearby in the UK it blows my mind how quickly the EU proposes, kills and then revives and passes controversial legislation in such a short timeframe.
As others have mentioned: 1. this wasn't fast, it took ~5 years and most (but not all) of the problematic parts have been removed 2. It also wasn't "fully rejected" or anything in the decision which gained some awareness of hacker news, just one specific draft was rejected, not the proposal as a whole (but IMHO it should have been). 3. it's not passed just approved by the council, which consists of the various head o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"a more libertarian government" As long as you are white British. If you're anything else you're probably going to be worse off under Farage. It's a shame that if you want to vote for someone with different policies to the two main parties, you have to accept that you are also voting for an outspoken racist.
I’ve seen white British a couple of times in this thread. Reform policy is being drawn up by a team that’s led by a British Pakistani : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_Yusuf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the Greens have chosen to embrace their own form of populist lunacy. Well, populist lunacy is how Reform got so popular, so I can see why it would be tempting for the Green party. Main thing that's weird right now with the UK is that because it's first-past-the-post and the current polling is Reform:~29%, Lib/Lab/Con/Green:~16%, I would not be surprised by any of these parties forming a minority government nor…
Out of curiosity, which of Reform's policies are "lunacy"? Removing the 2 child benefit cap? Increasing NHS spending? Returning to New Labour levels of net immigration, being a country with borders? > That said I will find it very very funny if the Conservative party ends up last from that list. At least we agree on that. The Tories deserve to be confined to the dustbin of history.
Immigration is always a funny one for the UK especially, given how people tend to look at gross numbers instead of which sectors the immigrants work in, and the discourse about why locals demonstrably do not fill those roles is mostly just insisting that locals can no matter what current unemployment levels actually are. Before I left the UK, the stereotype was all the Poles moving to the UK and building houses: UK should have invited over more builders, then there wouldn't be a shortage of houses.
Immigration is a shared bit of populist lunacy Reform have in common with the Conservatives and Labour: promises to be tough on immigration, then they get power and look at what the consequences would be of doing that, and put all the blame on asylum seekers* that are banned from working and therefore safe to kick out no matter how at risk they are in their countries of origin.
* https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-whilst-an...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being downvoted is not remotely "censorship"
It makes the opinion hidden from the vast majority of visitors, except those who go out of their way to both have an account and showdead. It is in every appreciable way censorship via unaccountable mob. It's censorship in a way that Reddit's downvote isn't, because Reddit allows anonymous users to read downvoted posts - or at least did the last time I checked.