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

Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

digitalcourage.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 377 posts

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#361

Post by somenameforme »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #358
somenameforme wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't want to clean public toilets if I didn't need to do so. You'd be willing to do it for free. I think one of our views runs rather closer to the overwhelming majority of people, like 99.999%, than the other. This issue is really not the one you want to argue. But I understand that you have to argue it, because if you simply accepted this point then you must accept the fundamental problem. When everybody star…

It doesn't matter whether the overwhelming majority of people would be willing to clean toilets for however much money: what matters is whether enough people would that the toilets get cleaned. From what I can tell, the answer to that is "yes". Given instructions, and absent other immediate obligations, I would do so much helping out, wherever I happened to be at the time. (The only reason I don't now is because I do…

I have no idea what you're basing "from what I can tell" on. In America there are literally millions of janitorial and cleaning staff. The overwhelming majority of those people would much prefer to e.g. spend time with their family than engage in menial labor to make ends meet. And the marginal utility of money decreases dramatically, at least for most people, once you have enough to comfortably survive and provide for your family indefinitely.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#362

Post by wizzwizz4 »

somenameforme wrote: post #361
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter whether the overwhelming majority of people would be willing to clean toilets for however much money: what matters is whether enough people would that the toilets get cleaned. From what I can tell, the answer to that is "yes". Given instructions, and absent other immediate obligations, I would do so much helping out, wherever I happened to be at the time. (The only reason I don't now is because I do…

I have no idea what you're basing "from what I can tell" on. In America there are literally millions of janitorial and cleaning staff. The overwhelming majority of those people would much prefer to e.g. spend time with their family than engage in menial labor to make ends meet. And the marginal utility of money decreases dramatically, at least for most people, once you have enough to comfortably survive and provide f…

I'm a white-collar knowledge worker. There is no downside to me getting my hands dirty with real work during my thinking time – that's time I can't spend with my family if I want to get anything done, because unstructured social interaction takes up the same space in my brain as the knowledge work does.

And the marginal utility of having cleaner toilet facilities increases dramatically when they tip over the boundary between "clean" and "not-clean". Given an apron and long gloves, I'd happily (most days, at least) clean shit off the wall, or pull pads out the U-bend, if it increased the chance the room was clean when I had to use it.

If I were able to choose whether or not to clean the toilets, and someone kept leaving them in a right state, then after the second-to-fourth time, I'd set aside some time to identify the culprits, and then I'd take measures to ensure they stopped, starting with confronting them over it: first in private (if possible), and subsequently in front of people whose opinions I'd expect them to care about. I might escalate further if it continued without good reason. This is not an option available to cleaning staff on the poverty line, who rarely have the time in their schedule to do this, and might be sacked if they used their breaktime to pull an insubordinate stunt like that. (I would not be capable of working in those conditions, and I expect I'd develop new and fascinating mental health problems if subjected to them.)

There is a major difference between volunteering to do something, and having your ability to live in your home contingent upon you doing it, as regards people's willingness to do various tasks.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#363

Post by LexiMax »

alisonatwork wrote: post #217
LexiMax wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted you because you bring up a good point and I want to make clear that I'm not excusing their horrendous behavior or trying to imply that the good necessarily requires or even outweighs the bad. I'm merely pointing out that at the very least, there was _some_ upside to go with the downside, at least for a while, and the upside was a planned outcome by its political leadership. I don't think it was always that…

I understand what you are trying to say, but I also feel like these kinds of statements don't really add to the discussion. In fact, they distract from it. If someone says "government A has a bad policy on issue X" and then the response is "yes but government A also lifted people out of poverty", it's not addressing the original point about the failings of government A's policy on X. We know that governments are capa…

> I understand what you are trying to say, but I also feel like these kinds of statements don't really add to the discussion. In fact, they distract from it.

Were you and I reading the same thing? The post I was replying to was a pithy one sentence sentiment, which was a reply to another pithy one-sentence sentiment.

If anything, I wanted to elevate the conversation thread beyond that, and based on the size of the replies I got, I succeeded.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#364

Post by somenameforme »

Timwi wrote: post #359
somenameforme wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't want to clean public toilets if I didn't need to do so. You'd be willing to do it for free. I think one of our views runs rather closer to the overwhelming majority of people, like 99.999%, than the other. This issue is really not the one you want to argue. But I understand that you have to argue it, because if you simply accepted this point then you must accept the fundamental problem. When everybody star…

You're getting way too strung up on the specific example of cleaning toilets. You know what job vastly more people will want to do? Installing and maintaining a self-cleaning toilet. Bang, massive benefit to the local community. Focus on profitability creates a blind spot. I don't see why you think inflation would suddenly happen. You haven't justified that claim.

Also, anality drives me to at least mention the most straight forward way inflation will increase. You'd dramatically increase monetary velocity, which is what drives inflation, all other things being equal. Of course all other things would not be equal in this scenario - they'd also be changing in ways likely to drive inflation so you'd get a compounding effect.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#365

Post by Ray20 »

somenameforme wrote: post #356
Ray20 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you can just say that the war is defensive - and send those who voted against it to fight anyway? Or how does that work in your head?

In a defensive war - there is no vote whether or not to go to war. You are immediately at war because you have been invaded.

No, that's not how invasions work. Or rather, the defense against invasions does not work that way, unless you plan to lose in about three days.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#366

Post by somenameforme »

Ray20 wrote: post #365
somenameforme wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a defensive war - there is no vote whether or not to go to war. You are immediately at war because you have been invaded.

No, that's not how invasions work. Or rather, the defense against invasions does not work that way, unless you plan to lose in about three days.

Yes it's exactly how it works. You're just looking at things from an American perspective where, owing to geography, we have a negligible chance of having to fight a defensive war. When we do get attacked eventually it's just going to be getting nuked en masse. So instead all we have is 'defensive' rhetoric for the naive. Notable the Department of 'Defense' was literally called the Department of War in more honest times.

War, real war - and not just bombing random countries with little to no anti-air defense and then huddling up in microscopic and ultra-defended zones while waving a 'victory' banner while having undisputed control over near 0% of the country, is a slow grueling, and bloody thing. This is how you end up with things like both the USSR and USA losing to Afghanistan, Russia losing to Chechnya, USA losing to Vietnam, and so on endlessly.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#367

Post by ncallaway »

account42 wrote: post #329
ncallaway wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the assumption that "law = things the government is doing" is a good one. I could imagine a law that specifically restricts the government's ability to do things. For example, maybe the federal government passes a law that makes it easier to sue its agents when those agents violate individual citizens constitutional rights. Perhaps 65% of the population feels they are harmed if this law doesn't exist, a…

> I could imagine a law that specifically restricts the government's ability to do things. I fail to see how fairy tales are relevant to this discussion.

I mean, that's exactly what the first amendment of the United States Constitution is.

It's a codification of a specific restriction on government power. Should it be able to be overturned by a minority of the population?

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#368

Post by prophesi »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #332
hellojesus wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't signal just move their company to some random other country? It's not like they make money from their users, and people can easily sideload the app.

It is suspected that Signal was originally financed by the CIA: https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-faci...

Wasn't TOR originally funded by the CIA as well?

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#369

Post by hollerith »

prophesi wrote: post #368
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is suspected that Signal was originally financed by the CIA: https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-faci...

Wasn't TOR originally funded by the CIA as well?

No, the Naval Research Laboratory. The Navy wanted to give its researchers and strategists a way to look stuff up on the web without anyone's being able to see what they were looking up.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#370

Post by lern_too_spel »

deaddodo wrote: post #346
lern_too_spel wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for a few types of bills that customarily originate in the house, most bills are introduced roughly simultaneously in both houses so that the information for debating the bill doesn't have to be brought twice. This obviously doesn't guarantee a bill will pass because it is required to pass both houses.

Every bill has to go through both chambers, but they usually originate in one and then are passed to the other once the originating chamber affirms them. It is not common to push two independent bills simultaneously, despite your assertion so.

> It is not common to push two independent bills simultaneously, despite your assertion so.

This is in fact extremely common. Both houses pass independent bills, and then they go to conference to work out the differences.

https://gai.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Tab-6-...

"Frequently, however, House and Senate committees each develop their own bills on the same subject. In these cases, one house often debates and amends the bill reported by its committee but then amends and passes the corresponding bill that the other chamber has already passed"

Post reply on HN