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

371–380 of 578 posts

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#371

Post by selfmodruntime »

camillomiller wrote: post #360
selfmodruntime wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 abou…

> 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.

Of course I don't. I actually like his history, he is a successful man. But he is again so far removed from my own situation that I do not trust him to do what is best for me.

> 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.

It is problematic. Yes, he studied and worked hard. But he has been wealthy for a larger part of his life than he has not been.

> e: 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.

So it's not free.

> The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.

I too, can redefine words beyond their meanings to fit my narrative.

> 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.

You forget that people with chronic illnesses can just be declined of that option.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#372

Post by selfmodruntime »

indigo945 wrote: post #370
selfmodruntime wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment has been debunked countless times. This man's home was not raided for his antisemitism (which is really damn bad!) but for calling a guy an idiot [1]. I suggest you stop spreading lies. [1]: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/nach-schwachkopf-post-p...

That's a different case though. The Habeck meme thing happened somewhere near Bamberg, the CBS article recounts "state police [...] raided this apartment in northwest Germany". Look, I'm not saying that the police or the ministry of the interior never abuse their power, far from it. (There was also the Andy Grote case a few years back.) But please remember that the original claim we are discussing, from a few comment…

Germany does have limited Freedom. I won't move an inch in this matter. The exact paragraph behind the Habeck or Grote case is now being abused by the literal thousands each year. And violent crime is on the rise, we are currently back at a 2005 level. It is very easy to find sources on this matter.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#373

Post by computerthings »

yason wrote: post #349

Online control is like a squatter waiting for years in the bushes on your yard and it only takes one time that you forget to lock your door and he sneaks in and claims he lives in your home, and uses all possible legal loopholes to prevent any imminent relocation. A pedigree of chatcontrols has already been turned down several times in the past but there's nothing stopping it from being raised from the dead a couple…

[dead]

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#374

Post by selfmodruntime »

notTooFarGone wrote: post #363
selfmodruntime wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Die Linke is also not a communist party. It supports capitalism, but targets a social capitalism, like the CDU did in the 50s and the SPD did until the 80s. This is untrue and you will only have to go so far to read their party program to find out it isn't.

Be our guest and enlighten us with citations!

1 second google search -> https://www.die-linke.de/partei/programm/ -> Marx's manifesto is cited among the first paragraphs -> the literal first sentence in point 3's second paragraph -> "Our goal of democratic socialism in the 21st century is a society free of domination in which all people can live in dignity." They mention the process of transforming capitalism to state mandated socialism and control of all companies by a democratic process. A democratic socialism is not a social capitalism, they don't support capitalism in any way or form, and they want to actively move away from it, which they also say among the first sentences on this very page.

It took me all of 5 seconds to achieve this enlightenment. You should try it sometimes.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#375

Post by croon »

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]

I wouldn't assume this to be their position were they already in power. They however need votes to get into power to implement that takeover. Parties like this inherently need to run on a (deceptive) populist platform for the plan to work.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#376

Post by Xelbair »

the_gipsy wrote: post #322
Xelbair wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's distinction between legality, reality and morality. Most of the time no one uses full formal legal terms in normal conversation. I don't support AfD, I'm not German either - i just agree with parent poster's observation that for some reason left extremism(and I'm talking actual eco-terrorism for example) is more widely 'accepted' in public space when talking to Germans. Meanwhile mentioning even slightly Righ…

People that vote and support the far right do it as reaction, that is likely. But not to "extreme left nonsene" appearing. That's just a pretext. The real reason, to which they react, is that they can no longer covertly express and exercise their ideas. In other words, it's a reaction to getting publicly called out about being racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic etc.

You've made a lot of assumptions about people i know and talk with - without knowing them, exactly showcasing the problem that I've mentioned.

As soon as the topic is mentioned it becomes a discussion stopper. Thank you for your contribution into proving my point.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#377

Post by lmf4lol »

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]

[flagged]

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#378

Post by xt84 »

slightwinder wrote: post #352
zahlman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can you write this when the other parties have a cordon sanitaire (Brandmauer)[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(politics)

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#379

Post by lmf4lol »

egeozcan wrote: post #238
zahlman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.

[flagged]

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#380

Post by selfmodruntime »

dns_snek wrote: post #364
selfmodruntime wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism? > I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet. It's not a snarky comment. Regulation and welfare are requirements even in a capitalist economy, otherwise you have people dying on th…

> What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers?

This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes.

> What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits?

This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening.

> Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism?

You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument.

> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things.

I have not and you are free to cite where I did.

> Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare.

Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely.

> but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.

I encourage you to look up the terms. Again.

Post reply on HN