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

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#381

Post by account42 »

layer8 wrote: post #195
danielheath wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can fine apple and google for offering signal in their app stores, until nobody has it installed. That doesn’t break your comms today - but later, you replace your phone, can you get a current copy of the app?

Not quite. It would be illegal for Signal to continue operating in the EU if they don’t implement the required scanning functionality. And Signal has already stated that they’d rather leave the EU.

If the one western nation passes this then it's only a matter of time until the other ones do to. At that point Signal "leaving" means they may as well stop doing business. Companies like to say they won't bend the knee if it gets them support now but in the end they always do.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#382

Post by raxxorraxor »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

News organization welcome any barrier to social media networks, they are heavily biased on these topics. The "modern" journalist of today doesn't really care about freedom of information either.

Speaking of which, the EU is also working on a "free speech" law for journalists and against them being arbitrarily banned by platforms. One would think this law could easily be extended to everyone since it is not at all trivial to determine who gets these benefits and who doesn't.

Most outlets today are some form of court reporter in one way or another. That trust in media is sinking is quite expected and in many cases reasonable too.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#383

Post by uyzstvqs »

IshKebab wrote: post #348
uyzstvqs wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn That's disingenuous and false. It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. Take a guess what that does to a developing teenager, essentially being educated…

> It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. That's not common knowledge or true. Most of the population watches porn. Where's the harm? > pornography is not representative of real relationships No shit. Next you'll be te…

"In talking to the subjects, researchers discovered that high exposure to pornography videos apparently resulted in lower responsivity and an increased need for more extreme, specialized or “k+++y” material to become aroused."[1]

This effect can be clearly seen in that pornography websites promote this extreme, vile and obscure content, such as incest, exhibitionism, and even depictions of non-consensual interaction and physical abuse.[2] Obviously, these matters have no place in a healthy relationship, and it's pretty basic psychology that regular consumption of this content causes the normalization of such practices, especially in impressionable teenagers whom do not yet have legitimate experience in healthy, normal relationships.

A majority of adults watches pornography.[3] And we're dealing with a massive loneliness epidemic under younger generations, together with a significant rise in "hook-up culture" over forming serious relationships. Coincidence?

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5039517/

[2] Just go to one of those websites. I'm not going to do that, neither am I going to link to that here.

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1402222/us-adults-pornog...

Re: Fight Chat Control

#384

Post by account42 »

renewiltord wrote: post #279

Man am I glad I live in America. Despite everything, it's still the land of the free and the home of the brave. The federal system here means that the majority of weird shit happens at the state level.

I salute you sir, a true PATRIOT. Your PRISMatic view of the world truly knows no bounds.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#385

Post by inglor_cz »

IshKebab wrote: post #348
uyzstvqs wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn That's disingenuous and false. It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. Take a guess what that does to a developing teenager, essentially being educated…

> It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. That's not common knowledge or true. Most of the population watches porn. Where's the harm? > pornography is not representative of real relationships No shit. Next you'll be te…

[dead]

Re: Fight Chat Control

#386

Post by msgodel »

josh2600 wrote: post #184

This is actually one of the major fights of our generation. If signal/whatsapp/e2ee are desecrated, only criminals will have encryption for a short period of time until we all come to our senses and realize that some semblance of personal privacy is a human right. IMHO, we should fight for the maximum amount of privacy possible within the context of a civil society. In every generation there is a battle, sometimes qu…

It sounds to me like the Europeans need to have an actual fight (that is with bullets and artillery) with this weird EU pseudo government thing. It sounds like a loss for them to me.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#387

Post by account42 »

pessimizer wrote: post #49
croes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU countries also have constitutions with laws that make that illegal. Still they try because there is always an exception that allows breaking those laws. Chat control isn’t something the EU invented, they tried to implement CSAM in Apple devices and the whole chat control thing in the EU was heavily lobbied by Thorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization)

> The EU countries also have constitutions with laws that make that illegal. I don't think they do. They have constitutions that guarantee "Freedom of Speech" or "Expression," but don't define those terms in any way. I don't know that any of them lack legally prohibited political speech laws. I feel the US was the origin of this "Hate Speech" nightmare that has been growing to encompass all of Western politics over t…

That's because the US has the convenience of owning the megacorporations that control every facet of our lives. The government doesn't need the ability to restrict your speech and monitor you if FAANG happily do it for them.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#388

Post by account42 »

ahoka wrote: post #36
croes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the difference to the US, China or the UK? Governments often try that kind of nonsense. Usually against organized crime, terrorism, child abuse. But in the end it’s just used for the heavy crimes like copyright infringement

The difference is that PRISM was done as a black op, and this is out in the open.

Since PRISM is widely known now and there have been no real consequences there isn't a meaningful difference.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#389

Post by vaylian »

munksbeer wrote: post #378
elric wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't talking about the council, but the commission. The acronym confusion is unfortunate. Point is that these people are very far removed from elections and political consequences. They also seem to be the types who have no idea what "normal" people are like.

Then you have understood even less. The commission act on instructions from the council. The steer for this has come from the member states, not the commission.

Counterpoint: The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, sits both in the European Commission and in the European Council. And it's UvdL who is the primary driving force for chat control at this point.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#390

Post by ost-ing »

IshKebab wrote: post #348
uyzstvqs wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn That's disingenuous and false. It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. Take a guess what that does to a developing teenager, essentially being educated…

> It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. That's not common knowledge or true. Most of the population watches porn. Where's the harm? > pornography is not representative of real relationships No shit. Next you'll be te…

Love it when you make a statement that porn isnt harmful without referencing any studies, and then demand studies for people to prove it is harmful. You are the one who made the original claim that its not harmful, the burden of proof is on you.
Post reply on HN