Live data from Hacker News

French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

laquadrature.net

401–410 of 553 posts

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#401
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you can see from other replies: - the French people did not care that they had to sign a paper to get out to walk - that we closed libraries and forbade people from buying clothes in supermarkets - that Macron has been in charge of the country's finances for over a decade with horrid results (+600B€ in debt) - that Macron did everything he said he would not, and said a lot of things that would be treason in a reas…

"the French people did not care that they had to sign a paper to get out to walk" 1- Don't you think this is quite political? Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context? If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing? (I'm not even saying that's the case I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possi…

It certainly is political in some ways. Some people think that government shouldn't have such authority to lock people down in their homes for months on end, to spend public money on buying overpriced masks and preventive treatment that doesn't work, shouldn't pay the media to spread misinformation and definitely shouldn't have access into our lives like we're in some dystopian novel from the last century. But hey, maybe that's not most people anyway...

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't HTTPS required by GDPR?

Nothing an EU mandated root cert won't fix.

They certainly try to do just that. I am ready to purge that cert and hope browsers would get forked quickly.

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation is a bit less dire than that thankfully. 2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a protest vote. And that they don't support the AfD. Just like with brexit. There's still time for an alternative before all of Europe goes in with fascism again.

> 2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a protest vote. You don't vote for proto fascists as a protest vote. Especially not when you're German.

Well, you do, but not if you don't already find their views palatable.

There is a large undercurrent of reactionary hateful views in German politics that usually hides behind the fig leaf of "conservatism" but has become more visible thanks to parties like CSU openly copying AfD talking points and "liberal" media being unequipped to handle them in any other way than giving them a platform and hoping that the "marketplace of ideas" saves the day. Of course as we now know from experience, "rational debate" is impotent in a "post-truth" environment.

It's a widespread misconception that Germany got rid of all the Nazis and Nazi ideology during the so-called "Denazification" (Entnazifizierung).

While there were formal reviews of the innumerable former NSDAP members to determine their ideology and behavior under Nazi rule, only the most blatant offenders faced any consequences and it was demonstrably easy to "cheat" (i.e. we now know based on a better understanding of historical records that some people were able to hide very incriminating evidence of their involvement in e.g. forced labor and Jewish persecution) and any undesirable rulings could be appealed to offer another opportunity to "correct the record" so to say. As a consequence, many Nazis saw no real consequences and even ended up in the same positions of power because their job experience made them the most qualified (and "innocent until proven guilty", right?).

Additionally, many former NSDAP members went on to continue working in politics. Of the parties still relevant today, the conservative CDU/CSU received the lions share of them, in addition to those formerly associated with the likewise Christian "center party" which while ostensibly "politically moderate" was one of the driving forces in the rise of the NSDAP and the passing of the Enabling Act dissolving the democracy.

In East Germany, likewise many former NSDAP members ended up in the equivalent of the CDU/CSU (known as CDU in East Germany at the time and CDUD or Ost-CDU in West Germany), the NDPD and the LDPD (the East Germany equivalents of the market liberal West German FDP, the NDPD explicitly being created to target "unimpacted" ex-NSDAP members and siphon off conservative voters who would otherwise have supported the CDU or LPDP), all of which continued to exist as an executive organ[1] of the ruling unity party until 1989.

It's also worth pointing out the East Germany was even less rigurous in its "Denazification" (Stalin ended the program in 1948 insisting that it was time to stop distinguishing between ex-NSDAP and non-NSDAP and instead focus on growing democracy) and the SED was uniquely ill-equipped to deal with neo-Nazis when they arose, previously already having viewed "unimpacted" NSDAP members as politically confused rather than genuinely dangerous. For some it was literally impossible to imagine neo-Nazis could exist in East Germany because they saw the rise of the Nazis as a response to capitalism and East Germany was supposed to be non-capitalist[2]. For this reason, East Germany was however (like the USSR) quite successful at fighting other leftist currents, which were seen as misguided or even "capitalist" (as the only valid form of anti-capitalism was clearly that practiced by the government and opposing it therefore must be capitalist).

So in essence Germany has never weaned itself off fascism, really. While Germany has become generally more progressive compared to the 1930s, in some ways it is also still less progressive than it was during the Weimar era. A lot of leftist politics also died even before the suppression under the Nazis, the suppression under the SED or the suppression under the Cold War era anti-communist West Germany: while many know about the in-fighting between the SPD and the USPD after WW1, culminating in a massacre at the hands of monarchist paramilitaries, there were also numerous other leftist mass deaths such as the two(!) socialist republics in Bavaria, which eventually also fell victim to the monarchists.

In other words, it shouldn't be surprising that we still have monarchist terrorist groups (Reichsbürger) treated with more bewilderment than horror, whereas the closest we have to leftist activism is moderates gluing themselves to public roads to demand incremental climate protection legislation, and two so-called leftist parties that hate each others guts and one of which has almost fully embraced neoliberalism (the SPD implemented the neoliberal reforms of weakening labor protections, social welfare and medical care some 20 years ago).

The AfD is a protest vote in as much as Trump is a protest vote. They're not something you usually bring up in polite conversation but they have easy answers and push all the right (wing) faux-populist buttons.

[1]: Point of pedantry: East Germany quickly established a system with a single ruling party, the SED or "socialist unity party". However the CDU, NDPD and LDPD continued to exist as "block parties" and began increasingly aligning themselves with the ruling SED. The "block parties" were infamously nepotistic and provided a relatively easy path to political power and privileges compared to the dominant SED.

[2]: Point of pedantry: East Germany was not "communist" although it was at times framed as "Stalinist". East Germany instead eventually used the label "real existing socialism" (along with some other Eastern block countries) which was intended to frame anyone left of the ruling party as "utopian" and unserious. This "it's already as good as it gets" position is distinct from other so-called "communist" countries which often used the term aspirationally, claiming they would eventually achieve the communist ideal after reaching a tipping point (allowing the state to "wither away"). Both are distinct from anarcho-communists who would argue that if you try to build a state to achieve communism, "real existing socialism" really is the best you can hope for because states don't wither away voluntarily and you can only grow communism from the ground up (cf. prefigurativism).

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#404
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you fake it with an app somehow instead?

Antenas can ping your location and track your movements. There's nothing you can fake here.

Put your device in front of a vertical metallic plan and have it vertically rotating slowly. You are now walking around your house. Wouldn't this work?

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#405
post #378
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.

I don't understand this point, and it's one we see very often. What would have happened if they'd been civilised? 1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it. 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them. 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands. If you disqualify protest…

> You only see violence in protesters who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on their people.

A government trying to manage a country has a ton of compromises to make every day; I do not expect to be happy with every one of their choices, but I think the current government is doing OK.

On the other side, I fail to see how breaking a window can solve the problem of the protester.

> If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression

I'm afraid you confuse protest with violence. The ability to protest is fundamental for a democracy to stay a democracy, but protest must not imply violence and, especially, expressing your point does not make it automatically right.

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#406
post #378
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.

I don't understand this point, and it's one we see very often. What would have happened if they'd been civilised? 1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it. 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them. 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands. If you disqualify protest…

> 1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it.

The reality is: talking about CO2 emissions is talking about economy. That is the main job of the government.

> 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.

Macron did not ignore them. 49.3 means: "I'm ready to go on this point; are you ready, too?". And, by the way, you do remember that Macron was elected, too, do you?

> 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.

So what? This is democracy! If you can't, or don't want to, found your political movement, then you have to choose among the available candidates. Do you think Macron's program matched exactly my desires?

The revolution, the feminism and the union strikes were expressions of people who were oppressed and on the receiving side of violence. Gilets Jaunes was none of this.

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation is a bit less dire than that thankfully. 2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a protest vote. And that they don't support the AfD. Just like with brexit. There's still time for an alternative before all of Europe goes in with fascism again.

> 2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a protest vote. And that they don't support the AfD. Just like with brexit. > There's still time for an alternative before all of Europe goes in with fascism again. AfD => fascism. Argumentum ad Hitlerum basically. Does Germany really need more migration? More identity kamikaze? More publicly financed propaganda (ARD, ZDF, DW, plenty "N"GOs)? More provocation towards…

The AfD may not be literally a fascist party, but it does have a prominent right-wing extremist faction that includes several of its most widely known members such as this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_H%C3%B6cke

I think arguing about the accuracy of labels like "nazi" or "fascist" is a bit beside the point. You and I both know the people calling the AfD fascist or nazi won't suddenly like it better if you can convince them they don't meet the exact definition of fascism or are identical to the historical National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. It's clearly more about a vibe, but that is also true for the AfD's own political ideology (and yours, apparently, if you think "identity kamikaze" is 1) a thing that is happening and 2) something to be seriously concerned about). Incidentally the NSDAP also had different factions including Strasserites, who imagined a more proletarian-led economy and people who thought having homosexuals like Röhm around was acceptable, at least for utilitarian purposes. Incidentally, most of those were murdered by the rest once the NSDAP actually got into power. Such is the reward for being progressive in the far-right.

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#408
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting. So even if the judge knows their ruling could be the worst of several options, they're boxed into doing so because it's the law?

What do you mean the worst of several options? The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed. Having the judge "making it up" as he goes, and then another judge using that sentence 120 years later as precedent like in american courts sounds insane

The law, as it's written down, often fails to match closely the particular circumstances of a specific case. Maybe it never gives an exact match. So judges and juries have to interpret the law. That's the reality, whatever legal system you have.

"Precedent" is a way of saving the time of courts and lawyers, by not having to argue the same details every time they come up. And it's not as if every court judgement becomes a precedent; only higher courts can set precedents, and they can only be overturned by higher courts still.

I think this is a reasonable way of approaching justice.

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are attacking the wrong target. You are missing the big picture. This is rich comming from someone putting Melenchon, basically an old school socialist (in the werstern Europe sense), in the same bag as Le Pen and Zemmour who are as far-right as it gets in Europe. I agree that the situation is not very readable, but at least let's try to have a point of view consistent with the political history of the last few…

Le Pen is not "as far-right as it gets" and neither is Zemmour. Melenchon is very left-wing, started as a Trostkist and is good friend Venezuela's Maduro, against the capitalist system, etc. So if you think Le Pen is extreme on one side then Melenchon has to be equally extreme on the other side.

> Melenchon […] started as a Trostkist

So did more than half of the socialist party elit (elephant du PS), even freaking Cambadelis, are you suggesting he’s far left to ?

> against the capitalist system

Well yes, almost by definition of being on the left I would argue.

> So if you think Le Pen is extreme on one side then Melenchon has to be equally extreme on the other side.

No, this is a false equivalence. I mean the far-left as a political position does exist in France, but it is not represented by Melenchon who is still largely a socialist, although the actual socialist party has significantly shifted rightward in the 10's so there is a perception issue there.

Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

#410

OK, I can see where they're coming from with things like Signal. Not that I agree, but at least I can understand the reasoning behind it. But what is uBlock Origin's sin? A law-abiding citizen is supposed to be OK with seeing ads, or something? Can someone who reads French please elaborate on what the linked piece is saying about it?

Perhaps it's that mistrusting FAANG (advertisers and snoopers) is one of their grounds for suspicion.
Post reply on HN