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

401–410 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#401

Post by TeMPOraL »

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #135
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…

Maximum of at least one year? Is there some kind of award for how nonsensical a law can be?

"Maximum term" is a specific legal concept, "at least one year" is the numerical constraint.

Or, put another way:

  if(maxTerm >= 1) {
    // law implementation OK!
  }

Re: Fight Chat Control

#402

Post by Ravus »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #383
IshKebab wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Regarding [1], the study itself mentions that stopping watching porn reverses the effect. In layman's terms: watch enough of it and the novelty wears off, but the sexual drive returns. Hardly a harm, it's what happens with every human activity.

[2] makes the big logic jump of assuming that someone who watches kinky porn fails to separate between fantasy and reality. It is the same line of reasoning as the disproven "videogames cause violence" paradigm and it is pushed by the same sort of people (personal hypothesis: they might be projecting). This could ironically point to a problem limited to at least some individuals failing to differentiate the two, but studies find that at the population level, a higher availability of porn correlates with lower rates of sexual assault. My personal reading is that it provides a safe outlet for sexual frustration and moderate desensitization reduces the chance that someone will, so to speak, get aroused over an exposed ankle.

On [3]... you're linking to a single data point, not a series nor a correlation; additionally, even if the correlation actually existed held, people's propension to form stable relationships is a preference, not a harm. It is also not related to minors, and it is not something that the state has any business sanctioning, much less with incarceration.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#403

Post by torginus »

Disposal8433 wrote: post #9

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS ( https://grapheneos.org/donate ). Democracy is dead for me.

I feel like you substituted 'idiot' for 'politician'. It would be quite surprising if regular people wanted more mass surveillance.

But if latter's really the case, then why?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#404

Post by raverbashing »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #352
Disposal8433 wrote: post #9

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS ( https://grapheneos.org/donate ). Democracy is dead for me.

It's not a left-right divide. Privacy advocates are a combination of the general right-wing + the anti-establishment left-wing. The people supporting this are establishment career politicians, who are left-wing as well (e.g. ylva johansson), though different from the anti-establishment left-wing (e.g. pirate party). Anyone who tries to make this a left-right issue must stop, because that's how we lose.

Yup

It's more a thing like "boomers who can't install stuff in their phones themselves (except for suspicious apps apparently) vs people who actually understand privacy with the normies on the side"

Re: Fight Chat Control

#405

Post by sunaookami »

ukprogrammer wrote: post #282
sunaookami wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>decentralized messaging This doesn't help, Chat Control scanner run directly on your device. It doesn't matter which chat program you use.

Incorrect > ... providers to search all private chats, messages, and emails automatically for suspicious content [1] Even if that were the case, the answer is the Framework phone [1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

>On 11 May 2022 the European Commission presented a proposal which would make chat control searching mandatory for all e-mail and messenger providers and would even apply to so far securely end-to-end encrypted communication services

And scanning end-to-end encrypted is only possible on-device.

And of course the next step is that the EU will mandate that every device needs to implement this scanning, they are very aggressive with this stuff. Framework phone won't help you in this case, this is obviously the next step. That's why we have to fight against it. Reminder that soon online age verification with an app that can only be downloaded from the Play Store and used within a "trusted environment" (e.g. SafetyNet) will be mandatory.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#406

Post by elric »

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.

So what you're saying is: countries elect politicians in national elections, some of these politicians (typically the prime ministers) form the European Council, they propose a President of the Commission, the ruling government of each country then proposes one unelected Commissioner to join that Commission.

I still think it's fair to say that the Commission does not represent the people. It is many steps removed from the people. Nobody voted for any of them.

According to wikipedia, this point of view makes me a euroskeptic. Which is not something I consider myself to be, I'm a big proponent of cooperation between European countries. But I am certainly very skeptical of unelected government officials deciding on far reaching legislation that infringes upon fundamental liberties. With zero political repurcussions or liability.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#407

Post by AlecSchueler »

bombela wrote: post #142
AlecSchueler wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean "an illegal?"

nah they meant unlawful. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unlawful

I know. It was a pity comment born out of my frustration with certain classes of offenders being labelled as "illegals" while others are granted human-first language like "unlawful citizens."

It wasn't a comment in keeping with the site guidelines but that was rooted in my continuing frustration with the community here denying the dehumanising nature of language like "illegals."

I'm aware of the definition of unlawful but thank you for your effort and apologies for the wasted time.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#408

Post by rkomorn »

amelius wrote: post #395
rkomorn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year". At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

How would you have read it if it said "with a maximum of one year"?

Not sure what exact sentence you're thinking of, but I'd have read the same sentence without "or more" to mean "each member's law should have a max sentence be 1 year" (since the context is describing what each member's law should look like).

Re: Fight Chat Control

#409

Post by IshKebab »

Habgdnv wrote: post #393
IshKebab wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think you have it backwards. I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn, but social networks regularly fuck teenagers up. I definitely would prefer my children to watch porn than get bullied - or worse - on social media. There's also the fact that I vaguely trust Facebook or Reddit to do a credit card-based age check or whatever. No way I'm giving any of my details to porn sites. Stupid d…

I keep seeing people mentioning credit cards as a mean to verify one's age. My daughter is 11, but she have her own card with her own name since at least one year.

A debit card presumably. Anyway I guess the bank knows her age reliably so there's probably a way to use debit cards too.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#410

Post by BaseBaal »

torginus wrote: post #403
Disposal8433 wrote: post #9

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS ( https://grapheneos.org/donate ). Democracy is dead for me.

I feel like you substituted 'idiot' for 'politician'. It would be quite surprising if regular people wanted more mass surveillance. But if latter's really the case, then why ?

I think it's more apathy than an actual desire for more mass surveillance. People don't care until they are directly, negatively affected. Same as it ever was.
Post reply on HN