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

431–440 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#431

Post by miroljub »

ath3nd wrote: post #3
isoprophlex wrote: post #2

God fucking damn it not again This is, what, the fifth time in ten years they try to pass shit like this?

They generally don't and won't stop until there are real repercussions for that, like losing your political career/being canceled in society over voting for it.

> They generally don't and won't stop until there are real repercussions for that, like losing your political career/being canceled in society over voting for it.

I wouldn't call login political career or being cancelled and voted out "real repercussions". They can pretty much retire and enjoy the rest of their lives with all the lobby money and EU rents.

Real repercussion would mean prison time and losing their property, but we all know that won't happen anytime soon.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#432

Post by FabHK »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #347
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 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…

> government control, censorship and centralization of the internet is not the solution

Why? Porn in magazine or movie form used to be age-restricted. Assume for a moment that was the correct, or at least a reasonable and permissible policy.

Why should it suddenly not be the appropriate policy, only because it's on the internet? Why do you say that laws do not or should not apply when you sprinkle a bit of "internet" over it?

It reminds me of the crypto-bro argument that, don't know, money laundering and tax evasion and offering securities without appropriate disclosure is illegal and tightly regulated, but if you do it with "blockchain", then it is perfectly fine. What sort of mindset is that?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#433

Post by FabHK »

graemep wrote: post #394
alerighi wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the parents want they can restrict their usage. I prefer to monitor and teach my children how to use technology properly, and that also includes of course sex education because it's not by banning porn sites till they are 18+ that you solve the issue to me, but by educating. Unfortunately we have among sex and other things still the mentality of 1900, except that today most 18 year old already lost their virginity…

> Unfortunately we have among sex and other things still the mentality of 1900, except that today most 18 year old already lost their virginity, and he can't watch porn? I think there are good arguments for claiming porn is more harmful than actual sex at that age, or at least some types or porn. I agree that if the aim of the legislation was really to stop kids watching porn it would be better served by making it ma…

> I agree that if the aim of the legislation was really to stop kids watching porn it would be better served by making it mandatory for ISPs to provide filtered connections for households with minors and filtered SIM cards for minors.

Without thinking about it too deeply, that does sound reasonable. Was that ever discussed? Why was it not, or was rejected?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#434

Post by cindyllm »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #413
ost-ing wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you make a statement that porn isnt harmful They did not state that porn is not harmful. > I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn Why should they need to reference a study to show the veracity of that statement?

[dead]

Re: Fight Chat Control

#435

Post by miroljub »

kvgr wrote: post #427
miroljub wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Europeans just wait for the Russia to come and save us from the totalitarian regimes once again.

There is no alternative is there. Russia bad for obvious reasons. EU rules getting more and more tight. Lets see what happens with digital euro and forced investing in EU markets. Eu is ruled by gerontocrats and detached leftists. The extreme right is not solution. Most of EU MPs from small countries are literal nobodies, just bench warmers.

Russia is bad as is. Currently, clearly worse than EU. But the problem is, the state of human rights and freedoms in the EU is deteriorating so fast, I'm not sure if it would still be better than Russia in ten years. And in 20 years, China may be the freedom benchmark for the EU.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#436

Post by arresin »

jlengrand wrote: post #315

*EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. This alone tells me which way I should weigh in on this law. They know what they're doing.

Does it persist when they leave office?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#437

Post by rimunroe »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #401
MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! }

I don't think their confusion was on how numerical comparisons work, it was on how a "maximum term of imprisonment" could also come with a minimum duration. In other words, what does a "maximum term" mean if it's not the actual longest time someone could be imprisoned for? Are there lesser terms?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#438

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

bigfudge wrote: post #398
H8crilA wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct. But the larger point is that even 1 minute of jail time for such "crimes" is unacceptable.

You might not like this law (and I'm agnostic on it) but I think the principle that individuals should be held accountable when laws are broken is important. Otherwise we just have token fines and corporate non-compliance because the risks don't outweigh the potential financial benefits. I think people at Experian should have gone to jail, for example, for their incompetence and negligence in regards data breaches.

Which people? The responsibility is distributed across hundreds, the decisions that led to the breach were made by committees, etc.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#439

Post by gershy »

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…

Am I insane for being somewhat in favour of this? I think the accessibility of adult content on the internet is a disaster.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#440

Post by mathiaspoint »

throwaway4496 wrote: post #242
mathiaspoint wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go after the people producing it. Stop bothering service and infrastructure providers. Doing that is either lazy or malicious.

Just because it is bad for you doesn't mean it should be illegal, adults should be able to do what they please even if it hurts them. So this is a pretty practical solution to protect the kids without infringing on adults freedom per se, because even if some adults lose access, as I said, nothing of value is lost.

Sure but there are a lot of people who disagree and I think what I wrote is a much more reasonable compromise with them.
Post reply on HN