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

461–470 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#461

Post by red-iron-pine »

notTooFarGone wrote: post #446
torginus wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU is like: We will protect your sensitive personal documents so that only trusted government institutions and ones held to the highest standards of privacy (such as banks) may have access to it. This is to prevent abuse and identity theft. Also please upload them to BigBootyXXX.com if you want to have a wank

This is not an argument when ZKPs are actively being worked on and hopefully soon integrated. There is age verification that preserves privacy.

but lets be real, it's way more profitable to NOT preserve privacy, and there is no way to verify that they will actually implement these controls.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#462

Post by red-iron-pine »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #382
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 tri…

the modern journalist doesn't get to have a say -- big media companies and their editors are calling the shots.

hell, a ton of articles are already ghost written by automated tools, and a lot of "bias" is simply not reporting on certain things.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#463

Post by sillysaurusx »

freedomben wrote: post #444
sillysaurusx wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, "think of the children" has been an ancient rallying cry that’s used to justify all kinds of bad behavior. Often ironic, as you say. Also banks were one of the most vulnerable. I’ve often wondered why. My first reaction is "because their code comes from coders who only want to work at a bank," but I don’t want to be unfair. Perhaps it’s "from people comfortable with lots of bureaucracy". Either…

I consulted with several big banks, and while there are some great developers there, on the whole, the devs were largely passionless and were just there for the job. Many of them actively dislike coding, and it really felt like they were just there for the high pay. I think that type of developer really thrives in a move slow, heavy bureuacracy environment where velocity is not something people care about. The high s…

Just wanted to say, thanks for the very interesting comment. I consulted at Thompson Reuters, and while they aren’t a bank, your story brought up all kinds of memories. The passionless part really resonated with me, since it was all too obvious whenever the one good developer (who I was thankfully paired with) and I had meetings with the rest of them. There was one guy in charge of the database, which in practice meant any time you wanted to interface with the database you had to ask this guy to do it instead of write any code yourself that even interacts with the database in any way, including just getting data. It meant hours of delays, routinely. During most meetings it would devolve into random tangents about cars. (The good dev was also a car enthusiast, so everyone came to him with all their car issues, much to his annoyance.) And yes, to be fair, it was a little fun and I enjoyed working with most of them. Very low ego, as you say.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#464

Post by wizzwizz4 »

IshKebab wrote: post #459
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why legislators aren't trying to address [2], which is the real problem as far as I can tell.

Is it? How many films are there promoting violence, revenge torture, etc? Is "Law Abiding Citizen" acceptable?

Featuring, and promoting, are different things. There's a big difference between Lolita and CSAM, or between Damals war es Friedrich and Mein Kampf.

But, I care about reality, not moral outrage about taboo violations*, so I'd only advocate "do something about [2]" if I believed [2] actually did contribute to a real problem. Combatting ineffective promotion is not on my priorities list. As far as I can tell, [2] is a real problem: though I'm always open to new evidence. (And when people like me take over the world, and it turns out our interventions don't make the problem go away, I like to think I'd have the integrity to reconsider my views in light of that evidence.)

*: That's not to say I don't feel outrage about taboo violations. Some taboos exist for a reason, even if that reason is not immediately obvious. (Of course, some need discarding with prejudice, but Chesterton's Fence applies.)

Re: Fight Chat Control

#465

Post by ost-ing »

FabHK wrote: post #432
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…

> 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"…

> What sort of mindset is that?

Its the mindset of neckbeards who don't realize its not the 1990’s anymore, that the landscape has changed significantly and people cannot protect themselves let alone their children from it.

Implementation obviously matters and it is indeed a delicate situation, but that does not negate the need for solutions.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#466

Post by immibis »

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.

The more they have to tell you that you're free, and the more they make want to tell other people that you're free, the less free you actually are.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#467

Post by immibis »

chaostheory wrote: post #280

This just hammers the opinion that the GDPR was mainly just an EU economic protectionist policy and not actually about protecting privacy of citizens as promised.

GDPR passed, Chat Control didn't (already rejected about 4-5 times but the evil people keep proposing it because re-proposing the same failed law has no cost).

The chat control laws in the UK and USA also passed.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#468

Post by Tainnor »

msgodel wrote: post #386
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.

The UK left the EU and is pushing very similar sorts of dangerous nonsense legislation when it comes to the internet, so this is clearly not just a EU thing.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#469

Post by JumpCrisscross »

komali2 wrote: post #231
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original sin are ad-based social media. Everyone (except China) failed to regulate that. So now we see overcorrection. The solution is to regulate Meta and TikTok and YouTube. Until that is on the table we’ll get performative stupidity from both sides.

What impression of PRC social media do you have that makes you think the situation is different there? In my experience it's a dumpster fire of consumerism and influencerism, and has just as much fake news as western media. It leaks into Taiwan constantly, especially when there's elections here.

> In my experience it's a dumpster fire of consumerism and influencerism, and has just as much fake news as western media

I was frankly going off the kids of business contacts I’ve met. But I’m realising they’re all wealthy—the kids of America’s rich are able to make eye contact, too, because their screen time is tightly regulated.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#470

Post by darqis »

throwaway274592 wrote: post #441
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…

As a citizen of an EU country, I am really piss* off that the EU Parliament just gets to set the law in all countries. Do we have independent countries anymore? It does not seem that much different between federal government and states. It feels like occupation.

you have a throwaway account because you fear dang's censorship and rightly so
Post reply on HN