German government comes out against Chat Control • Hacker News Board

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#491

Post by gambiting » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 2:56 PM UTC

selfmodruntime wrote: post #485

alexey-salmin wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, but I've never met anyone who looks at it this way - this part: "the employer social contributions will be around 40k". Is not your salary. I don't know, maybe you should speak more to people about this. Literally everyone who I discussed it with (like dozens of people) see it in the same way: * There's the money your employer spends to pay your salary * There's the money you take home * Everything in betwee…

> Believe it or not, but for multi-national companies job offers in France are smaller for this very reason: you have a fixed budget to hire an employee, you subtract the "employers contributions" and calculate the gross salary you can offer in various countries where you have legal entities. This! It's hard for me how some people can't see this.

We can see it, it's obvious that the system in France(and other EU countries) works this way, it's just not really relevant when talking about salary. When I sign an employment contract for 100k euro that's my income. The fact that the employer then has to pay another 40k or 100k or a 1M euro on top of it to keep me employed is not really relevant because it's not my salary - it's their cost to keep me employed. The main proof being in two things

1) like I asked you in another comment - if that contribution was removed, I'm sure you wouldn't feel like you got a paycut.

2) if that did happen, your employer wouldn't magically decide to give that money to you instead, right? It is not and never was your income.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#492

Post by selfmodruntime » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

dgb23 wrote: post #475

selfmodruntime wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 second google search -> https://www.die-linke.de/partei/programm/ -> Marx's manifesto is cited among the first paragraphs -> the literal first sentence in point 3's second paragraph -> "Our goal of democratic socialism in the 21st century is a society free of domination in which all people can live in dignity." They mention the process of transforming capitalism to state mandated socialism and control of all compan…

The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic. German law tries to protect against anti-democratic groups and categorizes them as extremists (including left wing extremists) if they a threatening democracy. In practice that means that group is then surveilled. If there is evidence that the group tries to overthrow democracy, they are banned. Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and part…

> The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic.

Die Linke tolerates antidemocratic hate groups within their party and is a financial sponsor of others. All of this is common knowledge, all of this can be looked up easily.

> Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and parties as they support direct democracy and workplace democracy.

I know quite a lot of parties that were never once watched by a government watchdog, nor do they continue to support extremist groups, nor do those other parties continue to attract extremists at their demonstrations, nor do those other democratic parties have a continued problem of antisemitism within their ranks, nor do they have a dark past and continue to employ people at high ranks that were leaders in that past.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#493

Post by somenameforme » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

saubeidl wrote: post #449

somenameforme wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current systems in many places are breaking, but communism isn't a solution. Because the main reason the systems are breaking is not because of the systems themselves, but of the people in charge of them. Communism faces the exact same issue, except in that case the people in charge have orders of magnitude greater power and the people orders of magnitude less. In a contemporary democracy we could, at least in th…

> Because the main reason the systems are breaking is not because of the systems themselves, but of the people in charge of them I disagree with this assessment. The reason systems are breaking are inherent contradictions in capitalism that inevitably lead to crisis. See Crisis Theory [0] for a more thorough description of the mechanisms at play. Communism doesn't need to be authoritarian either - Salvador Allende fa…

Then what would be your explanation for why the issues seem to be largely contemporary in nature, and in particular with 1971 being such a critical inflection point? That 1971 site is alluding to the end the Bretton Woods economic system. Prior to that date, 'money printing' by the government had extreme external constraints. After 1971, we became a completely free floating fiat economy.

This was a radical economic shift. And at first it yielded massive returns as one could expect with the ability to suddenly have infinite money in a world where, to date, money had been very "real." But over time, it turns out that pumping endless 'funny money' into an economy causes lots of bad things to happen, even when we can export much of the immediately apparent inflation.

Essentially the modern economic system we have only truly began in 1971. And it's separate from capitalism itself. The powers that be wanted the power to print unlimited money. And so they claimed that power. Prior to that year we lived in an entirely different world. For instance one interesting inflation index is a can of Campbell's tomato soup. From its introduction in 1897 to 1973 it cost about $0.10. Today it costs $1.24.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#494

Post by the_gipsy » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

Xelbair wrote: post #443

the_gipsy wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were to categorize AfD voters and supporters into two groups: 1. people that support some of: racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, anti-environmentalism, etc., i.e. authoritarianism for their group 2. people that have been pushed by extreme leftism because they can no longer discuss alternative points of view (but do not strictly belong to group 1) What share would you assign to each?

majority in 2, due to worsening economic situation over the years and total disappointment in current options with no other option to break this impasse than to throw hand grenade into the mix. exactly one person in first group - a genuine belief in efficiency of authoritarian system from someone on spectrum. I also love how you neatly divided whole political spectrum into two, and bundled a lot of options into 'bad'…

Let's remove "anti green" and "anti immigration" (but not pure xenophobia) out of group 1, since you seem to protest those two as the most ambiguous (I do agree that those areas may be too blurry).

I also think you misinterpreted "authoritarianism for their group", or I expressed it poorly. I don't mean "support of authoritarian governments", but rather "give more power to their group over others, or favor keeping such a status quo", in the context of race, sexuality, gender, culture, etc.

Yes, group 2 may be protest voters, and their rationale is that the best protest against some leftist policies and monologue is to vote the right - not blank, not abstention, and not some void middle-ground. Of course!

But these people are not complete idiots that forgot what the AfD obviously stands for. Thus, I cannot reasonably believe that they ALL fall under NONE of the categories of 1.

My most generous concession would be 20%, but realistically I would say there is maybe at most 5% that is purely protest and not at least one of: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist.

Simply put: If someone claims they are not racist, and not homophobic, and not misogynist, yet they still vote for AfD, then they are more likely to be some of that, or are okay with the current status of discriminations, and not some naive idiot.

What you could say to change my mind, is how someone votes/supports AfD purely based on e.g. strengthened immigration policies for purely economical reasons, or "do not like greens", or "just wants nuclear". I don't understand how someone could be so oblivious to the other standpoints, but maybe this is just my personal bias?

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#495

Post by jll29 » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

selfmodruntime wrote: post #324

onli wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear energy is very expensive and does not necessarily provide energy security. You just have to check on the energy usage in France during the summer, when the nuclear power plants had to be shut down repeatedly now. Pushing nuclear power would neither provide reliable nor cheap energy. The route forward is solar, hydro, wind and batteries.

Nuclear, while not cheap, is clean . Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production. All this endless talk about nuclear and whatnot, but other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. A goal that Germany will never reach.

True, nuclear is clean, but only if the final storage question is ignored. (I would have used nuclear reactors for longer, at least so that those that were already built could work until they reach their planned end of life. But until the storage question isn't solved properly, one perhaps should not advocate for new nuclear reactors.)

The problem is nobody wants nuclear waste near their front door, even limited politicians were quick to realize that.

And yes, Germany's energy mix is a shame.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#496

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

brazukadev wrote: post #412

selfmodruntime wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes. > What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits? This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace…

> This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening. Sure. But that is as socialist as it was the National Socialist German Workers Party.

[deleted]

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#497

Post by FinnKuhn » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 3:07 PM UTC

miroljub wrote: post #472

razemio wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AfD has f'd up views on many things. I wouldn't even be surprised if they would vote for it, as soon as they are in a position of power. However in its current state, they would hurt themselfs with a chat control law. So yes, your a right. I would also not expect them to vote for it.

AfD is consistently the pro-choice and pro-personal-freedom party in Germany. They are the only party advocating for an unrestricted American-style free speech and against all kinds of government mandates that other mainstream political parties are pushing. You may disagree (or agree) with many of their other views, but as an opposition party, they are precisely the corrective Germany and Europe need to keep the powe…

They voted to ban the terms vegan sausage and vegan burger just earlier today. So much about being pro free speech.

Votes by party affiliation and name to verify this can be accessed here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2025-10-...

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#498

Post by looping__lui » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 3:09 PM UTC

camillomiller wrote: post #360

selfmodruntime wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works. A literal millionare is chancellor. > reedom for us is free healthcare, Last I looked I paid 10k a year for government mandated healthcare. Where can I apply for the free one?

I wonder what is the point of debating like this on the internet. I say billionaires, you mention a "millionaire" chancellor. We don't have anything against becoming rich. But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality. He's a high-income lawyer who invested and has a net-worth of abou…

I’m far more concerned about a government led by people who have no formal education beyond high school, have never worked outside of politics, lack subject-matter expertise in the fields they oversee, and can’t even speak a foreign language — yet are sent abroad to represent the country — than I am about a self-made millionaire serving as chancellor.

Germany’s economy feels like a freight train rolling downhill — momentum without direction, and no one in the cabin who knows how to steer.

And no, the health care system is not “working.” It suffers from systemic distortion and ideological decision-making. Doctors face strict budget caps and fixed, low reimbursement rates for treating regular patients, but those limits don’t apply when treating certain publicly funded cases — where compensation is higher. That incentive structure inevitably leads to unequal treatment. I’ve experienced it firsthand with my own child and couldn’t believe it. As in: they denied taking my kid in but took in two “publicly funded cases” while I was there.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#499

Post by the_gipsy » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 3:19 PM UTC

modo_mario wrote: post #392

the_gipsy wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that vote and support the far right do it as reaction, that is likely. But not to "extreme left nonsene" appearing. That's just a pretext. The real reason, to which they react, is that they can no longer covertly express and exercise their ideas. In other words, it's a reaction to getting publicly called out about being racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic etc.

I believe the far right starts winning when it attracts not just the types it naturally attracts all the time but more mid field folks as well. People who you don't get to your side by saying they're facists or other accusatory statements. I've heard plenty of times from such people that they've felt the government/establishment parties have made my bordering country less safe for women, gay people, etc and now numbe…

> People who you don't get to your side by saying they're facists or other accusatory statements.

How do I get folks that literally vote fascists to "my side"?

Does it involve changing "my side" to be a little fascistic?

What is to be done with the overlaps, e.g. people that are homosexuals but are racists, people from racial minorities that are homophobic, and so on?

Like, realistically, what do you think should happen to the left? Just tone it down?

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#500

Post by JoshTriplett » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 3:21 PM UTC

theelous3 wrote: post #298

JoshTriplett wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, something has got to give. Something does have to give: the constant demands for interception capabilities on end-to-end encrypted protocols. Those demands must be thoroughly destroyed every time they rear their head again.

I haven't seen anything that suggests chat control would do anything to e2e. I am genuinely curious. It seems to be an often parroted point but... ? It's just local image hashing and matching? Or is this only one implementation idea?

Chat Control is in some ways a response to E2E, by saying "let's backdoor the endpoints, then".