Live data from Hacker News

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

laquadrature.net

511–520 of 553 posts

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

#511
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the Trump/Biden elections, I distinctly remember the "these elections probably are also being manipulated by the Russians right now" narrative being dropped the moment it became obvious that Biden's winning. Well, if the right candidate wins, the elections must have been fair.

The elections can be skewed with different kind of manipulation (social media, troll farms, electronic ballot hacks) and the popular candidate can still win. It's fair to assume Putin would try to influence the elections in trump's favor as he would have been beneficial for him. The Ukraine invasion would have been much easier if trump had been relelected, finished pulling out of nato and kept the more isolationist p…

Trump was also just openly very favorable to Putin, considering him a "friend" (which is insane) and trusting him over his own intelligence community.

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

#512
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone is a catalyst, I don't see how it logically and necessarily follows that 100% of the causal responsibility falls on them. This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts. Maybe the masses are upset and this is a sign of things to come, that should be listened to.

Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you. > This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts. No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

> Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

Technically, it "is on" whoever objectively plays a role in the underlying causality.

You "may" be referring to your perception of what is going on, as opposed to what is actually going on (which is unreachable).

>> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

> No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

Except I have the ability to describe the various ways in which it is (at least plausibly) objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts, whereas you have a much harder problem: proving that you can actually read my mind (or, are omniscient).

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

#513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use linux, signal and ublock, I listen to political debates, and I'm seldom a freedom fighter. They are basically saying "if you close the door of the toilets when you poop, you are suspicious".

Part of the snowden documents revealed that anyone who had ever visited the Tor web site, not even downloading the client, was on one of the NSAs "lists"

This "list" thing sounds like FUD when you read articles with a titel like "U.S. Intelligence Has Amassed 'Sensitive and Intimate' Data on 'Nearly Everyone'" https://gizmodo.com/u-s-intelligence-admits-it-hoards-data-o...

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

#514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His views about a new constitution with more democracy are worthless to me, as I see him as a bad faith actor, exploiting the usual populist tactics such as permanent outrage, inflammatory discourse, obstruction of debates, conflictualization of everything, exacerbating existing social tensions, defining democracy around concepts like "the revolution", "the people", etc. How is it not obvious to everyone? It's obviou…

To me your first sentence basically describe so many politicians on the French political scene from all parties ! (except for the "revolution" part which I am deeply surprise to read here) So why do you have such focus on Melanchon ? Melenchon is not alone, he is with a party with many different people, deagreing on some subject, but tending to agree on a new "more democratic" constitution. Furthermore he would need…

I see you switch from defending him (as it's impossible) to "both-siding" it, and pretending I have a "focus" on him, and then hinting that I'm just scared... Sounds like a typical LFI politician. It's disappointing.

So, let's start with "Why do I have such focus on Melanchon?"

That one is just dishonest. Let me remind you of your own answer that started this focus on Mélenchon:

"Not sure what Melenchon is doing in its list as one of it core element of its political platform is to have a new constitution with less power to the president, more counter powers, more power "to the people""

I'm just answering your question and staying on topic... But you try to turn this around as me being a maniac. Just like Mélenchon, you aren't really interested in an honest debate, are you?

You also reach to the disappointing "All politicians are the same to me" argument when the guy you defend is exposed as the imposture he is.

As to your deep surprise about the "revolution" part, I think you might not know about Mélenchon true ideas and background. Here's a talk he gave in 2012, in Venezuela when Chavez won his 5th term: https://www.facebook.com/StopCaSuffit/videos/extrait-dun-dis...

Here's a small part of it: "Qu'est ce qu'on fait, camarades, ça c'est un cas concret de révolution. La révolution, c'est pas un sujet de, heu... C'est un sujet concret! C'est une stratégie qu'il faut mener comme nous meme nous en avons une en France. Et après, il faut, non seulement conquérire le pouvoir mais également l'exercer de manière révolutionnaire!"

In English this would be something like "What are we doing, comrades? This is a concrete case of revolution. Revolution is not just a topic, uh... It's a concrete matter! It's a strategy that needs to be pursued, just like we have our own in France. And afterwards, not only do we need to conquer power but also exercise it in a revolutionary manner!"

That's appealing to me. You can see what I assume is Chavez supporters in the background. Chavez was en-route to his 5th term, closer and closer to achieving President-For-Live. That seems to speak a lot to Mélenchon.

Now, you say that he's not alone, and that other people in his party disagree on some subject, but that they agree on a new "more democratic" constitution. Yeah. Sure. These people define "democracy" in their own vague and populist way. "power to the people" is a overused catch phrase that's usually not precisely defined. It very quickly turns into the various parody of socialist democracies that are just dictatorships disguised as "People Democracy". You know that, right? Do I even have to explain all of that? When you here "People" too much in a politician mouth, you know he's just a conman.

You are acting like an apologist of what clearly is a dishonest megalomaniac with serious anger management issues, using the word "democracy" and "people" to justify anything without ever defining it.

Finally, it doesn't matter if I'm scared by this "FRance Insoumise", as a matter of fact he built this party around his big personality, and made it a nest of populists, opportunists and generally confused people, but nevertheless revolted, angry, chaotic and proud of it. I'm yet to hear anything honest, relevant, or interesting from them. It's just accusations, threats, whataboutism, bad faith and obstruction of debate. They are not "Insoumis", they are angry bigots, ready to be completely "soumis" to their Great Leader in exchange of some revenge against "the wealthy", capitalism, and some vague notion of a conspiracy of "the west" / US / Europe. I guess they are bored of their normal lives, they fantasize of being oppressed to justify their hunger for chaos / revolution / violence but it's really boredom from highly privileged people that think they are slaves, somehow.

It's easy being a communist in a free country. Try being free in a communist country.

Now, I'm not focusing on Mélenchon, you just happened to ask specifically about him. I'd be happy to discuss other disgusting politicians, such as, as I mentioned, Le Pen, or Zemour. There are other bad actors, of course, but these 3 are the most known and the most dangerous. Macron has done/said several thing I don't like (removing ISF taxes, his backward views on cannabis, his recent licking of Elon's ass), but he's not in the same ballpark. I persist: anyone pointing him as THE threat to democracy is completely missing the big picture.

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

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have extenuating and aggravating circumstances You do; but that's not actually what I was thinking about. That's just about sentencing, and here (the UK) sentencing doesn't fall within the purview of precedent; there are sentencing guidelines set by senior members of the judiciary. I was thinking of actual points of law, such as what constitutes unreasonable behaviour, or whether possession of some quantity X o…

> I was thinking of actual points of law, such as what constitutes unreasonable behaviour, or whether possession of some quantity X of illegal drugs is conclusive evidence of intent to supply. In Roman judiciary those are usually part of the law as written. So instead of having a law about "unresonable behaviour", you have a law explicitely stating that "making noise above X db at night is illegal" or "drinking in th…

> In Roman judiciary those are usually part of the law as written.

This is increasingly the case as far as UK criminal law is concerned, I think; also to an increasing extent in matters of marriage and children.

But in family law, there isn't much room for talking about precedent, because for many decades Family Court proceedings have been strictly secret. It's now opening up, slowly.

Contract and property law are rooted in custom, i.e. common law; it seems to me that it would be impossible to write down a contract law that didn't have an infinite number of cracks and corner-cases. Do judiciaries that don't have precedent have to re-litigate all those corner-cases from scratch every time?

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

#516
post #508
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Violence. Is. Caused. By. The. Police. None of these, not a single one of these items were used until the police started indiscriminately tear gassing thousands of protesters, the vast majority of them peaceful. Five thousand grenades and weapons classified as war weapons used on protesters. It's obvious violence must have existed from both side. It's a bit obvious you're from the far left, just be neutral.

So now you're deflecting by "both sides"-ing the issue. Do you not hold the police to a higher standard? It's pretty telling you have to assume the political leanings of the person you're responding to rather than engaging with the argument or quantifying your position. It's completely unacceptable for any police force to use "crowd control" devices that are explicitly disallowed in warfare under the Geneva Accords.…

I didn't mean him to be neutral in his position but in what he is writing. You can clearly see he is biaised and is anti-police. Like the police is responsible of everything and that people are peaceful protesters while it's not truth, it's not black and white and he is a fool to believe that.

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

#517
post #468
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Violence. Is. Caused. By. The. Police. None of these, not a single one of these items were used until the police started indiscriminately tear gassing thousands of protesters, the vast majority of them peaceful. Five thousand grenades and weapons classified as war weapons used on protesters. It's obvious violence must have existed from both side. It's a bit obvious you're from the far left, just be neutral.

I hope you're kidding, but just to be sure: The average position isn't always right. Also, what even is neutral in this case?

I didn't mean him to be neutral in his position but in what he is writing. You can clearly see he is biaised and is anti-police. Like the police is responsible of everything and that people are peaceful protesters while it's not truth, it's not black and white and he is a fool to believe that.

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

#518
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Violence. Is. Caused. By. The. Police. None of these, not a single one of these items were used until the police started indiscriminately tear gassing thousands of protesters, the vast majority of them peaceful. Five thousand grenades and weapons classified as war weapons used on protesters. It's obvious violence must have existed from both side. It's a bit obvious you're from the far left, just be neutral.

Neutrality is often the wrong thing to do.

Yeah I meant more like "unbiaised comments" and not black and white comments complaining that one is responsible of everything.

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

#519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see two comments in and we're already making excuses for authoritarianism. Never have I before seen people go "But mass surveillance, civil right violating arrests are good actually!" "We gotta auth because there are no alternatives" has been used time and again in history to commit atrocities. --- Like it or not, People don't just go around committing terrorist attacks everyday. I, for example, and many people I k…

How do you stop actual terrorist groups from committing actual terrorist attacks, the like of which france has seen recently, without being "authoritarian"? A terrorist is almost always a normal person. They likely will not have committed a crime until they do the terrorism. Like, this is paradox of tolerance stuff. How do you prevent bad actors from taking advantage of your permissiveness and liberal laws? I'm not s…

there is an inherent social contract w.r.t. freedom and the societal notion of collective liberty -- freedom provides agency to both good and bad actors.

a free society implicitly accepts this as a risk-reward in order to maximize freedom, therefore a social contract.

and the social contract boils down to a government's obligation to secure its citizens (dependent on the boundaries of the implied social contract and what its participants agree to), and whether or not the balance between security and freedom is agreeable for parties involved.

constantly advocating for more security, at all costs, in order to stop "the bad guy", and then presenting a straw man to rhetorically justify it by asking: how else do we stop the bad guys, is authoritarian, anti-freedom, and patronizing.

freedom has an inherent risk of, well, freedom.

law was a construct designed for accountability, not deterrence, nor prevention because its [modern] philosophical (post french revolution) motivation is centered around optimizing for freedom (ie: political liberalism) and recognizing that actors will act -- it just attempts to add the checks and balance idea which attempts to ensure (that is, uphold a social contract), that bad actors are held accountable for their (free) actions.

you'll never be able to magically "legislate" away bad actors, but you can certainly attempt to "control" them, which presents a very, very large slippery slope of positive and negative definitions, and nuances around objective suspicion and other faculties used for discernment w.r.t. bad actors -- all of which directly violate the philosophical (US) notion of innocence until proven guilty, and very much so move away from any kind of scale where freedom is (attempted to be) balanced.

if you want freedom, you can't just erode the social norms built on foundations of trust, agency, and liberty in order to prevent bad actors from acting freely -- what you're calling for is not a free society by definition, because it seeks to mitigate and or prevent agency before it happens (reminds me of Minorty Report), which is restrictive and anti-thetical to freedom.

freedom comes at a price. freedom is (not) slavery, and i have no interest in participating in a social contract that binds me to chains through freedom risk-averse framings of governance.

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

#520
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They indeed sometimes destroyed some properties But you cannot blame them for the violence in the protest they co-organized. People are free to attend the protest, and they cannot control them. They never called for violence against police. And most protest now in France have some people fighting with the police. The same way you can see firefighters throwing stuff (including petanque ball) to police during firefighe…

If it happens once it's accident, if it happens constantly, its their responsibility if not starting a protest at all would prevent the violence And if they put their label on it it's their responsibility.

Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.
Post reply on HN