Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

German government comes out against Chat Control

xcancel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 578 posts

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#531

Post by the_gipsy »

Xelbair wrote: post #529
the_gipsy wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

so you've made up your mind beforehand, and will never change your views on any of this. why you even do you bother to keep arguing in bad faith?

Just answer

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#532

Post by saubeidl »

somenameforme wrote: post #493
saubeidl wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

I do not believe the problems are contemporary in nature. We've had the Great Depression, the Long Depression of 1879 - 1899 etc etc.

Labor value and market value have been out of sync since the beginning of market capitalism. You might have a point about the end of Bretton-Woods making it worse, but it has been broken since the beginning.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#533

Post by fragmede »

gambiting wrote: post #305
pembrook wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>>Why they are okay with calling out the far right but not okay calling out the far left I will never understand So help me out here. "Far right" is usually full of brilliant ideas like lets round people up and deport them without due process, doesn't matter where - or starting to look into getting rid of people with fully legal right to stay, or saying that they haven't seen a single white face in a town somehow isn…

If we're genuinely asking, real actual communism comes into play. I think children being raised by government programs and not their parents would be extreme left. Making it so that no one can have more than $1 million to their name would be extreme left. Forcing people to be impregnated and give up those babies to government to be raised by them would also be extreme. Maybe left? Prohibiting religions. Making it illegal to be Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/anything. Making it illegal to have a gender. The problem of oversimplifying everything into a spectrum of left and right means that there's no room for ideas to exist not on that spectrum.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#534

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

latexr wrote: post #452
patanegra wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you should tie the squatter, drive him to the middle of wilderness, and leave him there. So he will no longer have such bad ideas.

What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?

>What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?

Minimize govt. Remove the govt ability to control many aspects of one's life.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#535

Post by marcus_holmes »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #386
marcus_holmes wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree completely. Citizens are protected by laws, such as the First Amendment, that are not applied to non-citizens (see the Julian Assange mess for details). If the government can designate a group of people as terrorists, and remove their citizenships for being terrorists, then they can additionally apply yet more tribulations on those people while not straying out of the legal protections afforded to citizens…

> You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. Which other organizations who didn't kill or committed acts of violence to people in order to be wrongly considered terrorists by the government in the same vein as ISIS was? >I think you'll agree tha…

Precisely my point about terrorist organisations; Palestine Action did not kill anyone, yet the UK considers them to be the same category of organisation as ISIS.

If I read this right, you're thinking that only naturalised citizens would be affected by such a law; those with dual nationality that can be "sent back to where they came from". Which explains why you think this is a good idea.

That's not how citizenship works. If you allow for removing citizenship, then all citizens, regardless of "primary" nationality, can be made non-citizens. There's no second-class citizenship that can be revoked while still retaining a first-class citizenship that cannot.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#536

Post by dang »

lupusreal wrote: post #130
mx7zysuj4xew wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What war, against who? I don't know what kind of narrative you are tying to push here but know that any attempt would immediately meet strong opposition (I've seen the graves of Verdun and I for one would do anything to actively undermine and sabotage any kind of active war effort)

[flagged]

You can't do this here. We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45326106 (Sept 2025)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403432 (June 2025)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41830571 (Oct 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41710557 (Oct 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40852424 (July 2024)

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#537

Post by somenameforme »

saubeidl wrote: post #532
somenameforme wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I do not believe the problems are contemporary in nature. We've had the Great Depression, the Long Depression of 1879 - 1899 etc etc. Labor value and market value have been out of sync since the beginning of market capitalism. You might have a point about the end of Bretton-Woods making it worse, but it has been broken since the beginning.

I think there is a clear argument to be made that this is provably false. For instance the median income in 1960 for a worker was $5,435. [1] The GDP/capita at the time was $3002 [2]. So a median worker was getting very nearly 2x a share if the entire national GDP was equally distributed! And note that is for people with any income. That census did not collect data on 1960 for college educated full time workers, but based on trends from later years it was about 3x higher on average!

This is why the older generations were initially so aloof about the economic state of the US. They grew up in a time where they could go to college, graduate debt free, have a decent car, and even enough saved up for a down payment on their [first] house - all on income from a part time job.

You literally could not get a much more fair compensation for labor, because that's a huge chunk of the entire GDP being derived from median wages! Of course now we live in a time when the median wage is something like $50k and the GDP/capita is $90k. And many critical things, like housing, have increased in cost way beyond the rate of inflation, to the point that a median house is now something like 7 years of median labor which is just lol stupid driven by funny money that, again, mostly did not exist before 1971.

But getting back to 1960 - how would this, in any way, seem to suggest an out of sync labor value? If anything the flaw in my argument is that labor compensation was perhaps unsustainably high, because wages that high were only possible when you had a relatively large chunk of the population not working. On the other hand if we're going to create a society with a sustainable fertility rate and well raised children, then it's completely sustainable.

This is the context for Kennedy stating things like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Now a days even a pretty ardent nationalist would have to hold back a groan on hearing things like that, but it was a different world in the 60s.

[1] - https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED128674.pdf

[2] - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#538

Post by sph »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #534
latexr wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?

>What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation? Minimize govt. Remove the govt ability to control many aspects of one's life.

Good effing luck with that. Government is an institution that grows until it controls every single aspect of its citizens’ lives. What to do when government grows cancerous?

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#539

Post by mfru »

KPGv2 wrote: post #486
brazukadev wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.

@selfmodruntime Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Everyone else recognizes "capitalism is a system based on private ownership, wage labor, and private capital accumulation" as a fundamental truth, including, like, all experts in this field. Ultimately, you're making a No True Scotsman argument. Ge…

exactly, it is like the "this is not capitalism it is corporatism!" argument the libertarians like to make about the US.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#540

Post by mfru »

zahlman wrote: post #484
brazukadev wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The continued reference to "socialism" here is a strawman. The discussion started with pembrook's complaint https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 and then had selfmodruntime explaining how the system works starting with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 . At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism". selfmodruntime was even explicit in referring to "'Social market economy'... a…

I met selfmodruntime at their discussional level. The "USSR guidebook" quote was uncalled for and plain hyperbole. It also was factually incorrect.
Post reply on HN