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

571–578 of 578 posts

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#571

Post by winternewt »

latexr wrote: post #547
winternewt wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Promote a better constitution that protects people from laws like this?

That is a wish, not an actionable step. We could instead say “promote a utopia where everyone is treated fairly and empathetically and everyone’s needs are met without destroying the planet or a need for government”. That’d “fix” the current problem and more, the issue is what exactly can we do to “promote” that change.

It's actionable if you have some imagination. Raise funds for a nonprofit. Start lobbying on both sides of the aisle. Enlist an advertising company to show the dystopian future if something like chat control comes into effect, poll for focus groups and target them. Find ways to undermine and expose the forces that are pushing for authoritarian legislation.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#572

Post by 1718627440 »

kragen wrote: post #48
shevy-java wrote: post #45

This is strange, because not long ago it was Germany (!!) that pushed heavily for mass-sniffing of people. I don't trust this. People should watch very, very carefully what Germany is actually doing next. I would not be surprised if the mass-sniffing comes in a few months when nobody is looking.

Zensursula von der Leyen is from the CDU, specifically.

van der Leyen was "promoted" to the EU, because she became uncomfortable for Germany and the CDU.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#573

Post by janderson215 »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #551
aziaziazi wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont understand that view : peanut butter, coconut milk, cacao butter and plenty, plenty others exemples exist probably since languages apparition. A vegetal burger shouldn’t be called beef burger obviously but we all know what almond milk means. The misleading argument isn’t serious but an attempt to block a cultural changes some don’t like or profit from.

Further, then the term beef shouldn’t be allowed. They should call it what it is. Cow corpse flesh. The concept of calling a food that is meant to mimic another food with an appropriate modifier in front has existed forever. So, for example, white chocolate isn’t chocolate…but with the appropriate modifier no one is confused about it.

Also, in regards to the “cow corpse flesh” comment, I think we (particularly Americans) are far too detached from the fact that eating meat is downstream from killing an animal. If we had more appreciation for that fact, perhaps we would be eating more plant-forward meals. Whether or not that would lead to a decrease in obesity or other co-morbidities would be interesting to test.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#574

Post by modo_mario »

onli wrote: post #406
modo_mario wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet it used to be very cheap. In some places it still is cheap whilst being much safer than in the past. Meanwhile the requirements for it and the processes it has to abide by are kafkaesque. Not in a double down on security way. Just plain nonsensical. I have heard so many stories from outside and people workin in it. Things like considering refabricating the same lightbulb from some now non existant company from th…

It was never cheap. Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users, but not cheap in general. You can read a writeup of the parliamentary scientific service about that at https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88... A striking example is the German state having to pay for storing the nuclear waste (temporary and final, see https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Han…

>Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users

You think that isn't happening even more now?

And yes it was a lot cheaper than it is now. One reason being that a lot more were built around that time in europe and our reactors actually went up in about 5 years.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#575

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tvier wrote: post #510
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Threats aren't illegal because of their information content, they're effectively evidence of intent to commit violence. It's like confessing to a crime. You're being punished for the crime, not for the admission, but you admitting to it sure makes it easier to prove.

You and the parent both made good points. In Germany a swastika might be seen as more of a direct threat of specific action than other places. That makes it more sensible to classify as a threat.

That's the argument authoritarians use when they want to censor something. The problem with it is that it proves too much. Do we also get to apply it to symbols of communism because of the millions of people who died under Mao, or the US flag because of slavery? What about that book Marx wrote that led to all the horrors under the USSR; can't displaying books also be symbolic?

You don't want the government to have the power to decide things like that. It's better that they censor nothing.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#576

Post by Asmod4n »

lmf4lol wrote: post #556
lukan wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So .. you are saying because modern fascists seldom use the term fascist for themself, they ain't no fascist? Well, to me it is enough if people subscribe openly to all the main ideology of Hitlers party and that time in general. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck. Höcke can be officially called a Fascist due to his statements. Was he removed from the party? Or shunned eve…

It's not that the so-called "modern fascists" don't use the term, it's that the VS does not even use the term. Not that it matters because it lost any meaning anyway. Also the AfD does not subscribe to the main ideology of Hitlers party. Did you read the party's program? Where in god's name do you find anything in there that can be compared to the program of the NSDAP? The AfD is in large parts much more liberal than…

You only become a Verdachtsfall when your organization is deemed to want to dismantle the state, get rid of rule of law or want to erase basic human rights.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#577

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #232
coderenegade wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate, isn't it illegal wear a swastika in Germany? How is wearing a burqa, a symbol of female oppression any different? Freedom of religion only goes so far, because the culture of the host country takes precedence. To take it to the extreme, if there were a religion where part of standard practice involved assaulting women and children, we would obviously limit those practices.

The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law, it's just one which is popular enough there that there isn't enough support to repeal it despite it being an unambiguous constraint on speech. Non-consensual violence is prohibited because it directly harms other people. Face coverings don't directly harm anyone and laws that exist only for the government's convenience are authoritarian laws. There are ways to…

I understand your point,but consider it a scar.

How would the world react if Germany decided to repel such law? It doesn't paint a good picture

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#578

Post by avianlyric »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #549
avianlyric wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was born in the UK as a UK citizens to parents that were naturalised UK citizens. By your definition her “primary” citizenship was British. That was where she was born, that was where she grew up, that was the first citizenship she gained. Due to her parent Bangladeshi origins, she had a separate right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship, but at the point she lost her British citizenship had not claim that right. Sh…

>She was born in the UK as a UK citizens to parents that were naturalised UK citizens. Her parents were not UK citizens, they were Bangladeshi citizens making her Bangladeshi first. Her parents had "settled" status in the UK granting her UK citizenship but her parents were not UK citizens. It's literally in the wiki link you shared. "Begum was born in London to immigrant parents of Bangladeshi Muslim origin and citiz…

Oh sorry I didn’t realise your definition of “primary citizenship” required your parents to also be born in the country. How many generations back do we have to go before someone is allowed to have parents not born in the same country as them?

I naively assumed that given she was born in the UK to legally settled parents, given British citizenship in the UK at birth, grew up in the UK, was educated in the UK, radicalised in the UK. That would make her “primary citizenship” British. But obviously not, she’s obviously secretly a citizen of a country she’s never visited, just hiding in the UK until she could show her true colours.

What’s your view of people with mixed heritage? If one of her parents was born in the UK so she’s “50% British”, does that make her primary citizenship British? What if she was 25% or 75% how about 90%? Where do you draw the line?

Post reply on HN