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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#91

Post by okokwhatever »

Lutzb wrote: post #89
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

The people that push this agenda reside on secrecy. We need to expose the people involved and let the press do their jobs.

Which press? The same that keeps this war in the shadows?

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#92

Post by enricotr »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #41
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

> How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? Other than hoping for a large meteorite or the second coming to end this misery, or stirring up the bloodbath a la Nepal - then, by recognizing the power of large numbers of people doing little things, like sabotaging the system at the personal level. But that implies unity, and unity and mutual support have been deliberately annihilated in this…

This.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#93

Post by josteink »

petcat wrote: post #63
josteink wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they’re asking American companies to repeal the first amendment rights of American citizens on all websites accessible in the EU. How this not a declaration of war?

"First Amendment Rights" only applies to the State, not private companies. For example, Hacker News has no obligation to preserve your "First Amendment Rights" on this website. They are free to mute you, ban you, or even just surreptitiously change what you say without you knowing.

That’s just semantics.

If a website which otherwise wouldn’t censor you begins to censor you because of threats from foreign nations, that’s a foreign nation pressuring an American company into suppressing rights of American citizens.

That’s a foreign nation imposing on your rights. In the past that used to require an invasion, so it was a bit more obvious what was happening, but the result is still the same.

Yes it’s through a website, which is owned by a company, which technically speaking owes you nothing.

In the digital age though, where are you going to use your speech, if not on a website?

What you (and others) are doing is trying to reduce the significance of a major transgression over a minor technicality. Way to miss the forest for trees.

The EU can stuff it on this one. And I supported (still support!) the GDPR.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#95

Post by petcat »

josteink wrote: post #93
petcat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First Amendment Rights" only applies to the State, not private companies. For example, Hacker News has no obligation to preserve your "First Amendment Rights" on this website. They are free to mute you, ban you, or even just surreptitiously change what you say without you knowing.

That’s just semantics. If a website which otherwise wouldn’t censor you begins to censor you because of threats from foreign nations, that’s a foreign nation pressuring an American company into suppressing rights of American citizens. That’s a foreign nation imposing on your rights. In the past that used to require an invasion, so it was a bit more obvious what was happening, but the result is still the same. Yes it’…

Semantics are important when talking about matters of law. Very important, in fact.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#96

Post by pembrook »

ambicapter wrote: post #49
ryandrake wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have to win every time. They only have to win once and it's game over.

Why can't we put up legislation to repeal over and over until it is repealed?

The number of laws/rules added vs. removed in any given year is like 100:1.

New rules lead to profitable business opportunities (and future lobbies), incumbents get to entrench their positions using the new rules, and people get stockholm syndrome and just end up accepting the new normal.

Modern representative democracy is Parkinson's law at work. Government is the purest form of bureaucracy and monopoly. Thus, it finds ways to grow itself every year regardless of what happens.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#97

Post by latchup »

josteink wrote: post #48
Humorist2290 wrote: post #34

(6) Online child sexual abuse frequently involves the misuse of information society services offered in the Union by providers established in third countries. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the rules laid down in this Regulation and a level playing field within the internal market, those rules should apply to all providers, irrespective of their place of establishment or residence, that offer services in the…

So they’re asking American companies to repeal the first amendment rights of American citizens on all websites accessible in the EU. How this not a declaration of war?

I am going to assume your question is genuine and not rethorical hyperbole.

Every sovereign nation has legal supremacy over its own territory. Any company doing business in the EU, no matter its origin, must follow EU laws inside the EU. However, these laws do not apply anywhere else (unless specified by some sort of treaty), so they are not forced to comply with them in the US when dealing with US customers.

If they still abide by EU law elsewhere, that is their choice, just like you can just choose to abide by Chinese law in the US — so long as it does not conflict with US law. If these rules do conflict with the first amendment, enforcing them in the US is simply not legal, and it's up to the company to figure out how to resolve this. In the worst case, they will have to give up business in the EU, or in this case, prohibit chat between US and EU customers, segregating their platform.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#98

Post by josteink »

petcat wrote: post #95
josteink wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just semantics. If a website which otherwise wouldn’t censor you begins to censor you because of threats from foreign nations, that’s a foreign nation pressuring an American company into suppressing rights of American citizens. That’s a foreign nation imposing on your rights. In the past that used to require an invasion, so it was a bit more obvious what was happening, but the result is still the same. Yes it’…

Semantics are important when talking about matters of law. Very important, in fact.

So you’re just going to accept a digital invasion happening and not care, because of some semantics and details somewhere in a document which was penned 200 years prior to the internet being invented?

I don’t know about you, but to me that seems kind of naive and short sighted.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#99

Post by CamperBob2 »

tock wrote: post #87
CamperBob2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when you get what you want, and rather than magically solving every problem confronting society, it doesn't solve anything at all, and in fact creates several more problems, as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice? What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars?

> as generally happens when such ideas are put into practice Is this true? Lots of countries with high living standards have high taxes. It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence. > What's plan B? Lower the threshold to a million dollars? 1B = 1000M. I think thats high enough. Don't see why you need to make it 1000x smaller t…

It doesn't need to solve every problem but it does help solve the problem of one unelected person holding too much power and influence.

It does? Really?

What are they teaching kids in school these days? According to the books I studied, nominally-egalitarian leaders racked up an eight-digit body count in the 20th century alone.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#100

Post by wartywhoa23 »

Lutzb wrote: post #89
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

The people that push this agenda reside on secrecy. We need to expose the people involved and let the press do their jobs.

Agree, but it's rather "expose the people involved and DON'T let their pocket press puppets do their jobs!"
Post reply on HN