Politicians promoting Chat Control are handing an advantage to dictatorships, organized crime, and adversaries of the European Union or perhaps they're assets of those very adversaries.
If politicians keep bringing this up, why shouldn't EU citizens bring up the issue of losing trust in politicians (using the same tactic—over and over again)?
> Despite strong opposition, Denmark is pushing forward and taking its current proposal to the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on October 14th.
What is it about the Danes in particular that make them want to be spied on and surveilled by the government? Is it some sort of weird national fetish?
It continues to amaze me how much time Europeans spend criticizing the U.S. for all of our nonsense, while they too are sprinting toward a more authoritarian future.
There’s no incongruence in criticising both. Don’t be a tribalist arguing for one over the other; criticise each for what they do wrong, and praise each for what they do right.
Argue for a better world for all instead of wishing for others to be worse off.
Decentralized open source is essential to human freedom. I can’t believe so many talented technologists and entrepreneurs are on HN correctly diagnosing the problems with relying on centralized platforms of governments and corporations, but then these same people oppose anything that has the words “web3” or “blockchain” in it. They oppose it so strongly, they won’t click and read any details, they’ll just knee-jerk downvote it. And they’ll boost every argument against it. But we absolutely need ways to monetize open source and have it compete without becoming enshittified, pleasing shareholders and creating big juicy targets for governments and advertisers. Opposing micropayments and blockchain settlements is just useful idiocy in the governments’ war against privacy and autonomy, and make no mistake, it is a global war, not just in the EU. Here is the map:
I can get behind making secure chats decentralized, but putting it on a blockchain? Why? I don't want my supposedly private chats going to a public ledger, encrypted or not.
No, you aren't supposed to put the chats on a blockchain. You're supposed to settle the micropayments (done over trustlines, state channels) to a blockchain.
I think many outside of EU dismiss this as an EU only thing and don't think much about it.
1. Have you ever texted someone from EU? You are now chat controlled too.
2. EU is pumping billions to foreign countries to promote EU values. How long until they condition this "help" with chat control?
Politicians promoting Chat Control are handing an advantage to dictatorships, organized crime, and adversaries of the European Union or perhaps they're assets of those very adversaries.
> or perhaps they're assets of those very adversaries
They have damaged the image of EU to the point that I think it's plausible.
If politicians keep bringing this up, why shouldn't EU citizens bring up the issue of losing trust in politicians (using the same tactic—over and over again)?
EU countries will vote on the proposal on October 13th during the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting.
It’s on the 14th. From the article:
> Despite strong opposition, Denmark is pushing forward and taking its current proposal to the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on October 14th.
What is it about the Danes in particular that make them want to be spied on and surveilled by the government? Is it some sort of weird national fetish?
The Danish people don’t want it, there’s even a parliamentary petition against it.
https://mastodon.social/@chatcontrol/115241974344102261
It’s just that the current Presidency of the Council of the European Union is Danish, so they are the ones with the authority to push this now.
https://danish-presidency.consilium.europa.eu
[dead]
It's not even active yet, and I have already started to have an icky feeling when using things like WhatsUp. Who will watch the watchers?
> and I have already started to have an icky feeling when using things like WhatsUp.
since when? since Facebook bought it, right? right???
what is going on with society now what happened to a fun internet
It continues to amaze me how much time Europeans spend criticizing the U.S. for all of our nonsense, while they too are sprinting toward a more authoritarian future.
There’s no incongruence in criticising both. Don’t be a tribalist arguing for one over the other; criticise each for what they do wrong, and praise each for what they do right.
Argue for a better world for all instead of wishing for others to be worse off.
We can criticise the US and the EU at the same time.
It's almost like its different people.
It is also the same people, criticising the USA for the bullshit they do, and the EU for the bullshit they do.
Not sure why it needs to be camp X vs camp Y, the same people can criticise both...
There is this sudden resurgance of jingoism to account for that.
It's hard to beleive the number of intelligent people involved in this terrible idea
Oh, how we all wish that people with terrible ideas are all unintelligent.
grumble grumble..something about brexiters being right..grumble..grumble.
You must be kidding. The UK is far worse than this and still paying the price for Brexit as well.
This would be more believable if the UK hadn't already passed this type of legislation.
has it ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023
Perhaps now my response to Moxie Marlinspike from years ago is as relevant as ever, including for people on HN:
https://community.intercoin.app/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram...
I guess Moxie “found out”, because being centralized, Signal can have only one response to this — retreat and retreat: https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/we-will-n...
Decentralized open source is essential to human freedom. I can’t believe so many talented technologists and entrepreneurs are on HN correctly diagnosing the problems with relying on centralized platforms of governments and corporations, but then these same people oppose anything that has the words “web3” or “blockchain” in it. They oppose it so strongly, they won’t click and read any details, they’ll just knee-jerk downvote it. And they’ll boost every argument against it. But we absolutely need ways to monetize open source and have it compete without becoming enshittified, pleasing shareholders and creating big juicy targets for governments and advertisers. Opposing micropayments and blockchain settlements is just useful idiocy in the governments’ war against privacy and autonomy, and make no mistake, it is a global war, not just in the EU. Here is the map:
https://community.qbix.com/t/the-global-war-on-end-to-end-en...
It is not just the EU. It is a probably happening in your country as we speak.
I can get behind making secure chats decentralized, but putting it on a blockchain? Why? I don't want my supposedly private chats going to a public ledger, encrypted or not.
No, you aren't supposed to put the chats on a blockchain. You're supposed to settle the micropayments (done over trustlines, state channels) to a blockchain.
Here are the deets: https://qbix.com/ecosystem#Decentralized-Ecosystem
> but then these same people
Do you keep track of the user names? There is no hive mind.
I am speaking in generalities, over years of experience seeing what gets downvoted and defended
Web3 and blockchain - downvoted without engagement with substance
Any criticism of AI - both downvoted and has a comment: “it was always like this even before AI”