Hacker News Reader

Comment by asyx | Hacker News Reader

This is true of course but the counter argument is that running your own infrastructure is probably not a problem for international criminal gangs but your group chat with the boys is not gunna go through some AI garbage filter and in the end we are still going to get our cars stolen but now the police is knocking because I called Merz a fascist bastard and once the actual fascist win an election they are going to knock on everybody’s door who called Weidel a pick me girl in Turkish.

In summary, without stupid jokes about German politics, the actual stated goal is unachievable but the real world consequences in a Europe that is sprinting to the far right are incredibly dangerous.

View on HN

> Europe that is sprinting to the far right are incredibly dangerous

Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the far right party, is against Chat Control.

https://fightchatcontrol.eu/#delegates

Because it's not popular, and they are a populist party. I'd wager they will be all for it if they were to achieve power.

You've just described every politician.

Not all of them - Bernie has been rock solid on nearly every issue except guns for 40 years.

Immigration

I used to be on your side but now that I live as a minority where the locals are increasingly becoming hostile and their very abusive rhetoric is accepted on social media and forums like reddit I actually want them to face the consequences of such speech and be deterred from uttering anything like that with their devices. (They can do so privately at the bar I have no problem with that.)

Another example is the recent nepal protests.

More abstractly I think that a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic society at scale is not able to handle anonymous and private communication without collapsing. If we dont go in the direction of benevolent censorship like China and Singapore I think the west is going to see some dark times.

> More abstractly I think that a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic society at scale is not able to handle anonymous and private communication without collapsing. If we dont go in the direction of benevolent censorship like China and Singapore I think the west is going to see some dark times.

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither and will lose both.

yeah this is what they say but I think this argument doesnt work at scale. Singapore and China are both safer and relatively free-er than many places

It works remarkably well at scale. In fact, this is the defining trait of all cities, states, and nations that became historical points of reference like Troy, Athens, Rome, Constantinople, Venice, London the US and possibly China in the future.

Each of them thrived because they embraced diversity and freedom, etc. giving themselves access to a much larger pool of skilled talent.

Venice offers the clearest example. At its height, they could appoint someone as unconventional as a sub-Saharan Muslim to command their fleet (think of Othello). But the moment they shifted to a locals-only approach for key positions, their dominance began to crumble.

The problem is that usually locals feel cast aside. And while they too get the benefits, they rarely see them as such… They feel entitled and screwed. Don’t care about the big picture.

Ps. Of course this is very high level as each of these cities / states / etc collapsed under slightly different circumstances.

And how are you supposed to exist as any sexual, gender, religious, or political minority when Gestapo's listening in on every phone? And also, we were talking about private conversations, not Reddit, not any less private than what is spoken in your own home.

I am sympathetic to whatever made you believe that, but if you advocate for such evil, inhumane, reckless systems, you are not a good ally to anyone, including yourself or your community.

Honestly I am on the edge about this, but for the sake of argument how is it evil or inhumane to de-anonymize certain types of rhetoric from digital communication. I dont think freedom of speech includes anonymity in it.

You're giving this government, or one in the future, the tools and access they'll need to opress and discriminate against you, a minority.

> I used to be on your side but now that I live as a minority where the locals are increasingly becoming hostile and their very abusive rhetoric is accepted on social media and forums like reddit I actually want them to face the consequences of such speech and be deterred from uttering anything like that with their devices. (They can do so privately at the bar I have no problem with that.)

It's interesting that a member of a minority would not see that this is exactly how minorities get oppressed. Sure, let's make trans hate speech illegal (and completely fuck privacy online in order to make it so)... then we block criticism of Israel... then we block criticism of The Party... now let's block anything that might "corrupt our children"... Actually we don't need that narrative anymore; we just block whatever The Party says to block. I hope being trans stays socially acceptable!

To say nothing of the fact that one country fucking over privacy for its citizens means fucking over citizens of many other countries too, who didn't agree to it.

No to clarify I didnt say make it illegal, I said to de-anonymize it. If you are gonna say controversial things they just have to be tied to your name.

I fail to see how that makes it any less prone to abuse. And I don't see how it would help things. People say horrible shit all the time in person too.

The assumptions is that most people that say horrible things online are cowards and would not say it in person.

If you deanonymise, you'll have to do it on a general basis. This would include investigative journalists, whistleblowers, protesters etc. Surely you can see the net-negative we'll get from that.

An assumption I disagree with wholeheartedly. People say and do even more heinous shit in person all the time. You yourself said your locals have become more aggressive. Do you think that if we were like, "Hey, if you wanna continue to talk shit, you have to tell us your name" they'll just be like "oh okay you know what you're right I was wrong I love minorities" or do you think they'll just become even more aggressive? Do you think that'll lead to more understanding between people? Or just more violence against minorities?

This just does not work and it has been tested in practice. I can't link studies right now, but as a simple example: How many of these horrible things were said by publicly known people (e.g. politicians, celebrities,...) and there were little to no actual consequences?

It is counter productive to call for more speech restrictions if you indeed are a minority member.

Some political forces tried to sell this as a solution to "hatred", but they had educational shortcomings and didn't think it through.

Both your examples aren't really invested in minorities. Minorities need to conform like everybody else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com