Hacker News Reader

Comment by miohtama | Hacker News Reader

Also, even AfD agrees with them on this.

I don't understand why AfD would be expected to disagree here. What, just on principle, because it's CDU/CSU?

AfD has f'd up views on many things. I wouldn't even be surprised if they would vote for it, as soon as they are in a position of power. However in its current state, they would hurt themselfs with a chat control law. So yes, your a right. I would also not expect them to vote for it.

AfD is consistently the pro-choice and pro-personal-freedom party in Germany. They are the only party advocating for an unrestricted American-style free speech and against all kinds of government mandates that other mainstream political parties are pushing.

You may disagree (or agree) with many of their other views, but as an opposition party, they are precisely the corrective Germany and Europe need to keep the power-hungry elites in check.

They voted to ban the terms vegan sausage and vegan burger just earlier today. So much about being pro free speech.

Votes by party affiliation and name to verify this can be accessed here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2025-10-...

As an American currently in Germany, the food situation is soooo much better here and they would do well to not allow incorrect or misleading labels on consumer products. I understand what you’re saying about censorship, but this is a pretty weak example, IMO. We had something similar in the US with attempts to ban the word “milk” from “almond milk” [0]. Are there other examples that are more egregious?

[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/almond-milk-can-keep...

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.

In English, we frequently use the French-derived version of the same animal to mean the food version.

I agree with you on white chocolate (and Hershey’s chocolate bar for that matter).

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.

It’s not misleading in any way for consumers though. The consumer protection agency in Germany explicitly stated that no consumers have been confused so far (https://www.wiwo.de/100160889.html). The vegan/vegetarian sausages such as the soja sausage, which Konrad Adenauer invented more than 100 years ago, are in a completely different section and shelf in the supermarket and clearly marked as vegetarian. This law is a clear example of the government banning people from calling their products what they are and it is the opposite of free speech.

AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.

Open communication online about the problems of mass migration is what has fueled the rise of right wing parties across the west, so no they would not support suppressing communication (which is aimed primarily at stopping this very rise).

But this is not about suppressing all communication, this is ultimately about giving the ability to steer the conversation to avoid what people in power would find problematic.

It's the classical playbook. Capture the media, declare the opposition illegal, bye bye democracy.

The public was sold this Nazi story about the AfD by the established powers to keep them down. Looking at what has been going on it's wild to me to call the AfD authoritarian compared the the Altparteien...

The AfD are ultra right and leading figures have openly admitted that they contemplate killing migrants, de-islamification of Europe by expelling all muslims, breaking the EU, etc. They also scatter their speech with fascist dog whistles, and even Nazi slogans from the man in charge, Björn Höcke [1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/the-tr...

> Altparteien

One of those empty words one needs to be careful with it does not mean anything, and everything. Politics is not about suppressing ideas of other people, somethings parties can agree on others not so much.

I think you need to go back to Grundschule and study the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Another TikTok zombie - get out of your emotionally charged environment please.

They are not in government just yet. But if they gain control, expect their position to change. That's why it is critical to reverse government positions across the block, or we'll see a new authoritarian wave sweep Europe.

I was thinking just this. Anyone strongly opposed by those in power (whether right, left, or whatever) will oppose the concentration or power.

Very few are principled enough to stick to that in power.

Authoritarians always oppose those things when they are not in govt.

> but also by German intelligence

You may it seem like they operate independently. They do not. This determination (while I subjectively agree) came of a report was released by a failed government's acting minister of internal affairs, on her last day of office. I read it myself and even though I don't like it, it's pretty imprecise and does some pretty heavy straw grasping at times.

they will, just not as long as it could potentially be used against them.

AFDs operation-mode is to be always against the government and most others, so usually they are always debating against it, just because.. And in their case its far more than the usual playing opposition, they often switch even on their own stances.

Additionally, this is something that would be in their ideological background. I guess they just fear to become victims themselves.

How can you write this when the other parties have a cordon sanitaire (Brandmauer)[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(politics)

How is that related? The other parties are not defining their opinions based on AFDs stance. Brandmauer only means they are not working with them, if it can be avoided, not they have to be different on everything. And most parties will have a different stance from the AFD naturally, simply by the fact that AFD are far right fascists.

Conservatives sometimes have an interesting habit of using the freedoms to come into power and then take these freedoms away.

Giving credit where it's due, even (or especially) to someone you find distasteful, is a mark of maturity and good character.

with their history of questionable chats and leaks i don't doubt it.

But so far the only german politician convicted of posession of pedophile material comes from the SPD as far as I remember?

(And the russia and china connections of the AfD should be a case for the secret services anyway. Unfortunately the former boss of one service is a fan of the party, so not sure if they are really looking now)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com