General > General Technical Chat
EU mandantory chat control
PlainName:
--- Quote ---More seriously, I've read that for a "modern" type of society, 10 million people would be about the maximum to guarantee reasonable democracy
--- End quote ---
No doubt, but 50 aren't going to agree on anything, never mind 10 million. The solution is obvious: you have relatively small groups who select a spokesperson to deal with other groups. Again, you'll end up with more spokespeople than can agree to breath the same air, so you repeat that (groups of groups) until you've run out of bodies.
Gosh, looks like you've just replicated councils, governments, the EU/USA, etc. And someone, or some few, will have to oversee it all. It's extremely likely that total dickwads will be at the top, because they're the ones that a) have the ability to work their way up there and b) the determination to do so. Reasonable people need not apply.
Nominal Animal:
Selective application of laws is a sign of unjust, unfair governance. Fascist dictatorship, really, using the traditional definition of the terms.
These "hate speech" laws –– which, by the way, are nothing such, and instead are exactly intended for selective application; for arbitrary, unjust governance –– hurt me, personally.
I do not believe in defining individuals by arbitrary immutable characteristics, or treating them as representatives of their "protected group". That is, I do treat everyone I interact with as an equal by default. However, I do like examining beliefs and mores and cultures, and often assume the role of advocatus diaboli for the sake of such examination and discussion; that is, I can easily discuss a topic as if I held a position that I do not in reality hold. For thousands of years, this has been known to be a very effective and efficient method of examination; see e.g. Socratic method.
(Those that I interact with directly do not seem to have any problem with this. Not many agree with all or even most of my opinions, and I find that is good, because it presents opportunities for me to learn and grow. It is those who overhear that seem to delight in attacking me. For example, during a single day, at a Finnish University, I've been called both a "dirty commie" and a "far-right elitist exploiter". I admit that I took weird joy at "the world's only socialist CEO" label, though.)
I am no longer allowed to examine or discuss why certain groups in Finland have 17-fold likelihood of committing sexual crimes than the national average, because such examination is now considered incitement against a "protected group", and is hate speech, unless I myself am perceived as a member of that group. Thing is, the probable underlying causes for that are completely incidental to them also being part of that "protected group"; that is, the reasons have very little to do with that protected group! It is like labeling the discussion about female serial killers, misogynist: against all women.
And this indeed is one of the intended effects of these laws: the end of discussion on negative effects of political decisions.
The public will just have to bear the practical effects in silence. Which is very nice for the politicians: no embarrassments or having to admit making any errors anymore! Nice! At least in Finland, the "reporters" have already stated publicly that they "do not want to report bad things done by good people", so the "most free media in the world" is already towing the line nicely.
This is not healthy. The lack of discussion will polarize those who feel the society is ignoring or suppressing them. This will happen on all sides. The arbitrary application of these speech-restricting laws will just turbocharge that. The end result is violent chaos.
Me, I prefer the uncomfortableness of words and concepts to actual physical violence. Apparently, I'm in the small minority at least here in Finland, especially when looking at the court decisions. (You are likely to get bigger fines from bad words than punching someone in the gut.)
Simon:
--- Quote from: bd139 on May 16, 2022, 07:43:04 am ---
--- Quote from: Simon on May 15, 2022, 09:17:08 pm ---Freedoms of expression stuff usually relates to public speach, what you say to your mates no one could give a toss. Now they may want to stop terrorists etc, fine, but if they turn up a text you sent to a mate saying you hate a particular minority does that class as hate speech? nope or at least I suspect legally they will struggle and erm, resources? never mind the resources to detect, now that they have discovered that 1 in 2 people have some unhealthy views that if said to the offendable party or otherwise in public would get them in the nick but in a private chat is not the same, how do they prosecute half the population?
I don't even see the need for all of this end to end encryption no one can ever break. It's a need created by the mere fact that it was provided. For me it's more of a pain, I change phone, well that's all my whatsapp messages gone! yep, oh you want to use whatsapp on your PC, sorry can't see that last message you just sent or received on your phone, it's gone mad and signal is even worse. Since when did we have a problem that needed such unbreakable encryption - we never did. Communications are already sunt encrpted, but they it seems to work now is that it's impossible for even the user to retain their stuff never mind the go,vernment.
My sister insists, or rather her husband does on using signal, so I get all the photos and videos of my niece on signal - it's a pain in the arse trying to get that stuff out of signal thanks to the encryption paranoia! because family chats and photos/videos need high end encryption - for what? oh and needless to say, he who decided to use signal has never donated a penny to them! what a fucked up society we live in, there is one thing the conspiracy theorists have right, one word - sheeple! we care so much for our privacy while we literally give it all away to facebook who all these idiots who refuse to use whatsapp still use.
I'm sick of hearing about privacy and snooping from people who broadcast their lives 24/7!
--- End quote ---
Just a point on privacy and messaging.
Anything that you tell anyone else is not private any more. At no point can you trust the other party not to distribute it or ensure that their endpoint is secure. The biggest attack vector to privacy is loose mouths. Ergo private messaging is a misnomer.
Signal / Telegram etc are pointless if you want absolute privacy. Don’t say stuff.
--- End quote ---
Yes exactly, but oh no, your privacy is threatened, use our app! Everything is end to end encrypted, as far as I am aware you can't use an app on a phone that is not which is why the VPN's these youtubers shill are virtually scams. But in the name of you buying into these services they can be bloody hard work to use because the fact that phones encrypt data stored and use encrypted communications was not enough.
But then maybe we do need all this scrutiny, our prime minister was investigated for things the proof or disproof of which lay on a phone he no longer used so the whatsapp messages were lost, so yes we obviously do need this stuff to monitor our corrupt politicians :)
Simon:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 16, 2022, 05:47:27 pm ---Selective application of laws is a sign of unjust, unfair governance. Fascist dictatorship, really, using the traditional definition of the terms.
These "hate speech" laws –– which, by the way, are nothing such, and instead are exactly intended for selective application; for arbitrary, unjust governance –– hurt me, personally.
--- End quote ---
I pointed this out to my local police force who claimed that "you have a right to be you" but this was meant of course for "minorities". When I pointed out that I had been targeted for being me but was ignored as I did not fit any prescribed minority I was blocked!
Simon:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on May 16, 2022, 04:59:50 pm ---
--- Quote ---More seriously, I've read that for a "modern" type of society, 10 million people would be about the maximum to guarantee reasonable democracy
--- End quote ---
No doubt, but 50 aren't going to agree on anything, never mind 10 million. The solution is obvious: you have relatively small groups who select a spokesperson to deal with other groups. Again, you'll end up with more spokespeople than can agree to breath the same air, so you repeat that (groups of groups) until you've run out of bodies.
Gosh, looks like you've just replicated councils, governments, the EU/USA, etc. And someone, or some few, will have to oversee it all. It's extremely likely that total dickwads will be at the top, because they're the ones that a) have the ability to work their way up there and b) the determination to do so. Reasonable people need not apply.
--- End quote ---
Yep, if 50 people can run and fund a modern society I'd like to be put in touch so that I can create my own cult.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version