4 ms·

Problem is that they can just keep rewording and repackaging it endlessly until the checksum doesn't match but the final effect is mostly the same.

rmbyrro 2y ago
I know a similar principle is successfully applied in judicial courts, in some cases. If it's possible in justice, why not in law making?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Perhaps because courts are not a democracy? This class of problems gets much easier when an individual is designated to make a binding declaration (e.g. that these three seemingly different feelings are effectively the same) that's hard to challenge. Democracy has a hard time dealing with "obvious when you see it" problems.
  - puzzledobserver 2y ago
    The US House and Senate have parliamentarians, who have some power about what bills can be voted on. This was in the news some years ago, when they (if memory serves) blocked some bills from being voted on. I am unsure of the limits of this power, and how easy it is to change parliamentary rules in the first place.
    - didntcheck 2y ago
      Similarly in 2019 John Bercow (then speaker of the British House of Commons) notably rebuffed the government when they attempted a third vote on what he considered to be basically the same motion https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074 > Mr Bercow cited a convention dating back to 1604 that a defeated motion could not be brought back in the same form during the course of a parliamentary session.
  - rmbyrro 2y ago
    Courts are a fundamental part of a Democracy. There should be an exponential back-off algorithm for proposals. The public should be able to ask a judge to decide whether a new proposal triggers the back-off or whether it's a new one that can be proposed immediately.
Bluestein 2y ago
Solution, perhaps, is equally persistent opposition.-
- kelnos 2y ago
  But that's a problem. People get tired of having to fight against the same thing over and over and over. Put another way, we have to successfully oppose things like this every single time it comes up. But the people pushing it just have to win once.
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    Well then again, we've been fighting against tyranny for thousands of years and things have slowly gotten better. There are always new people, new generations, prepared to fight for the same thing their parents did and they are not tired.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    Put that way, it sounds a lot like infosec ... (I'd humbly posit, however, that - even at worst - even if those promoting this were to win, it does not necesarily follow that any legislative/regulatory change is "irreversible" ... ... so contrarian persistence might still be warranted).-
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  Opposition needs public support. The public, in general, gets tired of repeated messages. I suspect their motivation to pass orwellian laws are higher than the public's resiliency.
  - esafak 2y ago
    The public is always changing; one generation will age out, while another joins the fray.
    - rmbyrro 2y ago
      They're insisting on such proposals on a yearly basis. I suspect they'll intensify the frequency from now on. They can saturate the current generation's resiliency threshold until the proposal is passed.
soraminazuki 2y ago
I thought about letting people take the issue to court and making politicians face actual consequences if a judge decides that politicians brought up the same law over and over again in bad faith. But I guess it'd be abused when tactics like the filibuster work to kill off badly needed laws.
- berkes 2y ago
  In a well functioning democracy, politicians that fail to bring laws that they and their voters believe in, into action, would be voted out. And would be voted out, if they fail over and over. And would not be elected in the first place when they operate on bad faith. Unfortunately, such a democracy doesn't exist and probably never will be. When marketing, spinning, populism and other such tactics make the civis vote in the best interest of the politicians rather than the civis themselves.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kergonath 2y ago
  There would be massive counter-productive effects the moment a significant enough fraction of the population is willing to bring forward bogus lawsuits to use as a political weapon and for propaganda purposes. It is DOA.

rmbyrro 2y ago

I know a similar principle is successfully applied in judicial courts, in some cases. If it's possible in justice, why not in law making?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Perhaps because courts are not a democracy? This class of problems gets much easier when an individual is designated to make a binding declaration (e.g. that these three seemingly different feelings are effectively the same) that's hard to challenge. Democracy has a hard time dealing with "obvious when you see it" problems.
- puzzledobserver 2y ago
  The US House and Senate have parliamentarians, who have some power about what bills can be voted on. This was in the news some years ago, when they (if memory serves) blocked some bills from being voted on. I am unsure of the limits of this power, and how easy it is to change parliamentary rules in the first place.
  - didntcheck 2y ago
    Similarly in 2019 John Bercow (then speaker of the British House of Commons) notably rebuffed the government when they attempted a third vote on what he considered to be basically the same motion https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074 > Mr Bercow cited a convention dating back to 1604 that a defeated motion could not be brought back in the same form during the course of a parliamentary session.
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  Courts are a fundamental part of a Democracy. There should be an exponential back-off algorithm for proposals. The public should be able to ask a judge to decide whether a new proposal triggers the back-off or whether it's a new one that can be proposed immediately.

Bluestein 2y ago

Solution, perhaps, is equally persistent opposition.-

kelnos 2y ago
But that's a problem. People get tired of having to fight against the same thing over and over and over. Put another way, we have to successfully oppose things like this every single time it comes up. But the people pushing it just have to win once.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Well then again, we've been fighting against tyranny for thousands of years and things have slowly gotten better. There are always new people, new generations, prepared to fight for the same thing their parents did and they are not tired.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  Put that way, it sounds a lot like infosec ... (I'd humbly posit, however, that - even at worst - even if those promoting this were to win, it does not necesarily follow that any legislative/regulatory change is "irreversible" ... ... so contrarian persistence might still be warranted).-
rmbyrro 2y ago
Opposition needs public support. The public, in general, gets tired of repeated messages. I suspect their motivation to pass orwellian laws are higher than the public's resiliency.
- esafak 2y ago
  The public is always changing; one generation will age out, while another joins the fray.
  - rmbyrro 2y ago
    They're insisting on such proposals on a yearly basis. I suspect they'll intensify the frequency from now on. They can saturate the current generation's resiliency threshold until the proposal is passed.

soraminazuki 2y ago

I thought about letting people take the issue to court and making politicians face actual consequences if a judge decides that politicians brought up the same law over and over again in bad faith. But I guess it'd be abused when tactics like the filibuster work to kill off badly needed laws.

berkes 2y ago
In a well functioning democracy, politicians that fail to bring laws that they and their voters believe in, into action, would be voted out. And would be voted out, if they fail over and over. And would not be elected in the first place when they operate on bad faith. Unfortunately, such a democracy doesn't exist and probably never will be. When marketing, spinning, populism and other such tactics make the civis vote in the best interest of the politicians rather than the civis themselves.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kergonath 2y ago
There would be massive counter-productive effects the moment a significant enough fraction of the population is willing to bring forward bogus lawsuits to use as a political weapon and for propaganda purposes. It is DOA.