13 ms·

The CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it. Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nich

The CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it. Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nicht. Wir müssen Wachsam bleiben. Mit dem Argument das es böse Menschen gibt, wurde schon viel böses getan. Massenüberwachung zerstört jede Gesellschaft. Deutschland hat mehrfach darunter gelitten. Und die Versuche Massenüberwachung einzuführen wiederholen sich.

petre 1y ago
Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power? Or maybe this course of action is just more convenient at this time? Probably the latter.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power? The lesson from history is to keep the autocrats from grabbing power. Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero. I'm not sure Berlin opposing Chat Control fits into their domestic anti-authoritarian arc.
  - xethos 1y ago
    > Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero This isn't so much about making Chat Control illegal (thereby containing or limiting future authoritarians) as it is not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election. I'd argue the current stance of being opposed to Chat Control is more like "Don't collect religious affiliation on the census" - meaning we can both agree with your comment I partially quoted, while also recognizing that Berlin's public oppostion can be meaningful.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election Fair enough, you’re right. If they’re incompetent authoritarians (or just non-authoritarian right-wingers), this could mitigate the damage.
      - DyslexicAtheist 1y ago
        >> Fair enough, you’re right. read both of your comments and was wondering what happens if both of you were correct.
  - sally_glance 1y ago
    Bravo. Great start, disappointing conclusion. Why are you not sure?
  - atoav 1y ago
    Yeah, no. Ressilient state structure is there to slow them down long enough for the popular support to throw their weight behind something else. If you have an absolutist monarchist state that is flourishing because its past 3 kings were good people that cared about the people and the country, a potentially bad leader that would take that over could use that power to cement their position indefinitely. Meanwhile in countries with separation of powers, term limits and checks and balances, gaining absolute power and staying there is a higher difficulty level, requires for more things to align, and most importantly: takes much longer to pull off. The point isn't to make it impossible for bad governments to yield power. The point is to add checks to that power that make it useless in the hands of a bad actor that doesn't outright use violent force. For example a good stage might see use in keeping good data on which citizens are in which political movements, but whenever you collect and maintain such data on behalf of your citizens you should also consider how a bad power could abuse such data. Thst is literally the bare minimum when it comes to acting responsibly.
DataDaoDe 1y ago
ja, aber Wachsamkeit ist Pflicht. Wer Freiheit für Sicherheit aufgibt, verliert am Ende beides - das haben wir mehrfach erlebt.
- hopelite 1y ago
  Germany has neither now. It seems you were sleeping on duty. But I guess you can’t guard against something you either do not have the capacity to or do not wish to see.
  - notrealyme123 1y ago
    Please clarify how people in Germany are unfree and unsecure now. Last time I checked we had free votes and I could say that I hate Merz.
    - snehk 1y ago
      People's homes get raided and their belongings get taken away for daring to insult the ruling class or for making fun of them.
      - camillomiller 1y ago
        [flagged]
        looping__lui 1y ago
        Well, CBS News dedicated an entire episode on these “propaganda stories”… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/policing-speech-online-germany-60-minutes-transcript/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/policing-speech-online-germ... Germany’s constitution (the Basic Law) does protect freedom of opinion and expression, but it explicitly allows restrictions via “general laws” to protect personal honor, youth, and human dignity. Recent enforcement shows how this plays out: police raids have targeted individuals posting “hate speech” or “extremist” content online. What constitutes hate speech or extremist content is “conveniently” interpreted at times.
varispeed 1y ago
The reaction is very weak, though. Chat Control is an act of terrorism and it should have triggered criminal investigation why this has gone this far. Before you downvote: If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design. It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent. The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will. You can argue legality if you like, but the substance matches the textbook definition. These people should be arrested.
- Uupis 1y ago
  I'm inclined to agree. I do feel terrorized by the mere prospect of total surveillance, and I can't imagine that's not the end goal here.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- seivan 1y ago
  [dead]
- egeozcan 1y ago
  I actually upvoted this. It's a well-argued comment, but I'm not convinced. My sticking point is the word "terrorism" itself. Words are defined by how we collectively use and understand them, and the common understanding of terrorism involves bombs and bullets, not software and surveillance. I get your logic, however. You're breaking down the definition into intimidation for political ends, and you're not wrong that coercive control is a form of violence. But the leap to calling it "terrorism" just doesn't work for me. It feels like you've reverse-engineered a justification for a word that, on its face, is hyperbolic in this context. It's an authoritarian nightmare, for sure, but it isn't terrorism.
miohtama 1y ago
Also, even AfD agrees with them on this.
- zahlman 1y ago
  I don't understand why AfD would be expected to disagree here. What, just on principle, because it's CDU/CSU?
  - razemio 1y ago
    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.
    - camillomiller 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - bzzzt 1y ago
        While you can force law abiding people to give up their encryption because it's against the law there's no way to prevent encryption from being used by people that are already violating several laws...
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        However, for the same reason, it's in everybody else's best interest that an organisation that might be taken over by fascists not have access to a panopticon.
        numpad0 1y ago
        I think that "everybody else" include literal fascists. Nazi's Gestapo had serious issues with Wernher von Braun to the point Hitler had to be bothered. East Germany's Stasi had more personnel per capita than Russian KGB had. They would know that a secret police in a German state isn't a great idea regardless of ideology. Had Hitler not able to stop Gestapo from sending von Braun to a death camp, not only history of spaceflight would have been delayed by decades, but the associated reputational bonuses to postwar Germany as "genius tech nerds that made a gross mistake" had been way lower. Not having the panopticon and just keeping freedom of speech and privacy as they are removes that type of risk. No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.
sally_glance 1y ago
I'm not following. What exactly are you trying to say and how does it relate to OP?
- WA 1y ago
  Mr. Spahn is the minister in the video. He's a little controversial, because during COVID, he was minister of health and had to order a lot of FFP-2 masks. This order went to "friends" of him, which were clearly logistically not in the spot to handle such a volume. Furthermore, he spent A LOT of money to source way too many masks. Here's a short teaser and links to more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Spahn#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Spahn#Controversies So, what the parent poster is saying that the controversial Spahn did the right thing for once, which comes a bit as a surprise.

petre 1y ago

Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power? Or maybe this course of action is just more convenient at this time? Probably the latter.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power? The lesson from history is to keep the autocrats from grabbing power. Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero. I'm not sure Berlin opposing Chat Control fits into their domestic anti-authoritarian arc.
- xethos 1y ago
  > Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero This isn't so much about making Chat Control illegal (thereby containing or limiting future authoritarians) as it is not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election. I'd argue the current stance of being opposed to Chat Control is more like "Don't collect religious affiliation on the census" - meaning we can both agree with your comment I partially quoted, while also recognizing that Berlin's public oppostion can be meaningful.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election Fair enough, you’re right. If they’re incompetent authoritarians (or just non-authoritarian right-wingers), this could mitigate the damage.
    - DyslexicAtheist 1y ago
      >> Fair enough, you’re right. read both of your comments and was wondering what happens if both of you were correct.
- sally_glance 1y ago
  Bravo. Great start, disappointing conclusion. Why are you not sure?
- atoav 1y ago
  Yeah, no. Ressilient state structure is there to slow them down long enough for the popular support to throw their weight behind something else. If you have an absolutist monarchist state that is flourishing because its past 3 kings were good people that cared about the people and the country, a potentially bad leader that would take that over could use that power to cement their position indefinitely. Meanwhile in countries with separation of powers, term limits and checks and balances, gaining absolute power and staying there is a higher difficulty level, requires for more things to align, and most importantly: takes much longer to pull off. The point isn't to make it impossible for bad governments to yield power. The point is to add checks to that power that make it useless in the hands of a bad actor that doesn't outright use violent force. For example a good stage might see use in keeping good data on which citizens are in which political movements, but whenever you collect and maintain such data on behalf of your citizens you should also consider how a bad power could abuse such data. Thst is literally the bare minimum when it comes to acting responsibly.

DataDaoDe 1y ago

ja, aber Wachsamkeit ist Pflicht. Wer Freiheit für Sicherheit aufgibt, verliert am Ende beides - das haben wir mehrfach erlebt.

hopelite 1y ago
Germany has neither now. It seems you were sleeping on duty. But I guess you can’t guard against something you either do not have the capacity to or do not wish to see.
- notrealyme123 1y ago
  Please clarify how people in Germany are unfree and unsecure now. Last time I checked we had free votes and I could say that I hate Merz.
  - snehk 1y ago
    People's homes get raided and their belongings get taken away for daring to insult the ruling class or for making fun of them.
    - camillomiller 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - looping__lui 1y ago
        Well, CBS News dedicated an entire episode on these “propaganda stories”… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/policing-speech-online-germany-60-minutes-transcript/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/policing-speech-online-germ... Germany’s constitution (the Basic Law) does protect freedom of opinion and expression, but it explicitly allows restrictions via “general laws” to protect personal honor, youth, and human dignity. Recent enforcement shows how this plays out: police raids have targeted individuals posting “hate speech” or “extremist” content online. What constitutes hate speech or extremist content is “conveniently” interpreted at times.

varispeed 1y ago

The reaction is very weak, though. Chat Control is an act of terrorism and it should have triggered criminal investigation why this has gone this far. Before you downvote: If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design. It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent. The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will. You can argue legality if you like, but the substance matches the textbook definition. These people should be arrested.

Uupis 1y ago
I'm inclined to agree. I do feel terrorized by the mere prospect of total surveillance, and I can't imagine that's not the end goal here.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
seivan 1y ago
[dead]
egeozcan 1y ago
I actually upvoted this. It's a well-argued comment, but I'm not convinced. My sticking point is the word "terrorism" itself. Words are defined by how we collectively use and understand them, and the common understanding of terrorism involves bombs and bullets, not software and surveillance. I get your logic, however. You're breaking down the definition into intimidation for political ends, and you're not wrong that coercive control is a form of violence. But the leap to calling it "terrorism" just doesn't work for me. It feels like you've reverse-engineered a justification for a word that, on its face, is hyperbolic in this context. It's an authoritarian nightmare, for sure, but it isn't terrorism.

miohtama 1y ago

Also, even AfD agrees with them on this.

zahlman 1y ago
I don't understand why AfD would be expected to disagree here. What, just on principle, because it's CDU/CSU?
- razemio 1y ago
  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.
  - camillomiller 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - bzzzt 1y ago
      While you can force law abiding people to give up their encryption because it's against the law there's no way to prevent encryption from being used by people that are already violating several laws...
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      However, for the same reason, it's in everybody else's best interest that an organisation that might be taken over by fascists not have access to a panopticon.
      - numpad0 1y ago
        I think that "everybody else" include literal fascists. Nazi's Gestapo had serious issues with Wernher von Braun to the point Hitler had to be bothered. East Germany's Stasi had more personnel per capita than Russian KGB had. They would know that a secret police in a German state isn't a great idea regardless of ideology. Had Hitler not able to stop Gestapo from sending von Braun to a death camp, not only history of spaceflight would have been delayed by decades, but the associated reputational bonuses to postwar Germany as "genius tech nerds that made a gross mistake" had been way lower. Not having the panopticon and just keeping freedom of speech and privacy as they are removes that type of risk. No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.

sally_glance 1y ago

I'm not following. What exactly are you trying to say and how does it relate to OP?

WA 1y ago
Mr. Spahn is the minister in the video. He's a little controversial, because during COVID, he was minister of health and had to order a lot of FFP-2 masks. This order went to "friends" of him, which were clearly logistically not in the spot to handle such a volume. Furthermore, he spent A LOT of money to source way too many masks. Here's a short teaser and links to more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Spahn#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Spahn#Controversies So, what the parent poster is saying that the controversial Spahn did the right thing for once, which comes a bit as a surprise.