3 ms·

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 m

by 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.

by petre 1y ago

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.