4 ms·

> The last chance for an agreement under Danish leadership is in December; the government in Copenhagen apparently preferred a compromise without chat control t

> The last chance for an agreement under Danish leadership is in December; the government in Copenhagen apparently preferred a compromise without chat control to no agreement at all. The current regulation, which allows the large platform providers to voluntarily and actively search for potential depictions of abuse, expires next spring after extension. It is precisely this voluntariness that Denmark's Minister of Justice now wants to codify within the framework of the future CSA regulation, which also contains a multitude of other, less controversial projects. [1] Doesn't sound like it is over yet - only delayed. [1] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Denmark-surprisingly-abandons-plans-for-chat-control-10965249.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/Denmark-surprisingly-abandons-p...

stavros 1y ago
As always...
zigzagger11 1y ago
That's why sites like this are so powerful. They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time. This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide.
- tavavex 1y ago
  > This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide. Why would mass-emailing be effective, though? This one instance strikes me as the exception, not the rule, especially in a world where I see calls to write to your local government all the time (and basically none of it results in anything) It costs them nothing to ignore emails. There's nothing on your end of the argument to use as leverage. It doesn't put any barriers to just right click->deleting the emails, or answering with something akin to "Thanks for your concern, but this isn't about you and we know better than you, so please stay out of it", just worded in a vaguer and more polite way.
  - zigzagger11 1y ago
    Mass emailing is effective because it's en masse. Hence the success in this situation. The things you're citing are the opposite of this approach.
    - tavavex 1y ago
      Both things I'm citing can work on a large scale with some effort, through the power of mass-deletion and auto-replying. I'm just not seeing how pushing some text towards a government representative compels them to act at all, especially when money and power are what's on the other end of the scale.
      - zigzagger11 1y ago
        Well, maybe take a look at how this worked out? Because you're saying that all they have to do is delete the emails, but clearly that isn't what happened here. The biggest difference is that there's little effort involved here. One click to send mass emails out to all relevant politicians. No they can not ignore a constant stream of emails from the electorate. Frankly, it doesn't seem like you understand why this site was different or effective.
- boltzmann-brain 1y ago
  > They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time I'm one of the founders of Stop Killing Games. Me and a large group of other people have gotten annoyed at this cycle and have taken it upon ourselves to make such laws impossible to implement in the future. We're organizing the campaign now - this is fully separate from SKG, but a bunch of the same people who helped SKG succeed, and a plan that takes into accounts the learnings from SKG. We're looking for people such as politicians, lawyers (EU/US/UK law), journalists, and donors who want to see Chat Control dead forever. If interested, email stopkillinggames+hn @ google's email service. I think the value proposition for VCs and C-suite is pretty obvious here, you get to keep the government's hands off your communications and internal systems, which is directly where Chat Control is headed. Even avoiding the cost of Chat Control compliance (dev work, devops, legal, ...) can easily run into 7 figures for a larger corporation, and 8-9 figures for the top players.
  - godelski 1y ago
    I know in the US, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is highly involved in Net Neutrality and tech. I once had a long conversation with his aid who specialized in tech issues and was quite happy with what they were trying to do. I'd recommend reaching out to his team. I'd expect that they would be happy to work with you all and help you navigate the space.
selcuka 1y ago
> Doesn't sound like it is over yet - only delayed. Politicians never step back. They only pause.
ericd 1y ago
The "Yes"/"Maybe Later" school of governance.
- vkou 1y ago
  That is the only way to run a government. Consider for a moment what a government of "Yes"/"No Forever, without ever revisiting the question" would result in. We aren't at the end of history.
  - shwaj 1y ago
    Nobody’s talking about a blood oath to promise never to revisit the issue. But there’s a different between leaving the door open to future reconsideration, versus pushing consistently against the wishes of the public and only backing off temporarily for tactical reasons. And for some reason, once these things pass, it’s a one way door. When does the US public get a chance to reconsider the Patriot Act?
    - vkou 1y ago
      The US public reconsiders it every time it sends a new congress in. Congress can repeal it in any session, they don't need to wait for it to expire. Like, that's just the nature of representative democracy.
      - Levitz 1y ago
        Well yeah, it's exploiting a problem in representative democracy. That doesn't work unless people become single issue voters on specifically that matter, and in that case, you can just screw over the public with something else. The practice deserves every bit of scorn it gets.
        vkou 1y ago
        It's not a flaw in representative democracy, it's a flaw in America as a whole. Most recently the public looked at the options before them, and chose to send in a slate of absolute lunatics in. When you can't even figure out that having blatantly and openly vindictive and corrupt people in government is a bad idea, the fact that they aren't annually revisiting some legislature that's an issue for the 5% of the population that is the tech crowd isn't the problem. Like, it's a problem, but but it's not the problem.
standardUser 1y ago
[flagged]
- happyopossum 1y ago
  Or the UK, or Saudi Arabia, or…
  - tavavex 1y ago
    What's happening to women in the UK? I genuinely haven't heard of anything going on there, so I'm just asking for clarification.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      Stalking, harassment, rape.
      - tavavex 1y ago
        I'm confused. The context here is talking about new legal developments. Has the UK passed something that justifies or makes getting away with the things you mentioned easier?
        johnisgood 1y ago
        I was just replying to your comment as-is.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  The job of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, not pass laws. "Interpreting" the Constitution and concluding that it contains a right to abortion, when the constitution says nothing whatsoever about abortion, was an absurdly "creative" interpretation. The left was undermining the constitution long before Donald Trump started to do so.
  - 1y ago
KurSix 1y ago
Definitely feels like something to keep watching closely

stavros 1y ago

As always...

zigzagger11 1y ago

That's why sites like this are so powerful. They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time. This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide.

tavavex 1y ago
> This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide. Why would mass-emailing be effective, though? This one instance strikes me as the exception, not the rule, especially in a world where I see calls to write to your local government all the time (and basically none of it results in anything) It costs them nothing to ignore emails. There's nothing on your end of the argument to use as leverage. It doesn't put any barriers to just right click->deleting the emails, or answering with something akin to "Thanks for your concern, but this isn't about you and we know better than you, so please stay out of it", just worded in a vaguer and more polite way.
- zigzagger11 1y ago
  Mass emailing is effective because it's en masse. Hence the success in this situation. The things you're citing are the opposite of this approach.
  - tavavex 1y ago
    Both things I'm citing can work on a large scale with some effort, through the power of mass-deletion and auto-replying. I'm just not seeing how pushing some text towards a government representative compels them to act at all, especially when money and power are what's on the other end of the scale.
    - zigzagger11 1y ago
      Well, maybe take a look at how this worked out? Because you're saying that all they have to do is delete the emails, but clearly that isn't what happened here. The biggest difference is that there's little effort involved here. One click to send mass emails out to all relevant politicians. No they can not ignore a constant stream of emails from the electorate. Frankly, it doesn't seem like you understand why this site was different or effective.
boltzmann-brain 1y ago
> They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time I'm one of the founders of Stop Killing Games. Me and a large group of other people have gotten annoyed at this cycle and have taken it upon ourselves to make such laws impossible to implement in the future. We're organizing the campaign now - this is fully separate from SKG, but a bunch of the same people who helped SKG succeed, and a plan that takes into accounts the learnings from SKG. We're looking for people such as politicians, lawyers (EU/US/UK law), journalists, and donors who want to see Chat Control dead forever. If interested, email stopkillinggames+hn @ google's email service. I think the value proposition for VCs and C-suite is pretty obvious here, you get to keep the government's hands off your communications and internal systems, which is directly where Chat Control is headed. Even avoiding the cost of Chat Control compliance (dev work, devops, legal, ...) can easily run into 7 figures for a larger corporation, and 8-9 figures for the top players.
- godelski 1y ago
  I know in the US, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is highly involved in Net Neutrality and tech. I once had a long conversation with his aid who specialized in tech issues and was quite happy with what they were trying to do. I'd recommend reaching out to his team. I'd expect that they would be happy to work with you all and help you navigate the space.

selcuka 1y ago

> Doesn't sound like it is over yet - only delayed. Politicians never step back. They only pause.

ericd 1y ago

The "Yes"/"Maybe Later" school of governance.

vkou 1y ago
That is the only way to run a government. Consider for a moment what a government of "Yes"/"No Forever, without ever revisiting the question" would result in. We aren't at the end of history.
- shwaj 1y ago
  Nobody’s talking about a blood oath to promise never to revisit the issue. But there’s a different between leaving the door open to future reconsideration, versus pushing consistently against the wishes of the public and only backing off temporarily for tactical reasons. And for some reason, once these things pass, it’s a one way door. When does the US public get a chance to reconsider the Patriot Act?
  - vkou 1y ago
    The US public reconsiders it every time it sends a new congress in. Congress can repeal it in any session, they don't need to wait for it to expire. Like, that's just the nature of representative democracy.
    - Levitz 1y ago
      Well yeah, it's exploiting a problem in representative democracy. That doesn't work unless people become single issue voters on specifically that matter, and in that case, you can just screw over the public with something else. The practice deserves every bit of scorn it gets.
      - vkou 1y ago
        It's not a flaw in representative democracy, it's a flaw in America as a whole. Most recently the public looked at the options before them, and chose to send in a slate of absolute lunatics in. When you can't even figure out that having blatantly and openly vindictive and corrupt people in government is a bad idea, the fact that they aren't annually revisiting some legislature that's an issue for the 5% of the population that is the tech crowd isn't the problem. Like, it's a problem, but but it's not the problem.

standardUser 1y ago

[flagged]

happyopossum 1y ago
Or the UK, or Saudi Arabia, or…
- tavavex 1y ago
  What's happening to women in the UK? I genuinely haven't heard of anything going on there, so I'm just asking for clarification.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    Stalking, harassment, rape.
    - tavavex 1y ago
      I'm confused. The context here is talking about new legal developments. Has the UK passed something that justifies or makes getting away with the things you mentioned easier?
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        I was just replying to your comment as-is.
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
The job of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, not pass laws. "Interpreting" the Constitution and concluding that it contains a right to abortion, when the constitution says nothing whatsoever about abortion, was an absurdly "creative" interpretation. The left was undermining the constitution long before Donald Trump started to do so.
- 1y ago

KurSix 1y ago

Definitely feels like something to keep watching closely