7 ms·

EU laws are made by elected representatives. You make unsupported claims of censorship, but how exactly is a fine against misleading blue dot censorship since

by nutjob2 10mo ago

EU laws are made by elected representatives. You make unsupported claims of censorship, but how exactly is a fine against misleading blue dot censorship since it contains no speech? The company could change how they describe the blue dot or attach disclaimers but they don't. Why? Because the EU's actions serve Musk's and the Administrations political goals of vilifying anyone who has a different view, especially the EU, and using the levers of the state to retaliate and threaten. > The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech. If it wasn't for ASML there would be no tech industry. The world depends on a single EU company for advanced chips and for its continued prosperity. > Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves. You're just another EU hater pushing mindless tropes. Why are you so full of hate?

modsmidsmods 10mo ago
[dead]
fidotron 10mo ago
> EU laws are made by elected representatives. No, they are voted on by elected representatives. They must be proposed by the commission, which is not elected but appointed.
- saubeidl 10mo ago
  Ugh not this misdirection again. The commission is appointed by directly elected governments. It's the same as any ministerial post in any government. It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College.
  - fidotron 10mo ago
    > Ugh not this misdirection again. Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again! > It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College. But the US President doesn't have a monopoly on setting the agenda of Congress, the Commission does with respect to the EU Parliament. Anyone with any political awareness knows that if you set the agenda you control the outcome.
    - saubeidl 10mo ago
      > Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again! It's not a fact. It's just pedantry that is conveniently not applied anywhere else. Nobody would say the US president isn't elected or ministers aren't elected, but when it comes to the EU a double standard is applied by dishonest ideologues. The rest of your post is classic moving of goal posts, but fwiw Congress has been absolutely irrelevant since the sitting president decided to rule by decree.
      - fidotron 10mo ago
        > It's not a fact. It's just pedantry Absolute gold, thanks for that. > The rest of your post is classic moving of goal posts. At least you lot have a wicked sense of irony.
        orwin 10mo ago
        I will remark that no one disputed OP when he remarked that the US executive power is also appointed, not elected, and that weirdly no one make the same point about how undemocratic it is. It does rs feel like OP is right about ideologues only being pedantic when it serves their points.
        fidotron 10mo ago
        Except for this comment right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46376178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46376178
        nutjob2 10mo ago
        Your understanding of irony is at an Alanis Morissette level.
    - nutjob2 10mo ago
      You're wrong on facts and wrong on the comparison with the US system. The US president can't propose laws, only Congress can, yet he can "set the agenda". Only the EU Commission can propose laws, but the EU Council (composed of the heads of state or of government of the EU member states) sets the agenda. "The European Council is a collegiate body and a symbolic collective head of state, that defines the overall political direction and general priorities of the European Union." They are functionally equivalent.
  - wrongagainyyyy 10mo ago
    No, it's more like an ambassador that's appointed by the president, you see we have presidential tickets and you get the two people you vote for, which is different from voting for someone then having the person you vote for decide who to appoint. Yes technically the us 'electors' could vote for a different presidential ticket, but that's never happened in practice and even then their options are generally limited by who ran, electors can't pick just anyone.
    - saubeidl 10mo ago
      Technically there is a level of indirection even in the presidency, but sure. Nobody ever complains about ambassadors not being democratic though. Same thing goes for, idk, a Secretary of State or whatever, they all go through the same process. Only when it comes to EU institutions people can't hide their hatred and can't help themselves but make the same old dishonest claim.
      - letsthinkmoreok 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        saubeidl 10mo ago
        > Look up cj Hopkins Yikes, I just did. Trivializing the holocaust in Germany of all places is not a good look. Edit: This is exclusively based on the primary source - a book cover where the guy was using a swastika (!!!) to critise a policy he didn't like - i.e. made light of the holocaust. If you don't understand why that's completely unacceptable, I don't know what to tell you.
        letsthinkmoreok 10mo ago
        [dead]
        saubeidl 10mo ago
- nutjob2 10mo ago
  If they weren't you'd be whining about a loss of sovereignty by EU states. It's an idiotic catch 22. The EU systems balances national sovereignty with direct democracy but leans toward the former. It's a good system. Anyway, EU states went to great lengths to join the EU and can leave at any time. Besides the self-destructive UK, none have. > They must be proposed by the commission, which is not elected but appointed. The commission is elected by elected representatives. Just like in many countries the leader isn't directly elected by voters but by their elected representatives. Your comment is just ideological nonsense. You could argue in good faith about the pros and cons of various systems but you don't, it's just hate because you heard Trump or Musk or some right wing figure say it say it and you're garrotting it. Prove me wrong by detailing whats wrong with it, and "muh democracy" doesn't count.
  - fidotron 10mo ago
    > Prove me wrong by detailing whats wrong with it, and "muh democracy" doesn't count. We're at the "make arbitrary demands" stage of blatant denialism then.

by nutjob2 10mo ago

modsmidsmods 10mo ago

[dead]

fidotron 10mo ago

> EU laws are made by elected representatives. No, they are voted on by elected representatives. They must be proposed by the commission, which is not elected but appointed.

saubeidl 10mo ago
Ugh not this misdirection again. The commission is appointed by directly elected governments. It's the same as any ministerial post in any government. It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College.
- fidotron 10mo ago
  > Ugh not this misdirection again. Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again! > It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College. But the US President doesn't have a monopoly on setting the agenda of Congress, the Commission does with respect to the EU Parliament. Anyone with any political awareness knows that if you set the agenda you control the outcome.
  - saubeidl 10mo ago
    > Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again! It's not a fact. It's just pedantry that is conveniently not applied anywhere else. Nobody would say the US president isn't elected or ministers aren't elected, but when it comes to the EU a double standard is applied by dishonest ideologues. The rest of your post is classic moving of goal posts, but fwiw Congress has been absolutely irrelevant since the sitting president decided to rule by decree.
    - fidotron 10mo ago
      > It's not a fact. It's just pedantry Absolute gold, thanks for that. > The rest of your post is classic moving of goal posts. At least you lot have a wicked sense of irony.
      - orwin 10mo ago
        I will remark that no one disputed OP when he remarked that the US executive power is also appointed, not elected, and that weirdly no one make the same point about how undemocratic it is. It does rs feel like OP is right about ideologues only being pedantic when it serves their points.
        fidotron 10mo ago
        Except for this comment right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46376178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46376178
      - nutjob2 10mo ago
        Your understanding of irony is at an Alanis Morissette level.
  - nutjob2 10mo ago
    You're wrong on facts and wrong on the comparison with the US system. The US president can't propose laws, only Congress can, yet he can "set the agenda". Only the EU Commission can propose laws, but the EU Council (composed of the heads of state or of government of the EU member states) sets the agenda. "The European Council is a collegiate body and a symbolic collective head of state, that defines the overall political direction and general priorities of the European Union." They are functionally equivalent.
- wrongagainyyyy 10mo ago
  No, it's more like an ambassador that's appointed by the president, you see we have presidential tickets and you get the two people you vote for, which is different from voting for someone then having the person you vote for decide who to appoint. Yes technically the us 'electors' could vote for a different presidential ticket, but that's never happened in practice and even then their options are generally limited by who ran, electors can't pick just anyone.
  - saubeidl 10mo ago
    Technically there is a level of indirection even in the presidency, but sure. Nobody ever complains about ambassadors not being democratic though. Same thing goes for, idk, a Secretary of State or whatever, they all go through the same process. Only when it comes to EU institutions people can't hide their hatred and can't help themselves but make the same old dishonest claim.
    - letsthinkmoreok 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - saubeidl 10mo ago
        > Look up cj Hopkins Yikes, I just did. Trivializing the holocaust in Germany of all places is not a good look. Edit: This is exclusively based on the primary source - a book cover where the guy was using a swastika (!!!) to critise a policy he didn't like - i.e. made light of the holocaust. If you don't understand why that's completely unacceptable, I don't know what to tell you.
        letsthinkmoreok 10mo ago
        [dead]
        saubeidl 10mo ago
nutjob2 10mo ago
If they weren't you'd be whining about a loss of sovereignty by EU states. It's an idiotic catch 22. The EU systems balances national sovereignty with direct democracy but leans toward the former. It's a good system. Anyway, EU states went to great lengths to join the EU and can leave at any time. Besides the self-destructive UK, none have. > They must be proposed by the commission, which is not elected but appointed. The commission is elected by elected representatives. Just like in many countries the leader isn't directly elected by voters but by their elected representatives. Your comment is just ideological nonsense. You could argue in good faith about the pros and cons of various systems but you don't, it's just hate because you heard Trump or Musk or some right wing figure say it say it and you're garrotting it. Prove me wrong by detailing whats wrong with it, and "muh democracy" doesn't count.
- fidotron 10mo ago
  > Prove me wrong by detailing whats wrong with it, and "muh democracy" doesn't count. We're at the "make arbitrary demands" stage of blatant denialism then.