4 ms·

And so, step by step, in the name of child protection and similar excuses, we lose liberties and rights one by one. Welcome to the Brave New 1984 We World. Big

And so, step by step, in the name of child protection and similar excuses, we lose liberties and rights one by one. Welcome to the Brave New 1984 We World. Big Brother loves us. We are living through the time best described by Zamyatin, Orwell, and Huxley.

Otek 3mo ago
Slippery slope is fine and all but do you have any constructive argument?
- ywvcbk 3mo ago
  Slippery slope is not a "fallacy" by default. It can be occasionally but its a perfectly reasonably argument in plenty of cases.
  - yladiz 3mo ago
    Sure, it's not a fallacy, but it does erode nuanced conversations and so it shouldn't be used without caution.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It is a fallacy by default. The existence and slipperiness of the slope must be justified to make it not a fallacy.
    - budududuroiu 3mo ago
      The slipperiness comes from the fact that the EU already admits that scanning of private messages didn't improve the catching and prosecution of perpetrators. Also, the biggest lobbyists for breaking E2EE argue that criminals are moving to encrypted platforms, and targeting encrypted platforms is actually the thing we need to finally put a dent in stopping the dissemination of CSAM
    - ywvcbk 3mo ago
      In plenty of cases it's absolutely self evident (especially when there are plenty of historical precedents for similar or analogous situations). Yes you can get involved in extended arguments with people arguing in bad faith or whose world view is fundamentally incompatible with your but that's usually just a waste of time (I mean you wouldn't argue with Nazis either just the same as with people trying to institute a Stasi style surveillance apparatus through slow boiling)
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        "it's absolutely self evident" is usually code for "I have no evidence so you must take this on faith"
        ywvcbk 3mo ago
        Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
- netbioserror 3mo ago
  What "constructive" argument is anyone supposed to give about authorities having warrantless access to all private conversations?
- ekjhgkejhgk 3mo ago
  "Slippery slope" does not by itself invalidate an argument, because slippery slopes do exist.
- miroljub 3mo ago
  Constructive argument? Just disband the EU as a whole, including all laws, treaties, contracts ... Europe would be a much better place if the EU stayed what it was, a trade union of sovereign nations without any political power over the people.
  - vrganj 3mo ago
    The EU was never just a trade union.
  - sham1 3mo ago
    How would this have worked in practice though? How could things like trade standards been harmonised or a common currency adopted without the trade union being able to do legislation? And once you get there, you're no longer a trade union. Or a trading block, which is probably the better word since a trade union already means something else.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It still is. Countries can ignore EU laws if they want to.
    - BSDobelix 3mo ago
      I'm not sure what you try to achieve: >For example, Poland was hit with massive daily fines when it was embroiled in a dispute over rule of law measures, as well as a separate case linked to environmental permits at a coal mine on the Czech border. >The Commission is allowed to take these fines out of that country’s EU budget allocation, preventing governments from simply refusing to pay up. https://www.brusselstimes.com/1568198/how-the-eu-punishes-its-member-states https://www.brusselstimes.com/1568198/how-the-eu-punishes-it...
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        they can subtract the same amount from what they pay towards the EU, and then what?
netsharc 3mo ago
Man, the EU is supposed to be the beacon of liberal democracy (after the light of Reagan's shining city on the hill is now truly extinguishing), but with shit like this, it's really making enemies left and right (metaphorically and spectrally).
- hsuduebc2 3mo ago
  Exactly. I consider myself euro federalist but bullshit like this creating a very strong antipathy. If this is not some shady maneuver to scan user messages for security reason, because of, for example, possible incoming war then it's beyond absurd. I would doubt that politicians pushing this are not understanding that pedophiles simply do not need to use these apps they are scanning. But I saw questioning of tech CEOs by older US officials and the lack of even basic knowledgeable about current technologies was ridiculously astounding.
- dachworker 3mo ago
  Here's a thought: maybe liberal democracy was never very free.
  - netsharc 3mo ago
    This "thought" is like a fart... No substance, leaves the receiver wondering "What am I meant to do with that?", and also asking "Do I care to ask for an elaboration?".
- graemep 3mo ago
  The EU exists mostly to promote economic liberalism and free trade. It started out as a purely trade arrangement, then evolved to become a broader union.
inigyou 3mo ago
Chat Control 2.0 is in the name of child protection. This one, 1.0, is just in the name of pleasing big tech.

Otek 3mo ago

Slippery slope is fine and all but do you have any constructive argument?

ywvcbk 3mo ago
Slippery slope is not a "fallacy" by default. It can be occasionally but its a perfectly reasonably argument in plenty of cases.
- yladiz 3mo ago
  Sure, it's not a fallacy, but it does erode nuanced conversations and so it shouldn't be used without caution.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It is a fallacy by default. The existence and slipperiness of the slope must be justified to make it not a fallacy.
  - budududuroiu 3mo ago
    The slipperiness comes from the fact that the EU already admits that scanning of private messages didn't improve the catching and prosecution of perpetrators. Also, the biggest lobbyists for breaking E2EE argue that criminals are moving to encrypted platforms, and targeting encrypted platforms is actually the thing we need to finally put a dent in stopping the dissemination of CSAM
  - ywvcbk 3mo ago
    In plenty of cases it's absolutely self evident (especially when there are plenty of historical precedents for similar or analogous situations). Yes you can get involved in extended arguments with people arguing in bad faith or whose world view is fundamentally incompatible with your but that's usually just a waste of time (I mean you wouldn't argue with Nazis either just the same as with people trying to institute a Stasi style surveillance apparatus through slow boiling)
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      "it's absolutely self evident" is usually code for "I have no evidence so you must take this on faith"
      - ywvcbk 3mo ago
        Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
netbioserror 3mo ago
What "constructive" argument is anyone supposed to give about authorities having warrantless access to all private conversations?
ekjhgkejhgk 3mo ago
"Slippery slope" does not by itself invalidate an argument, because slippery slopes do exist.
miroljub 3mo ago
Constructive argument? Just disband the EU as a whole, including all laws, treaties, contracts ... Europe would be a much better place if the EU stayed what it was, a trade union of sovereign nations without any political power over the people.
- vrganj 3mo ago
  The EU was never just a trade union.
- sham1 3mo ago
  How would this have worked in practice though? How could things like trade standards been harmonised or a common currency adopted without the trade union being able to do legislation? And once you get there, you're no longer a trade union. Or a trading block, which is probably the better word since a trade union already means something else.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It still is. Countries can ignore EU laws if they want to.
  - BSDobelix 3mo ago
    I'm not sure what you try to achieve: >For example, Poland was hit with massive daily fines when it was embroiled in a dispute over rule of law measures, as well as a separate case linked to environmental permits at a coal mine on the Czech border. >The Commission is allowed to take these fines out of that country’s EU budget allocation, preventing governments from simply refusing to pay up. https://www.brusselstimes.com/1568198/how-the-eu-punishes-its-member-states https://www.brusselstimes.com/1568198/how-the-eu-punishes-it...
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      they can subtract the same amount from what they pay towards the EU, and then what?

netsharc 3mo ago

Man, the EU is supposed to be the beacon of liberal democracy (after the light of Reagan's shining city on the hill is now truly extinguishing), but with shit like this, it's really making enemies left and right (metaphorically and spectrally).

hsuduebc2 3mo ago
Exactly. I consider myself euro federalist but bullshit like this creating a very strong antipathy. If this is not some shady maneuver to scan user messages for security reason, because of, for example, possible incoming war then it's beyond absurd. I would doubt that politicians pushing this are not understanding that pedophiles simply do not need to use these apps they are scanning. But I saw questioning of tech CEOs by older US officials and the lack of even basic knowledgeable about current technologies was ridiculously astounding.
dachworker 3mo ago
Here's a thought: maybe liberal democracy was never very free.
- netsharc 3mo ago
  This "thought" is like a fart... No substance, leaves the receiver wondering "What am I meant to do with that?", and also asking "Do I care to ask for an elaboration?".
graemep 3mo ago
The EU exists mostly to promote economic liberalism and free trade. It started out as a purely trade arrangement, then evolved to become a broader union.

inigyou 3mo ago

Chat Control 2.0 is in the name of child protection. This one, 1.0, is just in the name of pleasing big tech.