| |
| ▲ | burnerzzzzz 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Lol, I have a different interpretation: Scandinavians have much more trust in their state. And I’d add: For good reason. Doesn’t mean the state should be trusted to a naive degree of course | |
| ▲ | gjsman-1000 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sweden has also had an explosion of organized gang violence; carried out by tech savvy teenagers using encrypted chats. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/30/how-gang-viole... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-girls-hitwomen-sweden-orga... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/agenda/briefing/2025-... | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I live in sweden. Police here is extremely incompetent and unwilling to do their jobs. They will not seriously investigate any white collar crime, so corruption is completely unpunished. They focus on gangs and so on, or so they say. What they actually do is aggressively target non violent people who smoke weed and occasionally some small fish dealer. Remember that owning any amount (even trace amounts only detectable by a chemist) of THC is a crime. Yes they do spend resources to go after people who occasionally smoke weed. Meanwhile if you're a 2nd generation immigrant you will be forever subject to daily discrimination, and getting a job that is not hemtjänst or cleaning is going to be very rare. | |
| ▲ | Llamamoe 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > carried out by tech savvy teenagers using encrypted chats. This literally doesn't matter. You can just use codewords, hide information via steganography, or even just communicate IRL in absence of encryption. Using this as an argument to destroy privacy is like deciding we should cut out everyone's tongues because criminals are using them to communicate and surely they will be unable to find alternative methods of communication. Maybe let's ban literacy while we're at it? | | |
| ▲ | rekoil 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Or just host their own actually end-to-end encrypted chat apps. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah sure, teenage gangs are totally going to do that... | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I sense sarcasm, so apologies if my question is off base. Why does this seem unlikely to you? | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 days ago | parent [-] | | People who join teenage gangs do not have enough computing knowledge to host their own end-to-end encrypted chat services. Surely that is obvious? | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Surely that is obvious? It kinda is but I didn't want to make that assumption. That is what I had assumed, for what it's worth. (Actually, I figured it was either knowledge or resources.) It also helps for the reason to be given explicitly so others can weigh in with relevant arguments rather than one that refutes something you didn't mean. | |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Teenagers figure out how to hack locked down consoles, which are hostile to make money. All it will take is someone to make a fediverse chat that can be simply stuck on a Pi from a premade image, and automatically runs a script to update the DNS with their IP and the kids will do it. | |
| ▲ | Suzuran 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Someone will make it easier. All the stuff you use today used to be a lot harder and more complicated than it is now. People worked to take the difficulty off, usually because they wanted to do the same thing and the difficulty annoyed them. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | CGMthrowaway 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > “Socioeconomic factors are what mostly constitute the risks of ending up in crime,” not ethnicity, says Felipe Estrada Dörner, a professor of criminology at
Stockholm University This is an interesting comment and sounds correct. I'm curious though, what is the driver of increased socioeconomic distress in Sweden? I thought they were doing pretty well. I did a bit of reading and it seems like Sweden has been seeing : - increasing segregation, with low-income and immigrant populations concentrated in certain districts - a youth unemployment problem - housing price crunch | | |
| ▲ | dariosalvi78 2 days ago | parent [-] | | socioeconomic factors and ethnicity are highly correlated. So Prof. Estrada Dörner is probably noting that there is no causation (foreigner -> becomes criminal) but the correlation is high and is due to many factors including segregation and latent racism, so maybe the causal factor is more like discrimination -> creates criminals. |
| |
| ▲ | rstuart4133 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thank you. For others this is the last para of the first link: > The Swedish government has proposed new legislation that would allow police to wiretap children under the age of 15 in an attempt to curb the violence, according to the BBC. So, Chat Control is an attempt by a few politicians to give police some tools to prevent teenagers from shooting each other in gang wars. It's a real problem, it needs a real solution, this looks to be an honest attempt to come up with one - from someone who doesn't know what they are doing. Interestingly, we've had an uptick in youth violence here in Australia too. It feels eerily similar. It's happening in the same demographic, it's happening while crime overall is dropping, and the authorities here too are struggling to control it. It's so serious it lead to a change of government at the last election. A right wing mob got in by beating the law and order drum with the slogan "Adult Crime, Adult Time". https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/102316 If anything, that's less effective at stopping crime than Chat Control. Sigh. | | |
| ▲ | hilios 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >So, Chat Control is an attempt by a few politicians to give police some tools to prevent teenagers from shooting each other in gang wars No that is not ChatControl, that is just some Swedish thing. Chat Control would make it mandatory for servive providers to scan every single message in the EU for offending material and notify the authorities if anything is detected. It's blatant mass surveillance under the guise of protecting the children. | |
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Naive question, but what is the cause of youth violance? Or the increase in violance for that demographic? | | |
| ▲ | dariosalvi78 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | in Sweden it's segregation and social context. It mostly affects immigrants, mostly children of parents who came here for a better life. They find themselves in poor neighbourhoods, very bad schools, isolated and often discriminated, with no prospects for a "good life". Criminals (adult) know this and push a sort of cool gangsta narrative that some kids find appealing. Kids, mostly adolescents are recruited online, which is why Sweden seems so against encrypted chats, and are commissioned jobs, from selling drugs to executions. This is because kids are mostly impune, and they are easy to convince. Kids being kids, those jobs often end up in a mess. It's a dire state of affairs. Sweden is currently one of the most (if not the most?) violent country in Europe if you count gun shootings per capita [1]. The police is unprepared, has few legal means and resources. There are also few officers in general [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_Sweden
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/police-officers-per-1000-... | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In large part, in Australia, the perception of increased youth crime is a result of increased attention to and policing of youth crime .. across the board things appear to be getting better in the aggregate: The Australian Bureau of Statistics measures youth crime across the country by collecting and aggregating police statistics from every state and territory.
Its data shows the number of youth offenders are lower for every state and territory compared with 2008-09.
The same thing can be seen when comparing the number of youth offenders per 100,000 people — the rate has gone down, although there has been a slight uptick in some states and territories since COVID pandemic.
At the same time, however: But some states, like Victoria, have recorded a significant rise in youth crime, with its agencies also highlighting the number of incidents involving young offenders — not just the number of youth offenders.
There's more to be said, some of which appears in (the source of the two quotes above):How Australia's states and territories are grappling with youth crime https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-31/australian-state-and-... Also: 'They've always been scapegoats': Behind Australia's crackdown on youth crime Are states like Queensland and Victoria really facing a youth crime "crisis"? Here's what criminologists, political experts and Indigenous advocates say.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australias-crackdown-on-... |
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | dogcow 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Or, more likely, we're seeing the result of a generation growing up glued to cell phone screens and crappy social media every waking moment from their youngest years? | | |
| ▲ | ipaddr a day ago | parent [-] | | We are quick to blame phones and social media. Previously it was tv. Before that comics and radio. The breakdown of the nuclear family. We ignore the food we put into our bodies, we include the medical waste going into our environment getting recycled back into food/water. We blindly take pills the doctor gives. We gladly take a needle where you need to sign a piece of paper saying you can't sue if anything goes wrong with this untested vaccine. We would never let any other drug/vaccine into the market without years of testing but this one is fine. You have to sign here because when something goes wrong we need to make sure it's your fault alone. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nickslaughter02 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | SiempreViernes 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The biggest factor is that the police simply suck at doing their real job but have worked hard at making sure the rank and file doesn't complain in public. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 2 days ago | parent [-] | | "never complain" is a rule in all sectors in sweden. Makes people feel isolated and makes them think nobody else is facing the same issue as them. |
| |
| ▲ | LtWorf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They accepted a lot of migration but then expected immigrants to be content with being extremely poor and with no way to improve their condition and got surprise picachu faces when they decided that crime was an appropriate way since no other way existed. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bn-l 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They’ve had to become like that due to their bizarre choices. They really got the worst of all worlds. Net tax beneficiaries, fear, crime and now judicial over reach. How do you do this to yourself? | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Very small sample group, but from my talks with Danes, they actually enjoy their lives quite a bit. I disagree with the chat control, but who are we to say what they want or need, if they have been enjoying their lives with the government of their choosing? | | |
| ▲ | Aerroon 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think it's that. I think the EU, as a political structure, obfuscates what's going on from the citizens sufficiently, that it's uncommon for citizens to hear about what's actually happening. Some third party has to basically start ringing alarm bells for even a minority of citizens to hear about an issue, let alone a majority. If I were to ask what my relatives think of Chat Control I'm certain that an overwhelming majority would not have even heard about it. Hard to oppose something if you don't know about it. But even if they did oppose it - does the average European even know how to figure out how their chosen politician voted on the issue? Probably not. Maybe it's a lack of journalism, I'm unsure, but I don't see any other reason for it. I also think that this is the factor in euroskepticism. | |
| ▲ | dariosalvi78 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I live in Sweden and I am not a Swede, so I read this country with from an outsider prospective but I am no historian either. From my observations and from I have been reading, Sweden has always had small, low density population living in a harsh environment. A centralised government was an effective way to gain efficiency, and it has historically had much less friction than in other places where other forms of power were more solidified. Socialist Sweden in the 30s and 40s was pretty much as totalitarian as other countries in Europe, but as they did not participate in the war, they have always seen themselves as the "good guys". No point of rupture, as it happened in Germany for example, very little self-criticism. To these days Swedes have very little discussion about what does not work in their country, they just assume that they live in the best place ever and that someone will take care of the problems. They have complete trust in authorities, which is good for many reasons, but it's also often blind and lenient even in front of quite obvious inefficiencies or abuses of power. For reference of discussion in Sweden see https://chatcontrol.se/ (in Swedish). Social democrats and Christian democrats are the ones who seem to be more supportive of this law. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It is important to note that Sweden has never had serfdom or in other ways oppressed its people to a high degree like most other countries did, so it makes sense the culture doesn't hate its government as much. People there have had their freedom since the viking ages and probably earlier, it was never taken from them and therefore never scarred the culture. In other countries where peasants had to fight for their freedom their culture reflects that, but Swedes never had to do that. So after millennia of governments letting its people be free why start distrusting the government today? | | |
| ▲ | dariosalvi78 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | well, the statare would probably disagree with your statement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statare). It's true that in Sweden most peasants were, at least on paper, more free than in other places, but their conditions were no fun either. I think that trust in government comes from a mix of things, oppression was probably not a necessity, and centralised control was beneficial to most classes, but I see that there is also a very strong cultural element. Trust in authorities is taught in schools in very early ages, I see this with my children and I can compare to other systems (contrary to most Swedes). The folkhemmet ideology is still very strong in this country, it's almost a matter of national pride. To this add the tendency to conformism (jantelagen) and the avoidance of conflicts at all costs, which makes criticising others very badly seen. Regardless where it comes from, I find that the uncritic, often blind trust in authorities in Sweden problematic because it hinders plurality and a sane discussion in society, like in the case of the Chatcontrol law. But individualism is also on the rise, very much so in fact, and the society is changing fast, and with it also trust. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Media and conversations in a small population with a unique native languages lacks the population for diversity of opinions and often results of blind trust in local government, power structures and group thought influenced by those in power. Who can be critical in this type of society? Ignorance can be bliss. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In other words: In countries where the government represent the people well those people trust the government a lot more and give it more power since the government does what the people want. | | |
| |
| ▲ | LtWorf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I doubt your friends are a representative sample. And they probably think they wouldn't be the first ones to be oppressed by this. |
| |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Scandinavia and in particular Sweden has historically been very oppressive, bordering on theocracy. The state ideology has changed and priests have been exchanged for social democrat ideologues, but the spirit of the people is still very much subjugated. I think this is a fundamental difference between the countries that have fought for freedom (like England, France, USA), and the countries where the powers that be saw what happened and made minimal concessions to try to avoid unrest. | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Casperin a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dane checking in. You know when you read a newspaper article on something you happen to know about and it's just hilariously wrong? Like, to the point of making you wonder if they're confusing your thing with something else entirely. That's your comment. |
| |
| ▲ | userbinator 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not surprising that it's from the same place that told us we should be happy with owning nothing. | |
| ▲ | miohtama 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | |
| ▲ | lm28469 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > the government decides what is allowed and what is not. Hm, you mean the government makes the laws? Shocking, revolting even | | |
| ▲ | Workaccount2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In the context of chat, it likely refers to a desire to make sure there isn't any "illegal talk" or "bad think" going on. |
| |
| ▲ | atmosx 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | pembrook 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This argument has been waged for decades. We're not going to resolve it here, now, just by invoking it yet again. Please just observe the HN guidelines, particularly these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | |
| ▲ | slater 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Let's please not fall, for the trillionth time, into the trap of "Nazis were socialists, it's in their name!". | | |
| ▲ | pembrook 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The nazis had income tax rates virtually identical to most modern European countries, which was not at all common globally at the time. Also they had wealth exit taxes just like modern Socialists in Europe are fighting for right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Flight_Tax I've now listed about 10 different major similarities, but if you'd like I can go on with more similarities. Modern socialists in Europe are also starting to turn against immigration and toward ethnic nationalism as well. This is a fundamental dark truth about socialism; it leads to anti-immigrant backlash. When the collective is paying for a lot of social welfare, they tend to get upset when people they perceive as 'other' come in and start to enjoy the fruits of the collective pie. You can 1:1 map the increasingly closed immigration policy in the US with the rise of the social welfare state starting in the 1930s. | | |
| ▲ | slater 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You appear to be lost in some bizarre correlation/causation maze, so I'll save you the effort, and not waste my time. | | |
| |
| ▲ | gedy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'd say: don't fall the trap that Nazis were somehow conservative though. |
| |
| ▲ | ohdeargodno 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | gmac 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| |
| ▲ | miohtama 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Today it aligns with Danish definition of socialism. |
| |
| ▲ | henearkr 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | luqtas 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | capitalism can also be interpreted as something which "serves the modern, specialised multifunctional community by
doing your job." to "profit then use the sum to upgrade society" what the heck you place socialism as something towards <the overall happiness of the society, and not focusing on increasing material wealth>? first that socialism is a temporary state towards communism, that despite, it doesn't need to pursue communism. see China. second; WHY DO YOU WANT TO CENTRALIZE POWER TOWARDS A SELECTED GROUP OF PEOPLE? Karl Marx is fine, but it's a european guy who lived in 1800s. socialism and capitalism are essentially the same with the difference of the hope of donation of power coming from the public vs. the private... you need to be quite naive to believe the goverment will do the good without corruption. much more people with power allowing their goods to be taken. see our history before capitalism | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You just proved my point: you use the radical variant of the meaning of the word "socialist", without even acknowledging that it is not the only one. Have you heard of SocDem, or "social democracy"? It is everywhere. Even in ones of the most successful democracies on this planet. | | |
| ▲ | Aloisius 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's odd to call people who promote capitalism socialists. They might have historically believed in gradual transition away from capitalism, but today they seem entirely happy with capitalism with a little corporatism in labor markets. Socialism is mostly branding. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is where there is a misconception. This use of the word "socialist" (the use that is NOT meaning "communist dictatorship") is quite equivalent to "politically left". For example, it correlates with free healthcare, free education. This is not in opposition to "capitalism". It is more, like, "maybe profit (financially) less, but care more"? | | |
| ▲ | Aloisius a day ago | parent [-] | | Who knew the socialist revolution would be won not by an uprising of the proletariat, but rather changing the definition of socialism? Seriously though, I realize that the American right calls welfare socialism, but that's just rhetorical slight of hand. There's also some actual American socialists who cynically label such things socialism to get more members, believing they'll be able to just slip in abolition of capitalism later in a bait and switch strategy - similar to the one attempted during the early American labor movement. But welfare isn't socialism. If it was, that would mean that a fair chunk of the world has been socialist centuries before the term was coined - including American colonies where free public education was first instituted in the 17th century. It would render the entire socialist movement, for most of its existence, nonsensical. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | You persist not seeing that this is a different meaning of the same word. And this is the other way around, "socialism" had the softer meaning of "welfare" way before the communist dictatorship even happened in History. Here, in the "etymology" section of this WP page, you will read that all definitions (Émile Littré, Paul Janet, Émile Laveleye, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Adolf Held, Thomas Kirkup, Émile Durheim, August Bebel, and Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition of 1911), i.e. all definitions given before 1911 except one by Pierre Leroux, point to the general meaning of "improving society by better distributing wealth and caring more": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism And that's why new terms were used for the subsequent authoritarian events: marxism, communism, etc. They exist because "socialist" was too ambiguous as it was already taken for the meaning of "with caring for society welfare". | | |
| ▲ | Aloisius 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those definitions are mostly from out of context quotes. Many are cherry picked from large works that go into substantially more detail about how the person defined socialism. Paul Janet stated socialism is generally used to refer to a doctrine which undermines the principle of individual property. Émile de Laveleye stated socialism demanded a laborer reap the whole fruits of his labor and if other factors like land and capital contributed, then they must be unified with the labor. In other words, worker ownership of the means of production. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, of course, believed property was theft and most certainly did not believe the continuation of property rights was an aspiration towards the amelioration of society, his definition of socialism. Thomas Kirkup, who actually contributed the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on socialism in 1887, stated that "Socialism means: 1) That the working people aim at gaining, by combination or association, the control of land and capital which they lost in the individual struggle. (2) That order, economy, and prevision should remedy the confusion, waste, and demoralisation caused by competition. (3) That industry should be carried on not for private gain, but for the common good." Émile Durheim was describing Saint-Simon who called for centralized state regulation of production and distribution. And the 11th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica states that "Socialists believe that the present economic order, in which industry is carried on by private competitive capital, must and ought to pass away, and that the normal economic order of the future will be one with collective means of production and associated labour working for the general good. This principle of socialism is cardinal and fundamental." Never mind that these are but a handful of definitions for socialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm making you a favor, if you did not understand, to avoid you many trouble in your future. Also, I'll combine it with the symmetrical warning to European people lol: - to US guys: when speaking with people of European education or culture, the words socialist and communist have very different meanings. Mixing those will anger your interlocutor. You can avoid it easily by using common "synonyms" (in US) such as communist or marxist. - advice to EU people: be aware that in US they only think of "socialist" as meaning "communist" and are very obtuse about it. Danger zone! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As somebody who lived its early years in a socialist country, all I can tell you is that socialism does not work. Never did, never will. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A lot of EU countries are liberal-socialist, and it works really well. Canada has a more important socialist component than the US, and it serves them well. I wonder if you really did not understand my first post, or if it is just your take at flameware. | | |
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Its not about flamewars. Its about the fact that socialism doesn’t work. Have you watched the news lately? EU is a shitshow right now. France is going downhill really fast, Germany - I don’t even about them. And the rest is scrambling with their own issues. Oh yes, Canadian free healthcare, right? Where a doctor might see you in 6-12 months. If you die in the meantime, tough luck. No, socialism doesn’t work. You know, everyone is a lefty until they start their own company, and then they quickly realize what a bunch of crap that ideology is. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;) So, here you are, people are pretty much happy with socialism, they are angry when you try to take it from them. Also, I've read a lot a different version than yours: "ppl are righties up until they fell ill". Which happpens a lot more than creating a corporation. Ah and the result is quite life-and-death, which failing a startup is not (is common). Ah and NO you won't have to wait in Canada if you have an emergency. And even an advanced cancer will be treated quickly, you won't have to wait months of course (or ppl would die of waiting, which the system avoids effectively). | | |
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;) Nice try, but no. They want the government to fix the deficit by not increasing their taxes or lowering their benefits. Which means the government needs to shrink. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You should really learn more about what is happening in France... Your take of it is, at best, delusioned. French people, the ones shouting in the streets, don't care directly about that deficit. They care about being able to have decent lives with social welfare. Fyi, the main hard points are currently: not wanting to push the retirement age, and not wanting to eliminate bank holidays. One of the biggest components of the recent protests' organisers was LFI. If you do your homework, you'll understand easily that LFI does not push towards less social wellfare. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | somewhereoutth 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Assuming you are living in a modern economy - including the US - around half of it is owned/run by the government, i.e. half of it is socialist (social ownership of the means of production) |
| |
| ▲ | swinglock 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You sure know a lot about socialism and words, for someone that doesn't know that these social democrats are called so because it's literally the name of their parties. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Well you sure know a lot about words, but could you change or rearrange them please, because right know I have trouble to make sense of your comment :/ | | |
| ▲ | swinglock a day ago | parent [-] | | They are socialists. It's not a slur. | | |
| ▲ | henearkr a day ago | parent [-] | | Ok, thank you, that's clearer. But the whole point, on my side, is to emphasize that in some cases "socialist" means "authoritarian communist" (that's been only when the word is used by some Americans) and in some cases (the most of the time e.g. if you are dialoguing with somebody from Europe) it means something else. See my other comments for more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Quekid5 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > We've just had a pretty prominent politician 7 years ago get convicted of being in possession of CSAM. I don't disagree with your overall thesis about Danish politics at the moment, but... I think it's interesting that politicians are exempt from these monitoring schemes. So it wouldn't have prevented that guy from doing what he did. IIRC, Law Enforcement is also exempt, and they never get up to any of that, no sirree... ANY time any legislation comes with exemptions for the people in power (legislature and law enforcement) you know it's time for extreme skepticism. EDIT: It's just the inanity of it that has me despairing. Lobbyism at its finest (see my other comment). | | |
| ▲ | delusional 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > IIRC, Law Enforcement is also exempt, and they never get up to any of that, no sirree... The only place I have found anything about that is some random blog from NextCloud (and I don't know why I'd care what Katrin Goethals, Content Marketer for NextCloud has to say about politics but I digress) and the argument is flimsy at best. | | |
| ▲ | cge 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >(12a) In the light of the more limited risk of their use for the purpose of child sexual abuse and the need to preserve confidential information, including classified information, information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets, electronic communications services that are not publicly available, such as those used for national security purposes, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to interpersonal communications services that are not available to the general public and the use of which is instead restricted to persons involved in the activities of a particular company, organisation, body or authority. From document 11277/24 [1]. Unless it has changed more recently, the exemption is actually considerably broader, and presents the unusual argument that the system will be secure enough for any private personal communications, yet too insecure for any company's trade secrets (which, apparently, have the same weight as national security). [1]: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11277-2024-... | | |
| ▲ | delusional 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | OK, so the risk were worried about here is internal communications platforms, only available inside an organization like the EU or a company, being used for sharing CSAM? So officials sharing CSAM exclusively with other officials on the company chat server? I don't believe that's what people think of when they hear "law enforcement is excluded". Officials will still be subject to the law when interacting with anybody else. They will still be subject when interacting on public services. Crucially, everybody will be excluded from private messaging servers, also non law enforcement. Do we have any reason to believe CSAM is being distributed on the internal EU communication networks? | |
| ▲ | Hizonner 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow. That's... Wow. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | phkamp 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Danish dude here. We had a number of cases in Denmark over the recent years which pushes this agenda: In addition to the obvious child abuse, there have been a case where video of a high-school girls private sexual activities where spread wildly on asocial media, fake-porn of various public figures and several cases of organized crime using various end-to-end encrypted services. None of the Danish politicians I have communicated with like the ChatControl proposal very much, but there is nothing else on the table, which isn't much worse in terms of privacy invasion, so their only choice is ChatControl or doing nothing. My personal opinion: No human right is absolute, not even the right to life itself. The demands of upholding the civilized society limit all human rights, and this limitation has always included intrusions of privacy in order to solve crimes. I far prefer Dan Geer's proposal (See his black-hat keynote): Companies on the Internet get to choose one of these two business models: A) Common-carrier. Handles all content as opaque data, makes no decisions about what users see. No responsibility for the legality of the content. (= how telephone companies and postal carriers are regulated) B) Information provider: 100% responsible for all content, no matter where they got it from. (= how newspapers are regulated) The current "the algorithm did it" excuse for making illegal material go viral, to maximize profits, is incompatible with a civilized society. I've asked the politicians whey they do not do that and the answers is "We do not want to piss off USA", in recent months that concern seems to be fading. | | |
| ▲ | betaby 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > intrusions of privacy in order to solve crimes ChatControl is about non-criminal activity. | |
| ▲ | delusional a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Danish dude here. > phkamp Hey! A lot of my views are heavily informed by your writings. I tend to agree a lot with your view of these things. I personally extend it further by positing that the current democratic crisis, most readily seen in America, is caused by the inability of democracy to solve certain important problems, which I then again posit is at least partially caused by cyberlibertarian obstructionism. That's all just conjecture though. It's nice to see you around here :) |
| |
| ▲ | wewewedxfgdf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah yes, "protecting the children". Meme driven politics. | | |
| ▲ | delusional 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Meme driven politics. It's very much NOT meme driven. We're generally very sensitive to child abuse in Denmark, and even singular cases are usually enough to establish pretty wide bureaucratic systems. Originally, she launched the "branding" push when they were talking about schools and daycare, but like all branding it spills out into other avenues. I have no doubt she weighs her job around children particularly important. It's not at all a stretch to me to say that she probably genuinely wanted her party colleague, and CSAM enjoyer, caught faster, and I don't doubt that she believes this is the best way to do that. That's not a "meme". That's policy driven by observation and factual cases. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > and even singular cases are usually enough to establish pretty wide bureaucratic systems. This is what the parent commenter meant by “meme-driven”: When singular cases can be turned into an idea that is shared and occupies a disproportionate amount of attention because it gets packaged into a simple idea that is easily shared and repeated. | | |
| ▲ | owisd 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If a building collapses or a plane crashes that’s a singular case, but the ensuing investigation will be used to enact policy changes based on what went wrong to prevent it happening again. It only becomes ‘meme-driven’ when it deviates from what should be a mundane bureaucratic process, which can include blocking the process as much as putting fingers on the scales. | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | delusional 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The parent commentor is the one making it "meme-driven". It is not a meme to advocate for protecting children from actual real life pedophiles. Real life is not a meme. | | |
| ▲ | cco 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They're using the original definition of meme, not the more generally understood meaning for the word today, i.e. a joke. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Meme is a thought virus, so yes "protect the children" is a meme. Politics in democracies is largely driven by such memes. |
| |
| ▲ | Llamamoe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is being advocated is not protecting children, it's the establishment of a mass surveillance state that's every single dictator's wet dream, without any understanding of how trivial it will be for criminals to coordinate and share CSAM in other ways. If that's not a meme("bUt tHiNK oF THe cHilDRen!!11") I don't know what is. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | shaky-carrousel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The road to hell is paved with good intentions. |
|
|
|
