new | show | ask | jobs Github

freehorse 3 hours ago

I don't think criticisms of chat-control-like legislation attempts are downvoted here?

▲

Pay08 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This guy has gone on a small anti-EU tirade elsewhere in the thread.

▲

hagbard_c 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If my experience is anything to go by the answer is 'yes':

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47412060

> The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.

They can try as often as they want and they only have to win once. We - as in those who don't want this Orwellian monster to be written into law - have to win all the time.

That comment was quickly voted down. It is unclear whether this was the usual "don't like this person so I'll downvote all his last posts" or targeted at my statement on how these proposals keep on popping up no matter how often the people - in Greek that spells 'δημόσιο' or 'dèmosio', the root of 'democracy' - have made clear they don't want it.

▲

layer8 2 hours ago | parent [-]

One reason to downvote it is because laws having some stability is generally a good thing. It also doesn’t prevent laws being passed that strengthen the right to privacy.

The argument is a too simplistic criticism of the legislative process. And it’s independent from criticizing the actual laws that are attempted to be passed. It applies equally to desirable and undesirable laws.

	▲	hagbard_c 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In that case the down-voters could have replied with something like that instead of knee-jerk-pressing that down-vote arrow in an attempt to get rid of a dissenting opinion. I would have responded by pointing out that the repeated attempts at pushing through laws which are clearly unwanted by the voting public has no stabilising effect and only undermines the trust in the legislative process. That my argument of 'they can try as often as they wish because they only have to win once while we have to win every time' is not simplistic but realistic. I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind that statement by the way, in what way is it 'simplistic'? Why should it be acceptable for politicos to keep on attempting to push through unwanted laws while it is clearly not allowed for e.g. commercial entities to keep on pestering you with unwanted offers? Here's the very same EU on the subject [1]: Persistent unwanted offers Under EU law, companies may not make persistent and unwanted offers to you by telephone, fax, e mail or any other media suitable for distance selling. I propose a similar law for politicos: Persistent unwanted law proposals Under EU law, politicians may not make persistent attempts to push through law proposals which have been voted down several times before. The law text needs to make clear that it is not allowed to keep on trying to push through essentially identical law proposals which have been voted down by $X sessions of the EU parliament. After having been voted down $X times there is a mandatory moratorium of $Y years before a similar law can be brought up to the vote again. [1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...