I can’t. The noblemen and church always wanted to control the masses. The only thing that changed is we don’t call them noblemen anymore and church doesn’t do it openly anymore.
They’ll tell you anything to make you believe they’re controlling you for your own good.
If they didn’t understand what’s wrong with the proposal, they wouldn’t add an exception for politicians.
That’s funny, because the only people who should have their private messages scanned are politicians because in theory they serve all of us and there’s no other control mechanism for the masses.
But somehow it ends up they being secretive and our private lives shared with them (and let’s be honest, most of the CSAM is from rich people and there’s a curious overlap between rich people and top politicians).
Yeeeeah, you’ll excuse me if I’m not on board with “representative democracy is bad, actually”. Screw that crap, that’s how you get Trumps winning elections.
Get chat control shut down by all means, but I have no patience for the tin foil hat paranoia being weaponized to legitimize authoritarians and fascists.
I don’t understand this question. Does that impact what I said one way or the other?
Actually, I’ve been looking for where in the text that exemption is defined. If you have a link I’d love to see it. I’ve skimmed the proposal but couldn’t find it at a glance. I’ve only seen it mentioned in social media posts.
I can genuinely believe that the people putting this forward are clueless enough about the tech to not understand why this doesn’t make sense.
Still shouldn’t happen.
I can’t. The noblemen and church always wanted to control the masses. The only thing that changed is we don’t call them noblemen anymore and church doesn’t do it openly anymore.
They’ll tell you anything to make you believe they’re controlling you for your own good.
If they didn’t understand what’s wrong with the proposal, they wouldn’t add an exception for politicians.
That’s funny, because the only people who should have their private messages scanned are politicians because in theory they serve all of us and there’s no other control mechanism for the masses.
But somehow it ends up they being secretive and our private lives shared with them (and let’s be honest, most of the CSAM is from rich people and there’s a curious overlap between rich people and top politicians).
Yeeeeah, you’ll excuse me if I’m not on board with “representative democracy is bad, actually”. Screw that crap, that’s how you get Trumps winning elections.
Get chat control shut down by all means, but I have no patience for the tin foil hat paranoia being weaponized to legitimize authoritarians and fascists.
Why are politicians exempt then?
I don’t understand this question. Does that impact what I said one way or the other?
Actually, I’ve been looking for where in the text that exemption is defined. If you have a link I’d love to see it. I’ve skimmed the proposal but couldn’t find it at a glance. I’ve only seen it mentioned in social media posts.
I heard an interview with Hummelgaard who put it forward this time, and he is absolutely raging clueless.
CluelessMisinformed by palantir