Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Denmark reportedly withdraws Chat Control proposal following controversy

    (therecord.media)
    568 points layer8 | 15 comments | 30 Oct 25 21:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.702s | source | bottom
    Show context
    FinnKuhn ◴[30 Oct 25 23:07 UTC] No.45766467[source]▶
    > The last chance for an agreement under Danish leadership is in December; the government in Copenhagen apparently preferred a compromise without chat control to no agreement at all. The current regulation, which allows the large platform providers to voluntarily and actively search for potential depictions of abuse, expires next spring after extension. It is precisely this voluntariness that Denmark's Minister of Justice now wants to codify within the framework of the future CSA regulation, which also contains a multitude of other, less controversial projects. [1]

    Doesn't sound like it is over yet - only delayed.

    [1] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Denmark-surprisingly-abandons-p...

    replies(6): >>45766727 #>>45766789 #>>45766836 #>>45766914 #>>45767401 #>>45771111 #
    ericd ◴[31 Oct 25 00:03 UTC] No.45766914[source]▶
    The "Yes"/"Maybe Later" school of governance.
    replies(2): >>45767154 #>>45767329 #
    1. churchill ◴[31 Oct 25 01:14 UTC] No.45767329[source]▶
    Which is, tbh, a bad-faith tactic for wearing down the electorate. It’s similar to how Brexit advocates kept the issue alive until they gained enough momentum to push it through. Nearly a decade later, most of the promised benefits haven’t materialized, and the UK has borne significant self-inflicted economic costs.

    Growth has slowed to a crawl (just over 1%), trade friction has choked countless small exporters, and the “take back control” slogan now sounds hollow when irregular immigration is still higher than ever, while industries that relied on EU labor, say, healthcare or agriculture, are struggling.

    Even though public opinion has shifted toward rejoining the EU, it could take a decade or more to rebuild the political will — and any return deal would likely come with less favorable terms.

    replies(5): >>45767435 #>>45767855 #>>45768684 #>>45768906 #>>45770413 #
    2. happyopossum ◴[31 Oct 25 01:36 UTC] No.45767435[source]▶
    Wait, so people who maintain strong beliefs that disagree with you long enough to ‘win’ are acting in bad faith (brexit), but working for 10 years to re-enter the EU wouldn’t be?

    That’s a tough bar to get past…

    replies(4): >>45767691 #>>45767723 #>>45769604 #>>45773531 #
    3. bsder ◴[31 Oct 25 02:26 UTC] No.45767691[source]▶
    The issue was that support for "Brexit" was a bad-faith fabrication by Murdoch-owned media with a dash of foreign-funded interference.

    When you put down any specific Brexit implementation and asked people to vote on it, you generally got supermajority opposition.

    This is similar to, for example, the nitwits in Kentucky who fiercely opposed Obamacare but were vociferously supportive of Kynect and the ACA--all of which are the same thing.

    4. antoniojtorres ◴[31 Oct 25 02:34 UTC] No.45767723[source]▶
    It does read the way you describe in your question. My interpretation of OPs example is more about the asymmetry in how much more (relatively) feasible it is for one party to re-introduce a vote for something than it is to rally political will en masse in a way that reflects what the electorate ultimately wants.

    An example that comes to mind is the string of legislation like SOPA that despite having lost, the general goal continued to appear in new bills that were heavily lobbied for.

    5. ◴[31 Oct 25 02:58 UTC] No.45767855[source]▶
    6. AnthonyMouse ◴[31 Oct 25 05:23 UTC] No.45768684[source]▶
    The real problem here is that it should be easier to take powers away from them government than to grant them.

    If you have a system where passing a law requires three separate elected bodies to approve it, the problem is that it makes bad laws sticky. If a sustained campaign can eventually get a law passed giving the executive too much power and then the executive can veto any future repeal of it, that's bad.

    The way you want it to work is that granting the government new powers requires all government bodies to agree, but then any of them can take those powers away. Then you still have all the programs where there is widespread consensus that we ought to have them, but you can't get bad ones locked in place because the proponents were in control of the whole government for ten seconds one time.

    replies(1): >>45769459 #
    7. pmontra ◴[31 Oct 25 06:12 UTC] No.45768906[source]▶
    As a EU citizen I'd ask for at least a 2/3 majority to let the UK back into the EU, maybe 3/4. They came, they were always skeptical, they left, they want to come back? Please demonstrate that you made up your mind and won't start thinking about another Brexit in less than 10 years.
    replies(2): >>45769182 #>>45769544 #
    8. hgomersall ◴[31 Oct 25 07:16 UTC] No.45769182[source]▶
    I was an EU citizen. Then I wasn't. Being an EU citizen means nothing.
    9. inglor_cz ◴[31 Oct 25 08:10 UTC] No.45769459[source]▶
    Constitutional clause that mandates sunsetting of laws could work for that.

    Also, any sort of "vetoing direct democracy", where voters can repeal a law.

    replies(1): >>45776610 #
    10. appointment ◴[31 Oct 25 08:24 UTC] No.45769544[source]▶
    Brexit can't just be undone. The UK would have to go through the full accession procedure. This would be much easier for the UK than for countries like Georgia, since the UK system hasn't diverged much, but the special agreements and exceptions the UK had would have be renegotiated from scratch.

    Adding a new member state always requires unanimous consent from existing member states, for good and ill.

    11. Lio ◴[31 Oct 25 08:32 UTC] No.45769604[source]▶
    There’s an entropy factor involved though.

    It’s easier to destroy things than to restore them.

    We, the UK, will never be able to rejoin the EU on the same sweetheart terms as we had previously. That’s gone and can’t be replicated.

    In much the same way as those campaigning for Scottish independence continue to campaign forever no matter how many referendums they loose, no one will be able to recreate the UK if they succeed.

    You need the thinest majority to win and you can keep campaigning forever.

    Which is why there was so much outside interference and breaking of the Brexit campaign rules. No matter the cost it can’t be reversed.

    replies(1): >>45779414 #
    12. graemep ◴[31 Oct 25 10:27 UTC] No.45770413[source]▶
    > Growth has slowed to a crawl (just over 1%)

    So like France and Germany?

    > “take back control” slogan now sounds hollow when irregular immigration is still higher than ever.

    1. Take back control was about a lot more than immigration - it was primarily about regulation. 2. It has stopped EU immigration which was far larger scale than illegal immigration and there was no way of refusing to allow people in or removing them.

    > most of the promised benefits haven’t materialized

    Nor have the costs. The government predicted an immediate severe recession if we so much as voted for Brexit, let alone implemented it.

    13. sandbags ◴[31 Oct 25 15:57 UTC] No.45773531[source]▶
    You’re right. That aspect of how Brexit was carried through was not acting in bad faith. The anti-European faction has been fighting since we joined to reverse it. Many other aspects of the process were in bad faith but people must be allowed to change their minds, disagree, pursue their faith.
    14. AnthonyMouse ◴[31 Oct 25 20:58 UTC] No.45776610{3}[source]▶
    The first one mostly works but it generally has two problems. First, they just put "re-pass all the old junk that was about to expire" into this year's omnibus and then there's so much of it at once that the bad stuff gets re-enacted by default. That's better than the status quo but only a little. And second, you don't really want constraints on the government to expire. To some extent you can put those in the constitution, but a lot of this is things like anti-corruption laws that, if the current government is corrupt, they're not going to want to re-enact.

    The second one is great. Direct democracy but you can only use it to repeal things. Let the general population veto the omnibus and make them go back and split it out.

    15. card_zero ◴[01 Nov 25 05:12 UTC] No.45779414{3}[source]▶
    > It’s easier to destroy things than to restore them

    No such rule exists. Historically, it's been almost impossible to remove any piece of regulation or bureaucracy once it has taken root. Radical dismantling of institutions is a rare thing. That's the same for public services or, say, chat control. I did not expect Brexit to succeed: in fact it only happened because David Cameron had a whimsical moment of fairness and respected a referendum result, against general expectations since he had nothing to gain.

    Looking back up the thread, we're equating nagging to construct something (chat control) with nagging to dismantle something (UK EU membership). And I suppose Scottish independence would have aspects of both construction and destruction. The pernicious things that are hard to change are attractive-sounding policy ideas, whether they build up edifices or tear them down.