←back to thread

568 points layer8 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.309s | source
Show context
FinnKuhn ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.45766914[source]
The "Yes"/"Maybe Later" school of governance.
replies(2): >>45767154 #>>45767329 #
vkou ◴[] No.45767154[source]
That is the only way to run a government.

Consider for a moment what a government of "Yes"/"No Forever, without ever revisiting the question" would result in.

We aren't at the end of history.

replies(8): >>45767213 #>>45767274 #>>45767282 #>>45767498 #>>45767506 #>>45768059 #>>45769705 #>>45770205 #
wkat4242 ◴[] No.45767282[source]
Well yes but even a no forever would be revisited under the right circumstances.

But what we do need is a wider no. Not just "no this highly specific combination of stipulations is not ok, let's try it again next month with one or two little tweaks". That's what we have now. Whack a mole. The problem with that is that once it passes they will not have a vote every month to retract it again, then it will be there basically forever.

What we need is a "No this whole concept is out of bounds and we won't try it again unless something changes significantly".

replies(1): >>45768827 #
1. BrenBarn ◴[] No.45768827[source]
Yes, and (at least in the US) we're seeing this in other contexts too. Tons and tons of rehashes of laws restricting abortion, voting rights, or just executive actions that are slightly different from ones previously ruled invalid. The question is "yes" or "no" to what, exactly.