←back to thread

Denmark reportedly withdraws Chat Control proposal following controversy

(therecord.media)
568 points layer8 | 5 comments | 30 Oct 25 21:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ineedasername ◴[31 Oct 25 03:35 UTC] No.45768131[source]▶
I’m continually astounded that so many people, faced with a societal problem, reflexively turn to “Hmmm, perhaps if we monitored and read and listened to every single thing that every person does, all of the time…”

As though it would 1) be a practical possibility and 2) be effective.

Compounding the issue is that the more technology can solve #1, the more these people fixate on it as the solution without regards to the lack of #2.

I wish there were a way, once and for all, to prevent this ridiculous idea from taking hold over and over again. If I could get a hold of such people when these ideas were in their infancy… perhaps I should monitor everything everyone does and watch for people considering the same as a solution to their problem… ah well, no, still don’t see how that follows logically as a reasonable solution.

replies(17): >>45768311 #>>45768758 #>>45768812 #>>45768845 #>>45768873 #>>45769030 #>>45769192 #>>45769801 #>>45769868 #>>45769961 #>>45770005 #>>45770264 #>>45770801 #>>45770827 #>>45771089 #>>45772424 #>>45776034 #
9dev ◴[31 Oct 25 09:22 UTC] No.45769961[source]▶
I think a lot of this is rooted in the basic world view people have. Those with a conservative mindset will think of humans as fundamentally flawed, misguided creatures that need to be contained and steered so they don’t veer of the path, which they are naturally inclined to; while those with a liberal mindset consider humans to be inherently kind and only misguided by circumstances and their environment.

Most people can pretty clearly relate to one of these perspectives over the other, and it’s pretty clear what actions follow from that.

replies(6): >>45770053 #>>45770279 #>>45770316 #>>45770409 #>>45771802 #>>45776937 #
graemep ◴[31 Oct 25 10:15 UTC] No.45770316[source]▶
That is at best simplistic, and at worst completely inaccurate.

It is common for "liberal" governments, as in the UK at the moment, who are inclined to pass censorship, surveillance and control (of people's lives) laws. It is also common for "conservative" governments to do the same.

What is very common is for people to think themselves and people like themselves to be naturally kind and people unlike themselves as fundamentally flawed.

replies(1): >>45770890 #
9dev ◴[31 Oct 25 11:36 UTC] No.45770890[source]▶
You’re talking about parties, while I was referring to ideology. And in ideological terms, while a HN comment isn’t scientific, I think I represented the ideology of conservatism and liberalism correctly here, so call out the social sciences over that.
replies(2): >>45770998 #>>45771036 #
closewith ◴[31 Oct 25 11:56 UTC] No.45771036[source]▶
That's absurd. “Conservatives think people are bad, liberals think people are good” is primary-school-level reductionism.

Conservatives generally see people as capable of self-direction and argue for minimal interference because virtue needs room to act.

Progressives also tend to see people as capable of good, but assume outcomes depend on systems, so they push for more state involvement to improve those conditions.

Neither thinks humans are irredeemable. Both generally believe humans are inherently kind. The difference is whether you trust individuals or bureaucracies to manage human weakness.

replies(1): >>45771550 #
1. 9dev ◴[31 Oct 25 13:05 UTC] No.45771550[source]▶
Again, you are treating these terms as equal to their contemporary meaning in bipartisan US politics, when they are pretty well-defined terms for describing political ideology in general. Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism, that humans are imperfect beings and thus need institutions to guide them. So i would say you’ve pretty much got it backwards. I’m not making this up, you can go and read up on this for yourself.
replies(3): >>45771847 #>>45772212 #>>45778313 #
2. closewith ◴[31 Oct 25 13:37 UTC] No.45771847[source]▶
This is an even more absurd reply.

> Again, you are treating these terms as equal to their contemporary meaning in bipartisan US politics, when they are pretty well-defined terms for describing political ideology in general.

I’m neither American nor using US partisan definitions. I’m using the terms as they’re broadly understood in political theory and history.

> Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism, that humans are imperfect beings and thus need institutions to guide them.

That’s a paternalist or technocratic premise, not a conservative one. Classical conservatism accepts human fallibility but trusts evolved social norms not bureaucracy to contain it. The belief that people must be centrally guided is the antithesis of that tradition.

> So i would say you’ve pretty much got it backwards. I’m not making this up, you can go and read up on this for yourself.

You might try the same. Hobbes wasn’t a conservative - he was an absolutist. Quoting him to define conservatism is like citing Marx to define capitalism.

replies(1): >>45779685 #
3. KoolKat23 ◴[31 Oct 25 14:14 UTC] No.45772212[source]▶
I feel the entire philosophical distinction is tainted to the point where it should be retired and no longer discussed. It was useful as a thought experiment but folks in general have shown they are completely unable to understand this and instead treat it as some tribal dogma to which they must choose allegiance. It's become harmful.

I say it should be kept in the university library under lock and key, something philosophy professors can sit and debate in their spare time behind closed doors. /s

4. Jensson ◴[01 Nov 25 00:50 UTC] No.45778313[source]▶
> Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism, that humans are imperfect beings and thus need institutions to guide them

Who made this definition, left wing scholars? I doubt many conservative persons would say this.

You could just as well say that this is the central pillar of communism, that people need to be controlled since they are too evil if they are free to form companies and structure themselves. Or that this is the central pillar of social democracy, that without big taxes and central institutions to spend peoples money on things that benefits them they will make bad choices and not get the things they need.

Every government is about taking control from the people, I don't get what you mean that conservatives would do this more than any other group.

5. ◴[01 Nov 25 06:42 UTC] No.45779685[source]▶