The CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it.
Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nicht.
Wir müssen Wachsam bleiben. Mit dem Argument das es böse Menschen gibt, wurde schon viel böses getan. Massenüberwachung zerstört jede Gesellschaft. Deutschland hat mehrfach darunter gelitten. Und die Versuche Massenüberwachung einzuführen wiederholen sich.
AfD has f'd up views on many things. I wouldn't even be surprised if they would vote for it, as soon as they are in a position of power. However in its current state, they would hurt themselfs with a chat control law. So yes, your a right. I would also not expect them to vote for it.
AfD is consistently the pro-choice and pro-personal-freedom party in Germany. They are the only party advocating for an unrestricted American-style free speech and against all kinds of government mandates that other mainstream political parties are pushing.
You may disagree (or agree) with many of their other views, but as an opposition party, they are precisely the corrective Germany and Europe need to keep the power-hungry elites in check.
As an American currently in Germany, the food situation is soooo much better here and they would do well to not allow incorrect or misleading labels on consumer products. I understand what you’re saying about censorship, but this is a pretty weak example, IMO. We had something similar in the US with attempts to ban the word “milk” from “almond milk” [0]. Are there other examples that are more egregious?
It’s not misleading in any way for consumers though. The consumer protection agency in Germany explicitly stated that no consumers have been confused so far (https://www.wiwo.de/100160889.html). The vegan/vegetarian sausages such as the soja sausage, which Konrad Adenauer invented more than 100 years ago, are in a completely different section and shelf in the supermarket and clearly marked as vegetarian. This law is a clear example of the government banning people from calling their products what they are and it is the opposite of free speech.
I dont understand that view : peanut butter, coconut milk, cacao butter and plenty, plenty others exemples exist probably since languages apparition. A vegetal burger shouldn’t be called beef burger obviously but we all know what almond milk means. The misleading argument isn’t serious but an attempt to block a cultural changes some don’t like or profit from.
Also, in regards to the “cow corpse flesh” comment, I think we (particularly Americans) are far too detached from the fact that eating meat is downstream from killing an animal. If we had more appreciation for that fact, perhaps we would be eating more plant-forward meals. Whether or not that would lead to a decrease in obesity or other co-morbidities would be interesting to test.
I wouldn't assume this to be their position were they already in power. They however need votes to get into power to implement that takeover. Parties like this inherently need to run on a (deceptive) populist platform for the plan to work.
While you can force law abiding people to give up their encryption because it's against the law there's no way to prevent encryption from being used by people that are already violating several laws...
However, for the same reason, it's in everybody else's best interest that an organisation that might be taken over by fascists not have access to a panopticon.
I think that "everybody else" include literal fascists. Nazi's Gestapo had serious issues with Wernher von Braun to the point Hitler had to be bothered. East Germany's Stasi had more personnel per capita than Russian KGB had. They would know that a secret police in a German state isn't a great idea regardless of ideology.
Had Hitler not able to stop Gestapo from sending von Braun to a death camp, not only history of spaceflight would have been delayed by decades, but the associated reputational bonuses to postwar Germany as "genius tech nerds that made a gross mistake" had been way lower. Not having the panopticon and just keeping freedom of speech and privacy as they are removes that type of risk. No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.
> No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.
Unless Germany's serious neo-Nazis are especially wiser than America's equivalent far-right groups (which have played the political game well enough to achieve significant power already), I am not sure current evidence supports this supposition.
"Der Verfassungsschutz belegt Bestrebungen gegen das Demokratieprinzip in der AfD. Auf allen Ebenen der Partei wird demnach die demokratische Nachkriegsentwicklung der Bundesrepublik diffamiert sowie der Staat und die Parteien verunglimpft. „Gewichtigen Teilen der Partei“ geht es „nicht mehr um eine scharfe kritische Auseinandersetzung in der Sache“. Stattdessen soll das Vertrauen in die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung „von Grund auf erschüttert“ werden, damit „die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung als Ganzes fragwürdig erscheine“.
Der Verfassungsschutz belegt Bestrebungen gegen das Rechtsstaatsprinzip in der AfD. In der Partei wird demnach die Gewaltenteilung abgelehnt, das staatliche Gewaltmonopol infrage gestellt und sich auf ein vermeintlich legitimes Widerstandsrecht berufen. Einerseits ergeben diese Aussagen laut Gutachten „kein verfestigtes Bild innerhalb der Gesamtpartei“. Andererseits wäre die Verwirklichung der „menschenwürdewidrigen und diskriminierenden Vorstellungen letztlich nicht ohne eine Verletzung des Rechtsstaatsprinzips umsetzbar“."
"Bei einer Kundgebung in Merseburg (ST) am 25. Mai 2020 konstatierte Daniel Wald (MdL, ST), dass im Zuge der Corona-Maßnahmen eine „Gesundheitsdiktatur“ errichtet worden sei, gegen die er zum Widerstand aufrief:
„Die Not unseres Volkes fordert nicht mehr nur Worte, sondern endlich Taten. Wir sind deshalb keine Verschwörungstheoretiker. Im Gegenteil: Wir sind Verschwörer. Wir verschwören uns als Bürger, als echte Opposition, als ganzes Volk gegen den Komplex aus Systemmedien, Gewerkschaften und Altparteienfilz, die sich unseren Staat schon längst zur Beute gemacht haben. Wir, die AfD, stehen dabei an der Spitze des Widerstands, bis in diesem Volk wieder eine Politik gemacht wird, die im Dienste unseres Volkes steht.“"
There are hundreds of statement verifying their goals of a violent takeover. They don't respect any of the democratic institution. They refer positiv to Nazi germany. They are connected to the literal Nazis of today.
So .. you are saying because modern fascists seldom use the term fascist for themself, they ain't no fascist?
Well, to me it is enough if people subscribe openly to all the main ideology of Hitlers party and that time in general.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck.
Höcke can be officially called a Fascist due to his statements. Was he removed from the party? Or shunned even a little?
Not as far as I am aware.
If a party negates the democratic foundations of the state they are - they do, see the quotes
If they connect with people and organisations who openly call for the nationalistic revolution - they do, see the quotes.
And if the Verfassungsschutz collects all that and labels them "largely radical right extremism" .. then it say exactly what I was saying. Preparation for a violent uprising. Just not in immediate action, otherwise they would be forbidden.
It's not that the so-called "modern fascists" don't use the term, it's that the VS does not even use the term. Not that it matters because it lost any meaning anyway.
Also the AfD does not subscribe to the main ideology of Hitlers party. Did you read the party's program? Where in god's name do you find anything in there that can be compared to the program of the NSDAP? The AfD is in large parts much more liberal than any of the other parties when it comes to the economic side of things. The AfD is also not against immigration per se, as long as it provides a benefit for teh country. Much like countries like Canada do. If you don't believe me, watch some speeches from their members, for instance the one that took place in Hannover a while ago. Don't believe just randomly what some leftist ARD/ZDF journalists want you to believe.
DieLinke on the other hand is a direct follow-up party from the SED. They want to end our capitalistic system and replace it with democratic socialism. That's 1:1 SED.
Anway, coming to Höcke. Höcke is far-right. For sure. Is he extreme? Does he want to use violence? Nope. I don't think so. It looks like people elect him in a demogratic elections. Does he say things that are on the edge? Sure! Is that his right: YES! If you don't like him, then don't vote for him. Attack his arguments with your own arguments. Labelling him fascist is a poor tactic and doesn't mean anything anymore anyway.
And you know. You base your arguments on the Verfassungsschutz. I think its a biased agency that should be removed from power as soon as possible. Same as with most of the judges, especially the radical left judges in Berlin. And I know, I know, you will call this now "anti-democratic" or whatever. Well, in a democracy, it is my RIGHT and my DUTY to critique the powers that be. That also includes the judges. Left wingers did that as well, until they successfully conducted their marche throught the institutions. Now, they LOVE the institutions. Don't believe me? The Greens SUED at the Verfassungsgericht, I think in 1983, AGAINST Germanys entry in the EU. Together with the Republicans. The reason? The EU is anti-democratic. Well, they lost because the Verfassungsgericht was pro-EU back then. However, now they LOVE the EU. Were TheGreens now less democratic than they are now? Were TheGreens "fascists" or "Nazis" or whatever you wanna call them becasue they dared to critize the institutions? The answer is no. And so aren't people that are critizing the current institutions.
And finally, to the guy claiming that I am a troll and that my posts are hidden. That's bs. I posted here maybe 10 times. And I am not a troll but a sincere citizen who just happens to really like the AfD and what it stands for.
You only become a Verdachtsfall when your organization is deemed to want to dismantle the state, get rid of rule of law or want to erase basic human rights.
AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.
They are not in government just yet. But if they gain control, expect their position to change. That's why it is critical to reverse government positions across the block, or we'll see a new authoritarian wave sweep Europe.
- All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits).
- The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome...
- Europe needs to spend its savings to get nuclear going again, with a massive construction program for nuclear, solar, hydro, batteries. It also needs battery tech re-capitalisation to keep its car industry viable.
- Leaving won't make it better, it is the same or worse in most places you could go.
The nuclear energy thing is a lark. The German nuclear base was already old and minimal by the time those decisions were made (unless you're talking about Greens in the 90s - but they barely had any power). Fundamentally Fukushima happened and Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had.
Anyway, nuclear just wasn't driving big energy percentages at low prices so getting rid of it had minimal impact.
> Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had.
Unfortunate that she didn't realize that Germany does have less devastating earthquakes and tsunamis than Japan has. Less as in effectively zero.
Merkel is like the Caracalla of modern-day EU. Responsible for 3 of the biggest crises that the union is currently facing today. I do not know why people give a damn about that hag when all she did was stand up to Trump and laugh at him (while cozying up to Putin who threatened her with a dog, literally).
Nuclear energy is very expensive and does not necessarily provide energy security. You just have to check on the energy usage in France during the summer, when the nuclear power plants had to be shut down repeatedly now. Pushing nuclear power would neither provide reliable nor cheap energy. The route forward is solar, hydro, wind and batteries.
Yet it used to be very cheap. In some places it still is cheap whilst being much safer than in the past.
Meanwhile the requirements for it and the processes it has to abide by are kafkaesque.
Not in a double down on security way.
Just plain nonsensical.
I have heard so many stories from outside and people workin in it.
Things like considering refabricating the same lightbulb from some now non existant company from the 80's because that one got listed and is certified and the process to go trough to allow a new one is too cumbersome and the light went out in the toilets of some irrelevant sidebuilding.
So you get a lightbulb that costs an insane amount.
Or here in belgium the greens pushed some new tests to detect microfisures deep in a ridiculously thick vat that isn't security critical that would have been there since fabrication and which nobody else in the world checks for and they shut down the place for it when found.
Anything to validate their own theory that nuclear is too expensive whilst planning for new gas plants.
Meanwhile the plant in france that was shut down is because they didn't want to have an ecological impact on a nearby nature reserve. Something that indeed wasn't accounted for decades ago.
At the same time one manages to have such plants running in Saudi Arabia?
Additionally Germany has spend untold amounts more on it's renewables.
It still hasn't linked it's own damn grids, put strain on infrastructure and prices abroad...
and those same investments won't go for nearly as long. A good part of that green wave investment already needs replacing.
All whilst necessitating fossil fuel production because that capacity figure that people hold up means jack shit when it's not what they actually produce in summer and those panels in berlin produce not even a fraction of that capacity in winter.
It was never cheap. Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users, but not cheap in general. You can read a writeup of the parliamentary scientific service about that at https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88...
A striking example is the German state having to pay for storing the nuclear waste (temporary and final, see https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckba..., though Germany has no final storage). Also when tearing down the old plants it can happen that the state is paying for that, as in https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-n.... Those costs were not part of the calculated energy costs, and in the past there were further subventions for the companies that lowered the price. Those are also listed at my first link.
>Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users
You think that isn't happening even more now?
And yes it was a lot cheaper than it is now. One reason being that a lot more were built around that time in europe and our reactors actually went up in about 5 years.
Nuclear, while not cheap, is clean. Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production. All this endless talk about nuclear and whatnot, but other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. A goal that Germany will never reach.
True, nuclear is clean, but only if the final storage question is ignored. (I would have used nuclear reactors for longer, at least so that those that were already built could work until they reach their planned end of life. But until the storage question isn't solved properly, one perhaps should not advocate for new nuclear reactors.)
The problem is nobody wants nuclear waste near their front door, even limited politicians were quick to realize that.
Nuclear is not clean. It causes toxic nuclear waste that will still be radioactive when our civilization ends, radiating the humans of the future. CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage.
> other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now.
No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please.
> Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production
Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing.
The low figure of CO2 usage often cited is based on an estimation you can read at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.... I don't remember it giving a clear estimate on how much it rises, but that is understandable, as already the current estimate is not a reliable figure.
But it's the wrong comparison. Nuclear energy is not to be replaced with fossil energy, but with renewables. So that "advantage" is completely irrelevant.
The EU court agrees with me. I trust it to have more knowledge than either of us. Nuclear is low-carbon. End of story. You can deal with toxic waste easily. [1]
> adiating the humans of the future.
Gas and coal produce more radiation than nuclear energy.
> CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage.
But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious.
> No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please.
Sorry, mistake on my part, I meant low carbon electricity (so not burning literal poison, like Germany). Let's take France, the very country you critiqued [2]. Or Norway. Or Switzerland [3]. Now, compare it with Germany [4]. Note that every country that achieves a high score can either rely on geothermal energy or hydro, neither of which is reliably useable in Germany. So for anyone who can't make use of these technologies, nuclear is the only option.
> Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing.
There is a hard limit here for Germany. We are not a prime candidate for neither wind nor thermal energy, so our renewable mix actually decreased this year, back to 55%. [5] We need a flexible backup option for situations like this. The only option is either continuing to burn dirty fuel, go back to nuclear energy or to make ourselves eternally dependent to buy electricity from other EU states (which is the current plan).
Nuclear energy is decidedly not a flexible backup option for anything. Those plants are slow to regulate, have never been and will never be a backup. The solution is energy storage and producing so much more at the peak that at the low end is enough. Also, there is no problem importing from countries that do have more geothermal or hydro energy.
> But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious
The comparison is invalid in the first place. It's not about nuclear vs fossil, I never did argue for fossil energy. So the comparison you opened up is bs anyway. It's a propaganda talk point of nuclear proponents that tries to mislead from the actual comparison to make, which is renewables vs the other options.
The decision of the EU court was unfortunate, stupid, and that appeal to authority does not function.
Nuclear is cheap if you still have the expertise to make plants cheaply. Countries like Korea, India and China are rapidly expanding nuclear power plants, building them in the range of $2-5 billion dollars, while a smaller-sized plant in the West would set the books back by at least $5 billion. Korea is even winning bids internationally to build powerplants - first they won the bid to build the UAE's first powerplant, and more recently they won the bid to build another large powerplant in Czechia.
> The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome...
This is completely untrue. The Atomaustieg happened under Merkel (CDU) and was catalyzed by Fukushima. That's democracy, for you, btw.
The current energy "crisis" was due to idiotic trust (CDU/SPD) in Russia's goodwill and consequently opting for huge structural natural gas dependency. Foreign energy dependency wouldn't change with with nuclear power, since uranium isn't mined in Germany. Russia actually is a major uranium exporter (btw still supplying the US). Uranium mines are a horrible dirty shit show, western nations tend to outsource...
Another grave mistake was discontinuing the funding/support of renewable energy industry and research, where Germany was leading once. Now, China rules in solar manufacturing. Germany still got game for wind energy, tho.
Germany does not have a need for "base load" nuclear power plants, we need a substitute for gas power plants, which can be easily turned on/off as needed. Factually, no one in the energy industry in Germany wants to go nuclear, again. It's just not economical, sensible (as for time scales) or overall competitive with renewables (unless less regulated/dangerous, enormously substituted).
Overall, we got mostly off Russian gas dependency exceptionally well and quick, all things considered, because of pragmatic green politics at the time (Habeck's image suffered because of deliberate smear campaigns, not because of severe factual failings). Lights stayed on, things kept moving, under downright hostile conditions. Renewable energy is booming. You see solar everywhere, no matter the political alignment.
Considering the real threat of war with Russia, distributed renewables are an invaluable asset. Try bombing wind power or solar... gonna get expensive. Many houses here are becoming quasi autarkic for heating, electricity and mobility, due to household solar panels, heat pumps, energy storage in electric cars and dedicated batteries. A central multi-GW nuclear power plant is a huge liability for national security, especially, since Germany is existentially dependent on the French and UK strategic nuclear deterrent. (US not reliable/trustworthy anymore.)
The only sensible reason to build reactors in Germany would be breading/enriching weapons-grade fission material, for self-sufficient nuclear defense... Which I don't see happening really.
I suggest you explain your point here instead of dropping random links in a typical passive-aggressive way that suggests the poster has no clue and needs to be educated about the basics. That may work in your SPD Kreisverband, but not in a digital Neuland.
> All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits).
60% of the voting block is above 55. Of course they would.
The highest band of income tax in Germany is 45% and obviously that's only on any amount over the threshold - so even if you make that much money your effective tax rate will be closer to 30% than 50%.
So unless I'm missing something - I don't see how Germans could be paying 50% tax on their earnings?
> Well, correct me if I'm wrong - but according to this random website I found in 5 seconds of googling:
I will, because you are! Unfortunately, it's really easy because the German government applies a simple slight of hand. They call it a "gross employer contribution", which increases this band of income tax beyond the 45% you pay after the GEC. [1]
It works like this: As your employer is paying your wage, amount X, they pay half of your contribution to social insurance companies. This so called "employer contribution" is subtracted before you are paid out your gross wage, amount Y, which you see on your pay slip. Now, on amount Y, you pay the other half of social insurance fees and taxes. Then you get your net, amount Z. Most sources you will find online will only talk about Y and what is subtracted to get to Z. But your employer pays your full wage for what your work is worth, and they of course are not as nice to gift your one half of social insurance payments to you.
I mean sure, but does that actually add up to over 50% of your income? Here in the UK it works exactly the same as you described, but the NI is 10% of your income - even if you are in the highest band for incomne tax(also 45%) you wouldn't get to 50% overall, maybe if you make millions a year that average would start getting close to 50% (and if you do, congrats!)
And can I comment on the fact that Germany seems to be incredibly generous with their bands - the 45% band only kicks in at 280k euro, so like maybe 0.00001% of all workers are in that band? Here in the UK you start paying 45% from £125k and up.
Anyway - the reason why I'm asking is because UK taxes and social obligations seem to be crazy high as it is, but even they won't get you to 50% total, not unless you literally make millions in income per year.
I don't know about Germany, but in France for 100k gross salary, the employer social contributions will be around 40k, the employee social contributions another 20.5k, then 15.5k income tax.
In the end 140k that employer pays result in less than 64k take-home salary. The real tax rate is around 54%. So, I can't verify what OP says about Germany but I can easily believe it.
Right, but I've never met anyone who looks at it this way - this part:
"the employer social contributions will be around 40k"
Is not your salary. This is what the employer has to pay to keep you. So even in your example your tax on your earnings is around 35%. The fact that the employer has to pay another 40k to keep you employed is......well, shocking, but I wouldn't say that's a tax rate on your earnings - for the simple reason that if the government reduced the employer contribution to zero it wouldn't change anything about your take home salary(unless your employer decided to be generous and give you a raise).
> Right, but I've never met anyone who looks at it this way - this part: "the employer social contributions will be around 40k". Is not your salary.
I don't know, maybe you should speak more to people about this. Literally everyone who I discussed it with (like dozens of people) see it in the same way:
* There's the money your employer spends to pay your salary
* There's the money you take home
* Everything in between is the government tax. There's absolutely no difference between "employer social contributions" and "employee social contributions" except in the name
Well now I kind of know one person who sees it differently, but this PoV still doesn't make sense to me.
> for the simple reason that if the government reduced the employer contribution to zero it wouldn't change anything about your take home salary(unless your employer decided to be generous and give you a raise).
Believe it or not, but for multi-national companies job offers in France are smaller for this very reason: you have a fixed budget to hire an employee, you subtract the "employers contributions" and calculate the gross salary you can offer in various countries where you have legal entities. There's also the "adjust to local market part", it's not a single-factor formula of course, but "contributions" play a huge role in it. After all budget is budget, you can go lower if you like but you can't go higher.
> Believe it or not, but for multi-national companies job offers in France are smaller for this very reason: you have a fixed budget to hire an employee, you subtract the "employers contributions" and calculate the gross salary you can offer in various countries where you have legal entities.
This! It's hard for me how some people can't see this.
We can see it, it's obvious that the system in France(and other EU countries) works this way, it's just not really relevant when talking about salary. When I sign an employment contract for 100k euro that's my income. The fact that the employer then has to pay another 40k or 100k or a 1M euro on top of it to keep me employed is not really relevant because it's not my salary - it's their cost to keep me employed. The main proof being in two things
1) like I asked you in another comment - if that contribution was removed, I'm sure you wouldn't feel like you got a paycut.
2) if that did happen, your employer wouldn't magically decide to give that money to you instead, right? It is not and never was your income.
Well obviously, yes, but again, I don't know anyone who looks at it this way. If your salary is £100k and you know your effective tax rate is 35% then you're taking home £65k a year. I don't know how much on top of that my employer is paying in contributions, if it's another £100k on top or zero - and frankly I don't really care? The negotiated salary is £100k/pa and that's what anyone uses as a number of their compensation, if I ask you your salary and you say it's €140k but that's including my employers social contributions......that's just weird? Are jobs advertised this way in France?
Edit:
I just want to add one more thing - this entire comment chain started by OP saying, and I quote "I have over 50% of my income taken from me into a collapsing welfare state/pension system".
The money that the employer pays to have you employed isn't your income, so adding it to your total earnings and saying "well I'm paying 50% of my income to the state" is just not correct. The employer probably pays money for the office and a desk for you to sit at, but it's not your income - it's part of their cost to keep you employed. I will say it again - if those costs dropped down to zero, you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you?
No, I'm sorry but this is just pointless, arguing about some technicality like "you can't call that income". That doesn't matter, these are just words.
What matters in real life is the size of the cut the government gets from the employee-employer transaction. That cut definitely includes all the "employer contributions". The bigger it is, the less the employee gets.
And no, it's not the same as the cost of buying the desk. If would be the same if the state prohibited remote work making a desk a necessity and then forced everyone to buy desks from state-owned providers at the price set by the state. In this case -- yes, absolutely, this becomes a "desk tax" which is eating into your income.
UPD Since you insist, I'll address this part too:
> I will say it again - if those costs dropped down to zero, you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you?
I'll go to my boss directly and say that "my income is now smaller than it should be" and ask for increase in gross. If this doesn't work out, I'll go and get an offer elsewhere. Knowing how hiring and budgeting works, this is the only sane course of action. Companies suddenly find them with money they've already budgeted but aren't spending, expect the arms race for professions with high demand.
In parallel to that I'll make sure to distribute raises to key members of my team anticipating them doing the same. I'll lose a few less valuable members of the team in the process because they'll receive offers that I won't be willing to counter.
In general, I pay more attention to what people do, not what they say. This is why I didn't reply to the question "you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you?" the first time -- it's inconsequential, but we can consider it if you like.
Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent.
>>I'll go to my boss directly and say that "my income is now smaller than it should be" and ask for increase in gross
......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid. If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too?
>>The bigger it is, the less the employee gets
Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would.
>>In general, I pay more attention to what people do, not what they say
But this is a comments section on hacker news - discussion is the entire point.
But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet.
> Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent.
You consider the world as static picture where a salary is what your contract says it is. It doesn't have to be like this. Your salary is what you contract says, but you have a certain power over what it says. Contract by itself is a derivative of the economic situation, not the source of truth.
In the end your salary is what you can negotiate and in this view you salary is heavily affected by employer contributions because it affects the negotiations. If your negotiation power increases, your salary can increase. If it drops, the company will pay you 3 months of wage, fire you and hire someone cheaper.
> ......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid.
Because I'm getting the maximum of what I can negotiate with the company. If they suddenly have more money in the people budget, I can obviously negotiate more. And if not, I'm getting a better offer elsewhere because the job market is very different now.
> If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too?
It depends, in a realistic scenario: no, because electricity is not a part of the people's budget, impact on the company profitability will be near zero and in the end this doesn't change the job market much, only affects my company locally. So counteroffer technique won't work either.
However in an imaginary case of electricity prices crashing all across the country overnight making businesses more profitable: yes, I think I'll try to negotiate a raise.
> Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would.
It depends on how hard it is to replace you. Effectively there's new money on the table and you'll split that money with your employer. If you're hard to replace, you'll take the bigger cut or even all of it. If you're easy to replace, you get zero or else they'll get someone else who agrees to get zero.
> But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet.
Of course, we argue for the pleasure of it but I think our intentions are different. I don't have a goal of changing your definition of words -- you can keep the ones you like. However I think it's worth trying to change your world view. My suggestion: try thinking of your salary (if you're a hired worker) as something you can negotiate not something set in stone (you can call it $alary if you like). Twice in my career I approached my employer with an external offer and twice I got a 2x counter-offer. They didn't say "You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid", it's not how it works.
You need to play it well but it's an extremely strong negotiation technique. There are others but they're more complicated to execute so I suggest to start with this one.
It IS your salary. If the employer didn't pay it, YOU would have to pay it anyway. If you are a freelancer, you will have to pay that employers share anyway.
It's the cost of social security systems, and someone has to pay it: You. With your work hours and salary.
>>It IS your salary. If the employer didn't pay it, YOU would have to pay it anyway.
So if the government reduced the share that the employers pay down to zero tomorrow, would you then go to your partner/family/friends and say "hey, I just got a paycut at work" ?
When you are negotiating payment for any good and service, you care only what the end cost is to you.
It doesn't matter how you decide to slice it - "this share you pay, this share I pay" at the end of the day it will be seen through the lens of Total Cost of Ownership.
I like how you didn't answer my question. If you don't see it as a paycut then it's not part of your salary.
>>you care only what the end cost is to you.
Yes, so I care what my salary is. What the employer has to legally pay to employ me is literally irrelevant other than academically. It's not my salary, the same how their cost of maintaining an office or providing me with equipment to do my job isn't my salary.
No, it adds up to almost 50% of your wage. People who make millions of dollars (freelancers, company shareholders, etc) pay capital gains taxes of 25%. High earning people have capital, not a wage, either by way of company shares or asset payouts. They pay a tiny bit more tax and no social obligations
You forget that the 42% band kicks in at 68000 (up until 280k) not 10k from the median wage. You pay this with 1.2% of the median wage, when in the distant past (around 1960) you had 42% at 15 times the median wage. They never changed these bands to adjust for inflation.
>> People who make millions of dollars (freelancers, company shareholders, etc) pay capital gains taxes of 25%. High earning people have capital, not a wage, either by way of company shares or asset payouts. They pay a tiny bit more tax and no social obligations
Yes, obviously - it works the same way here. You just said that "anywhere in Germany" you will pay 50% of your income in taxes, so I'm asking if your average worker actually pays that, or even a high earning IT worker/lawyer/doctor, or just somone who takes home millions in pay(not capital gains) so that the averages catch up.
>>You forget that the 42% band kicks in at 68000 (up until 280k) not 10k from the median wage.
I didn't forget, but like I said 3 comments earlier - your average will work out closer to 30% not 50%(I'd guess) because you only pay it on anything above the threshold, not on your entire income. Again, Germany seems very generous here - in the UK you start paying 40% once you cross £50k/pa.
> It feels disingenuous to me to see "someone else pays tax, so that counts as a tax on me" leveled as a serious argument.
They don't pay tax. They pay half of the social insurance fee for their employer. Of course that half is part of the wage you're being paid.
> Maybe it's just my cold pragmatism speaking, but if your employer suddenly didn't have to pay that tax, I don't think they would bump your salary up.
I could certainly use that range to negotiate my salary.
> Americans make this same argument (they call it "trickle down economics"). So far, it doesn't seem to have worked out for them.
None of this has anything to do with trickle down economics. The trick is that if social insurance payments go up, which they do a lot, my employer is charged automatically and I no longer have that room for negotiating a raise.
Yea, and it's the guy above ironically. If I add my net here [1], I can see that I land pretty much exactly at 49.7% of my wage being deducted from when my employer pays me to where it lands on my bank account.
No, the defined economic model in Germany is called "Social market economy", not capitalism. It is one of the systems furthest removed from capitalism that is not yet Socialism (or similar systems). It's a regulated market economic model and it is designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism. You can read this up if you like.
> Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality.
Our model came first, then came the name. I explained it's origins thoroughly, it is rooted in economic theory and it is what is really happening in Germany. It's codified in Articles 20 and 14 of our constitution. Social welfare is among the best in the world and covers a lot, but taxes are high. This would never happen in any free market economic models. I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.
What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits?
Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism?
> I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.
It's not a snarky comment. Regulation and welfare are requirements even in a capitalist economy, otherwise you have people dying on the streets en masse and companies dumping toxic waste next to the fields where you grow food. You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things.
The US has more "freedom" in this sense than Germany - is the average person doing better over there? I don't think so, I certainly don't know any "average worker" currently living anywhere in the EU who would want to swap places.
Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. If you think social welfare is a problem, feel free to argue that, but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.
> What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers?
This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes.
> What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits?
This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening.
> Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism?
You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument.
> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things.
I have not and you are free to cite where I did.
> Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare.
Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely.
> but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.
By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless.
>> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet
> I have not and you are free to cite where I did.
It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed.
> By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless.
Those are not my definitions.
> It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed
No. A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships. The U.S. mostly has free-market capitalism, with fewer regulations and weaker social support. So the main difference is that a social market economy tries to control capitalism to protect people, while the U.S. mostly lets the market run on its own.
> A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships
so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.
@j-krieger Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Everyone else recognizes "capitalism is a system based on private ownership, wage labor, and private capital accumulation" as a fundamental truth, including, like, all experts in this field. Ultimately, you're making a No True Scotsman argument.
Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism.
What you're writing reminds me very much of "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" (as if a republic isn't a type of democracy called "representative democracy")
> @j-krieger Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make.
Good thing I haven't argued that at all. I was arguing that Germany, which calls its economic system "Social Economics" in fact employs this very economic strategy, which is defined as not being straight forward capitalist but as a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
> Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism.
Germany's market is per definition not welfare capitalism, but "social economics". This term exists, it is well defined, you can look it up.
> This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening.
Sure. But that is as socialist as it was the National Socialist German Workers Party.
The continued reference to "socialism" here is a strawman. The discussion started with pembrook's complaint https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 and then had j-krieger explaining how the system works starting with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 . At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism". j-krieger was even explicit in referring to "'Social market economy'... a regulated market economic model [,] designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism". But interlocutors continually insisted on dragging it back to "socialism" simply because j-krieger denied that it was "capitalism", applying a false dichotomy.
What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse and I'm amazed that j-krieger put up with it that long.
Not sure why you are downvoted. Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system.
The goal of social market economy is to 'correct undesirable effects' of free markets. Depending on your perspective, you categorize it as capitalist, socialist or in-between system.
Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are. This doesn't stop critics from ironically mentioning that free markets altogether don't work for example in our renter's market (which is the most restricted market we have). The ill-effects we are now feeling are from strangulating regulation, bad policy and European countries with large welfare states like France or Germany having little moveable capital to invest into infrastructure, because most of it is forever bound to welfare. Note that I'm not critical of welfare, but we have lost the plot that money needs to be earned before it can be redistributed.
> Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system.
All this and also scholars attributing this very real system to be effectively what we have in Germany is not enough for some.
If you ask nearly any person on the street in Germany (or Austria, or Switzerland) which economic system is in effect, they will say it is capitalism. Because it is.
The means of production are in the hand of capital. Profit is the driving factor of companies. "Number go up" is still the default goal.
> If you ask nearly any person on the street in Germany (or Austria, or Switzerland) which economic system is in effect, they will say it is capitalism. Because it is.
If I ask the average person on the street if they think the moon phases have impacts on their life, chances are a good portion will agree. Majority opinion does not make for facts.
> Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are.
No, it's because you keep strawmanning like this for rhetorical effect. Laissez faire capitalism isn't the only form of capitalism that exists and nobody has claimed it to be the form of capitalism that applies to Germany.
Sorry, but lol. Germany even makes you pay to be able to piss in a toilet. Even public libraries aren't free! And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck. "Social market economy" my ass. Germany is a country led by incompetent extremely paternalistic leaders, the major part of which come from the capitalist class, the rest of which are their Akademiker servants. The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested.
Because they aren't public. They are provided by a company.
> And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck
This is because of inefficiency, an aging demographic and regulation, not because of capitalism. The "system for the rich" was worse back in the day, and only became "better" for doctors because they adjusted their rates for covered services. In fact, because the "poor tier" insurance companies have not adjusted their rates according to inflation for a long time [1], services are of course getting worse. The average dentist earns 50% of what he earned 1970 adjusted for inflation. [2] This is called the "Punktwert", it hasn't changed since 1980 ([3]) and it is the single most important factor why services are getting worse and worse. No one is getting rich off of GKV members. Not doctors, and certainly not insurance companies.
> "Social market economy" my ass.
Sorry, no. This is the direct outcome of a social market economy, when the economic motor isn't doing so good, you still have to pay for permanent social gifts that were given to the largest voting class (old people). The government mandated insurance companies are close to being bankrupt because of this exact policy. In fact, they would already be bankrupt if we didn't have a social market economy [4], which pays billions of tax dollars to prop them up.
> The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested.
Well, boomers, pensioners and those close to retirement make up 60% of the voting base. They got what they voted for, good and bad, a social market economic model that bleeds the workers to pay for pensions. That matches the definition of a large welfare system exactly. They also voted pretty clearly against an investment backed pension scheme and have been voting like this for 4 decades now. As always, economic models have disadvantages, and we are finding out now that models close to socialism stop working when you run out of other people's money.
> Because they aren't public. They are provided by a company.
If you are talking actual libraries here: Hm? Public libraries are provided by the city - all I have ever seen in Germany. They usually cost a member pass, though I have seen completely free ones, but it's either a one-time payment or a yearly recurring fee. Small numbers though, can be as little as 5 Euro.
Public libraries provided by a company are an oxymoron, I doubt that exists in Germany.
> This is because of inefficiency, an aging demographic and regulation, not because of capitalism.
The Korean healthcare system has a much worse aging demographic as well tons of regulations, being nothing like e.g. the US.
Yet in terms of "system for the poor" the difference with Germany could hardly be bigger.
To blame it on those is straight up wrong, in that it's an oversimplification of a complex topic to such a degree that it no longer makes sense.
This goes for nearly all of the discussion in this thread, for what it's worth. On these topics sociocultural and historical factors that aren't simply represented by "regulations" or "current tax burden" or "demographics" have an enormous impact.
It's the classic STEM, and especially CS, mistake, so it's no wonder HN is full of it on any governance-related topic. And I say this as a CS guy myself. As a group, we are predisposed to the idea that a set of rules, regulations and statistics leads to a certain set of real-world outcomes. The reality could hardly be less true.
The only reason for your high taxes and poor living standard is that some boomers have too much cash.
So they buy luxury apartments, outbidding you for construction companies capacity. Or they buy €20M luxury cars from limited 100-item series, outbidding state for engineers that could be designing next generation public transportation.
Public sector has been bled almost to death by regressive taxation, you bear nearly all of the tax burden so that a geezer who lived through nineties free-for-all can cope with his second midlife crisis while you struggle to get even a small apartment with ever-expanding commute times as you are forced outside of the city center.
Just. Tax. The. Rich. Geezer. More.
Seriously. If you've talked to some of them, they are not "titans of the industry", they are mostly greedy, average inteligence people that got lucky. No political nor economical nor cultural awareness. Half of them binge Russia fake news and/or Bloomberg and that's it.
God, some of those sick fucks even refuse to pay alimony despite owning huge companies. They would rather invent crazy schemes to hide their ownership and claim $10,000/y earnings than to take care of their kids. And they pay jackshit in taxes.
100%. The biggest economic problem plaguing Germany and most of the EU is that all the capital is in the hands of incompetent old farts, so called, "business leaders", and the economic class system is way more hierarchical and old fashioned than in the US and I dare say, even China. Supposed "market capitalism", means your economy is planned, by diaper wearing boomers whose thinking and worldview are stuck in the 20th century.
You may it seem like they operate independently. They do not. This determination (while I subjectively agree) came of a report was released by a failed government's acting minister of internal affairs, on her last day of office. I read it myself and even though I don't like it, it's pretty imprecise and does some pretty heavy straw grasping at times.
Open communication online about the problems of mass migration is what has fueled the rise of right wing parties across the west, so no they would not support suppressing communication (which is aimed primarily at stopping this very rise).
But this is not about suppressing all communication, this is ultimately about giving the ability to steer the conversation to avoid what people in power would find problematic.
> Many German political parties have extremist elements in them.
No, they don't. Extreme in this context is defined as anti-democratic, those who want to dismantle the system at its foundation and destroy democracy, usually while removing certain groups. That's not something other parties aim for. Sure, they want to change the system, but only to improve the democratic.
> but not okay calling out the far left
There are not many real far left parties in Germany, and usually they are very small, irrelevant and called far left. Most of them are also not against democracy, they are fine with the general system, but argue about details or the economic system. The biggest far left party is "Die Linke", and they are radical left, not extreme left. Maybe they do have some extreme voices, but they are irrelevant.
I'm sorry you don't understand the anti-democratic goals of many of the parties in your own country.
If you are re-branding a belief in authoritarian seizing of all private capital as "Minor democratic arguments on details of the economic system" then it's obvious you either don't know the constituents of the political coalitions in most major European countries, or are not arguing in good faith.
Just like the actual extreme right, the entire goal of any left extremist (eg. your communists, eco-terrorists, anti-tech doomers, etc.) is to dismantle democratic freedoms and enforce their unpopular agenda via absolute authority.
The bolsheviks never ran on the idea they would brutally murder middle class families and seize their assets. This was just an inevitable step necessary to achieve their 'utopia.'
> Why they are okay with calling out the far right but not okay calling out the far left I will never understand.
Lets skip over the fact that far left is being called out as well (especially by... the far right...).
The AfD is actually a extremist far right political party which has been steadily growing and growing. They are much more relevant to anyone living in germany than small extremist far left factions.
>>Why they are okay with calling out the far right but not okay calling out the far left I will never understand
So help me out here. "Far right" is usually full of brilliant ideas like lets round people up and deport them without due process, doesn't matter where - or starting to look into getting rid of people with fully legal right to stay, or saying that they haven't seen a single white face in a town somehow isn't racist and is a perfectly normal thing to say.
In the meantime far left is doing.....what exactly. Saying that we need to tax the rich? That everyone should have healthcare? That people should be free to decide their gender?
Honestly, help me out - what are those "far left" ideas that you say should be labeled as "extreme"?
If we're genuinely asking, real actual communism comes into play. I think children being raised by government programs and not their parents would be extreme left. Making it so that no one can have more than $1 million to their name would be extreme left. Forcing people to be impregnated and give up those babies to government to be raised by them would also be extreme. Maybe left? Prohibiting religions. Making it illegal to be Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/anything. Making it illegal to have a gender. The problem of oversimplifying everything into a spectrum of left and right means that there's no room for ideas to exist not on that spectrum.
Forced euthanasia for people when they reach the age of 70. Legalized post-birth abortion until the child is 3. Testing people and sorting them into castes (alpha, beta, gamma, etc). Legalizing all drugs. I don't know if any real world political parties actually back these ideas, these are drawn from science fiction novels.
There's distinction between legality, reality and morality. Most of the time no one uses full formal legal terms in normal conversation.
I don't support AfD, I'm not German either - i just agree with parent poster's observation that for some reason left extremism(and I'm talking actual eco-terrorism for example) is more widely 'accepted' in public space when talking to Germans. Meanwhile mentioning even slightly Right ideas gets you lynched, and any form of discussions stops.
And from small sample size of Germans i know, this is the reason that did push quite few of those people towards AfD.
Frankly AfD is a perfect marker of your own policy making - are more people pushed towards it? you probably are doing something severely wrong as a policymaker.
I believe the far right starts winning when it attracts not just the types it naturally attracts all the time but more mid field folks as well. People who you don't get to your side by saying they're facists or other accusatory statements.
I've heard plenty of times from such people that they've felt the government/establishment parties have made my bordering country less safe for women, gay people, etc and now numbers are also starting to show that.
Pair that with those parties targeting those votes more and more and bringing in some more gays and women into the party and labels of mysoginist or homofobic that you used don't work to attack the far right anymore
I've found gay people voting for the supposedly homofobic far right because they start to see their main talking points as a long term existential matter.
Prisons that have a huge share of non nationals and are overfilled so prison strikes and shutdowns happen aren't helping either.
The economical picture for non-eu migration has been abysmal too.
The list goes on and on.
Even in france le pen who's father had some well known extreme views about gays she draws a lot of votes among gay men. Especially in Paris.
>At that point you seriously, seriously fucked up.
I think we've realistically introduced a source of political hubris for generations to come and created a scenario where if we're not being too optimistic about the perfect path being taken there will be sharp edges whichever way you go.
The same happened here in the past with our flemish/wallonian sectarianism that should've never been started and inflamed. In fact over many decades migration seems to be the only thing that managed to overtake it.
Acknowledge issues and start doing stuff these parties have been calling for for the past 2 decades to stop influx and you legitimize their ideas and admit fault in some ways.
Don't do anything, continue the status quo claiming everything smells of roses and you just build up more sectarian bullshit.
Ideally you slow migration down without too much noise about it imo. For example you adjust treaties so that people rejected in other european countries can be sent back and actually follow trough and employ european political power to actually facilitate this sending back and discourages staying in a way that was possible in the past. You start limiting family reunion schemes depending on the country, etc
Additionally you invest hard in integration and not in the weird paternalistic shit that i hear about from germany now.
If I remember wel here in Belgium in 2005 or so well over 70% had big concerns about migration and had it in their top 3 issues. That was 2 decades ago well before the big influxes. Not losing many of them was easier than getting them back that's for sure but there's plenty more still on that edge. I'd also say we're doing way worse than Germany on these fronts and additionally a far greater share of german migration is actually refugees i believe.
The only reason we haven't had an afd equivalent governing yet is how fractured our political landscape is when compared and the flemish/wallonian split.
My guess for the future btw is that none of this will happen here and instead social trust will get worse and it will also be used as an excuse/force pushing to build down social security more regardless of who wins (like in denmark i believe).
Looking at your other responses in this thread was anything other than what could be twisted as "changing "my side" to be a little fascistic" or 'continue on as is being done now' a valid answer?
To also answer one i didn't address : 'What is to be done with the overlaps, e.g. people that are homosexuals but are racists, people from racial minorities that are homophobic, and so on?'
The later if not a national you could in many cases not let/keep in your country or otherwise give citizenship.
As for the later it just happens that i know a lesbian VB (our far right) advocate. She was a callbus driver that got attacked for her sexuality.
It's not the average but someone you are unlikely to ever win back regardless of whether you typify her as racist or xenophobe or not because she sees "your side" as the origin of the former, the unintended champion of islamists and the like.
If we were to categorize AfD voters and supporters into two groups:
1. people that support some of: racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, anti-environmentalism, etc., i.e. authoritarianism for their group
2. people that have been pushed by extreme leftism because they can no longer discuss alternative points of view (but do not strictly belong to group 1)
majority in 2, due to worsening economic situation over the years and total disappointment in current options with no other option to break this impasse than to throw hand grenade into the mix.
exactly one person in first group - a genuine belief in efficiency of authoritarian system from someone on spectrum.
I also love how you neatly divided whole political spectrum into two, and bundled a lot of options into 'bad' category. Another example of political tribalism. while option "2" is clearly 'misguided' one.
For example anti-environmentalism can be seen from 'does not like Greens', through 'i think we should reevaluate our energy policy for feasibility of moving to renewables/nuclear and do a slow transition while persevering our beautiful nature' to 'we should only burn coal and gas forever'.
Same thing with xenophobia - it can be pure nationalism, or being anti illegal immigration while supporting legal one, or even just idea that government has responsibility for their own citizens first and foremost. Which one do you have in mind?
Where you draw the barriers between those arbitrary labels?
is there even anything i could say that would change your mind, or are you looking for validation of your views only?
Let's remove "anti green" and "anti immigration" (but not pure xenophobia) out of group 1, since you seem to protest those two as the most ambiguous (I do agree that those areas may be too blurry).
I also think you misinterpreted "authoritarianism for their group", or I expressed it poorly. I don't mean "support of authoritarian governments", but rather "give more power to their group over others, or favor keeping such a status quo", in the context of race, sexuality, gender, culture, etc.
Yes, group 2 may be protest voters, and their rationale is that the best protest against some leftist policies and monologue is to vote the right - not blank, not abstention, and not some void middle-ground. Of course!
But these people are not complete idiots that forgot what the AfD obviously stands for. Thus, I cannot reasonably believe that they ALL fall under NONE of the categories of 1.
My most generous concession would be 20%, but realistically I would say there is maybe at most 5% that is purely protest and not at least one of: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist.
Simply put: If someone claims they are not racist, and not homophobic, and not misogynist, yet they still vote for AfD, then they are more likely to be some of that, or are okay with the current status of discriminations, and not some naive idiot.
What you could say to change my mind, is how someone votes/supports AfD purely based on e.g. strengthened immigration policies for purely economical reasons, or "do not like greens", or "just wants nuclear". I don't understand how someone could be so oblivious to the other standpoints, but maybe this is just my personal bias?
> Or the literal communist party, Die Linke. Why are they never referred to as the extreme left.
It's definitely not true that people never refer to Die Linke as extreme left. In fact, all kinds of people - including prominent politicians from e.g. the CDU - refer to Die Linke as extreme left.
This is not commenting on whether that is a correct moniker or not, I'm just pointing out that your dichotomy is nonsensical because the thing that you suggest to not be happening absolutely is happening.
Feel free to read the chapter „Linksextremismus“. It talks about various violent Antifa groups and other cases. Keep in mind that the definition of „extreme left“ refers to organizations that want to replace the basic democratic system with communism or anarchy (according to the German constitutional court).
It does not necessarily include „political craziness“ that we may disagree with. The point of these legal descriptions of organizations is not to be used as a political weapon for parties you don’t like. You have to do some significantly malicious stuff to be considered as such.
> It talks about various violent Antifa groups and other cases.
As the time of writing, six different extreme left groups are tolerated within Die Linke and are also financed by their members. All of these groups are currently being watched by the government secret service.
The AFD is extreme right in its entirely. It's a political party that wants to deport foreigners, remove the german citizenship from people with a migrational background, and it plans to destroy the democratic political parties - which means toppling democracy. They say so clearly and openly, also calling the other parties "Altparteien".
While the party started with a different background, by now voters and members do know about these majority positions and thus support them.
The greens are not filled with communists. They would feel very unwelcome there, given the capitalist move the party did in the 90s.
Die Linke is also not a communist party. It supports capitalism, but targets a social capitalism, like the CDU did in the 50s and the SPD did until the 80s. There are communist parties in Germany, like the MLPD, but they do not get many votes. Background here is that in a divided Germany the communists were not popular in West germany, also most of them got killed by the Nazis before, and on top of that West Germany banned the main communist party already 1956.
Also, rightwing politicians do call "Die Linke" (incorrectly) extreme left, and accordingly the CDU/CSU has a mandate to never cooperate with them.
> Die Linke is also not a communist party. It supports capitalism, but targets a social capitalism, like the CDU did in the 50s and the SPD did until the 80s.
This is untrue and you will only have to go so far to read their party program to find out it isn't.
1 second google search -> https://www.die-linke.de/partei/programm/ -> Marx's manifesto is cited among the first paragraphs -> the literal first sentence in point 3's second paragraph -> "Our goal of democratic socialism in the 21st century is a society free of domination in which all people can live in dignity." They mention the process of transforming capitalism to state mandated socialism and control of all companies by a democratic process. A democratic socialism is not a social capitalism, they don't support capitalism in any way or form, and they want to actively move away from it, which they also say among the first sentences on this very page.
It took me all of 5 seconds to achieve this enlightenment. You should try it sometimes.
The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic.
German law tries to protect against anti-democratic groups and categorizes them as extremists (including left wing extremists) if they a threatening democracy.
In practice that means that group is then surveilled. If there is evidence that the group tries to overthrow democracy, they are banned.
Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and parties as they support direct democracy and workplace democracy.
> The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic.
Die Linke tolerates antidemocratic hate groups within their party and is a financial sponsor of others. All of this is common knowledge, all of this can be looked up easily.
> Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and parties as they support direct democracy and workplace democracy.
I know quite a lot of parties that were never once watched by a government watchdog, nor do they continue to support extremist groups, nor do those other parties continue to attract extremists at their demonstrations, nor do those other democratic parties have a continued problem of antisemitism within their ranks, nor do they have a dark past and continue to employ people at high ranks that were leaders in that past.
It's a little bit harder. The problem is that the SPD will also talk about democratic socialism and does indeed just mean social capitalism with that. And depending on who you talk with at the left, there is still the idea to use the power of capitalism, just to remove the negative aspects with various means.
But indeed, the program now does distance itself from social capitalism specifically and gives further reasoning to why. I wasn't aware they spell it out so clearly now. We can still argue about how much capitalism would be left when following their program - like when the means of production are owned differently, but used similarly - but I have to give you a point there. My comment as written was not correct.
Same in neighboring Holland, certain parties, groups, or positions can never be labelled "conservative", "right", or ... it must always be extreme. It is telling and very tiresome.
In the case of Germany I guess I can understand due to…uh…history. I’m sure the eastern bloc countries are more trigger happy to label people “far” left when they see it due to their history of the opposite.
But it seems to be a Europe-wide phenomenon in traditional media outlets. Nobody calls out the far left properly, and the bias is just oozing out from the pages of all European news media.
The backlash is just waiting to happen. It’s so obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking. And it will probably just lead to more irrational policies but from the opposite side.
The communist parties have very low ratings and never make it into coalition governments so they are not a threat. The Greens also have fairly low ratings and despite the image, they tend to be elitist neoliberal types.
None of these people or parties are as bad or as dangerous as the AfD which is a party of grifters and fascists, full of unhinged people, who, even if you ignore all the hateful rhetoric, you couldn't trust to not destroy the country economically and politically.
It's the classical playbook. Capture the media, declare the opposition illegal, bye bye democracy.
The public was sold this Nazi story about the AfD by the established powers to keep them down. Looking at what has been going on it's wild to me to call the AfD authoritarian compared the the Altparteien...
One of those empty words one needs to be careful with it does not mean anything, and everything. Politics is not about suppressing ideas of other people, somethings parties can agree on others not so much.
The AfD are ultra right and leading figures have openly admitted that they contemplate killing migrants, de-islamification of Europe by expelling all muslims, breaking the EU, etc. They also scatter their speech with fascist dog whistles, and even Nazi slogans from the man in charge, Björn Höcke [1].
AFDs operation-mode is to be always against the government and most others, so usually they are always debating against it, just because.. And in their case its far more than the usual playing opposition, they often switch even on their own stances.
Additionally, this is something that would be in their ideological background. I guess they just fear to become victims themselves.
How is that related? The other parties are not defining their opinions based on AFDs stance. Brandmauer only means they are not working with them, if it can be avoided, not they have to be different on everything. And most parties will have a different stance from the AFD naturally, simply by the fact that AFD are far right fascists.
But so far the only german politician convicted of posession of pedophile material comes from the SPD as far as I remember?
(And the russia and china connections of the AfD should be a case for the secret services anyway. Unfortunately the former boss of one service is a fan of the party, so not sure if they are really looking now)
Being free to vote doesn't make you feel free and secure.
It's not even safe to attend to a protest to ask for a ceasefire in Gaza. So yeah, you can say "I hate Merz", but don't even try to say "Free Palestine"...
Free Palestine. There, I said it. Although I think it's a rather dumb slogan, and doesn't even remotely do the situation justice.
Seriously though, the notion that free speech is impaired in Germany is completely ridiculous and just a massive hoax. Compare this with the situation in the USA where the same people - like Vance who brazenly attacked Germany for an alleged lack of free speech - were super quick to demand a cancellation of Kimmel, because "you can't say that!"
We have laws against hate speech, and they may not be perfect, but they have a reason - we simply don't want to tolerate something like the Nazis shouting "burn the jews" in the name of free speech. Calling for violence does not have to be protected by speaking your mind. That's completely silly.
But the idea that Germany is anything but a completely free country is ridiculous. Some of the shit that people say (AfD, BSW) drives me nuts, but well, it's a free country.
But its never just 'free palestine' or 'stop the war', is it. Its always mixed with 'from river to the sea', mixed with calls for hatred towards jews, sometimes even jewish genocide.
Extremists doing what extremists can, which is being extreme as a default. Don't expect much support from public, and greta's gradual slide to political extremism isn't helping much, most people are fed up with her and her persona just poisons topics with... extremism.
Germany’s constitution (the Basic Law) does protect freedom of opinion and expression, but it explicitly allows restrictions via “general laws” to protect personal honor, youth, and human dignity.
Recent enforcement shows how this plays out: police raids have targeted individuals posting “hate speech” or “extremist” content online. What constitutes hate speech or extremist content is “conveniently” interpreted at times.
The OP claimed that people's homes got raided for "daring to insult the ruling class", your source claims that people's homes got raided for posting extremist racist speech online. Unless you believe in some ridiculous conspiracy where ZE JEWS CONTROL ZE BANKS, this has absolutely no relation to your ability to insult the ruling class: Black people and Muslims are not "the ruling class".
And if you do believe in such a conspiracy, please post your personal information such that I can forward it to the relevant agencies and have your house raided. Because we have been through that shit in this country and have no desire to ever see it again.
Your comment has been debunked countless times. This man's home was not raided for his antisemitism (which is really damn bad!) but for calling a guy an idiot [1]. I suggest you stop spreading lies.
That's a different case though. The Habeck meme thing happened somewhere near Bamberg, the CBS article recounts "state police [...] raided this apartment in northwest Germany".
Look, I'm not saying that the police or the ministry of the interior never abuse their power, far from it. (There was also the Andy Grote case a few years back.) But please remember that the original claim we are discussing, from a few comments up in this chain, was that Germany has neither "Freiheit noch Sicherheit" right now. It's ridiculous rabble-rousing to insinuate that because of these outlier events, while concerning, Germany has neither freedom nor security.
Germany does have limited Freedom. I won't move an inch in this matter. The exact paragraph behind the Habeck or Grote case is now being abused by the literal thousands each year. And violent crime is on the rise, we are currently back at a 2005 level. It is very easy to find sources on this matter.
Your claim is blatantly false. Any claim of the contrary is wrong. I won't go as far as to insult you in the way you did. I was talking about violent crime, which is indeed on the rise [1] (here sourced by the far right "Tagesschau" \irony), you are linking a study on crime, which includes non-violent crime such as petty theft. Violent crime is at a level not seen for 15 years. I suggest you read the comments of people thoroughly before embarassingly accusing them of spreading propaganda - which can be disproven with a 5 second google search.
No place has absolute freedom, not sure what you are rambling about. Making up some extra categories that suit your own narrative doesn't change reality.
You are making typical argument shifting excuses. No one is talking about "absolute freedom" no matter how that is defined, notwithstanding even your infantile attempt at using insult in your absence of rational argument.
Please don't paint an - given wired and unjust - incident as the norm and not as am exception.
Extrapolation from one local incident to Germany is unfree is like extrapolation from one politically motivated murder, that a country is in a civil war...
Sure, I have painted the incident, let‘s paint the norm. Just two ministers of the last government have sued 1400 people using 188 StGB [1]. An FDP politician sues 250 people this way in a month alone. We have seen an increase of lawsuits using this paragraph of 215% in the last three years.
Propaganda is painting this as something different than it is.
Here we consider speech for what it is: something you can express freely, within the limits of civil society. If you pass those limits, then you incur in problems.
Germany let someone speak freely a tad too much in the twenties and thirties, and they don't want to make that mistake again.
I understand the point of "absolute free speech", and I would subscribe to it if it wasn't that groups like AfD, or Trump's flavor of conservatism, hide behind it to achieve their authoritarian goals. To avoid that authoritarian result, you have to police certain types of speech like Germany does.
I say it again, it's nasty and needs a very strong set of counterbalances, which Germany - unlike the US - still has. Therefore this remains a much more freer country than Say-whatever-you-like-on-Rogan America. Freedom for us is free healthcare, a welfare state, an ethics-based concept of societal rights and obligations.
We don't market ourselves as the beacon of free speech and FREEDOM by making both empty words fueled by extreme individualism. We still believe in Solidarität and on social-oriented policies, both on the right and left side of the isle. We have ferocious political battles about topics that are too violently policed, by the way, like right now about Palestine and Israel, and people take to the streets FREELY, despite some despicable police brutality episodes. We do have the contradictions and complexities of any modern western society.
Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that.
It's boring, but it works.
AfD is against all this, and it is because it's provenly funded by Russia and other enemies of the west. They appeal to the Volk, but in reality are infested by double-standards, hate, and a specific type of political individualism and authoritarian views that need to be stopped with all legal and societally-acceptable means possible.
It’s worth remembering who actually made the strategic choices that strengthened Russia’s hand and left Germany dependent and militarily weak. Those weren’t the AfD’s doing — they came from the CDU–SPD coalition governments, the same lineup that’s currently in power again.
• 2011: Under Angela Merkel (CDU) and the SPD coalition, Germany decided to abolish nuclear power after Fukushima, dismantling one of the few sources of domestic energy independence.
• 2011–2015: The same governments backed and defended Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, tying Germany’s critical infrastructure even closer to Russian gas — despite repeated warnings from Eastern European neighbors.
• 2011: The abolition of compulsory military service further weakened Germany’s defense capacity and NATO readiness.
These weren’t minor policy missteps — they systematically made Germany more vulnerable to Russian influence.
And it’s also worth noting a historical irony: Angela Merkel’s family moved from West Germany to East Germany in 1954, one of the very few families to go in that direction. Between 1949 and 1961, roughly 2.7 to 3 million East Germans fled the communist East for the capitalist West — virtually nobody went the other way.
> Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works.
A literal millionare is chancellor.
> reedom for us is free healthcare,
Last I looked I paid 10k a year for government mandated healthcare. Where can I apply for the free one?
I wonder what is the point of debating like this on the internet.
I say billionaires, you mention a "millionaire" chancellor.
We don't have anything against becoming rich. But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
He's a high-income lawyer who invested and has a net-worth of about 15 millions. If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
Re: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.
That is how a social-democratic society work.
The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You are arguing with a person who doesn't care what people say, facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs, the story is set in their head and thats it. Not a discussion really. Usual avoiding of hard facts that challenge their fantasies.
A fairly typical behavior I've seen countless times in topics about russian war in Ukraine in recent years. No point at all, a wasted time.
> facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs,
This is dishonest at best. It's a matter of opinion. I rarely - if ever - think of anyone who disagrees with me as spreading "propaganda". This is a dangerous narrative you have built in your head. I suggest you stop.
> But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
Of course I don't. I actually like his history, he is a successful man. But he is again so far removed from my own situation that I do not trust him to do what is best for me.
> If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
It is problematic. Yes, he studied and worked hard. But he has been wealthy for a larger part of his life than he has not been.
> e: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.
So it's not free.
> The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
I too, can redefine words beyond their meanings to fit my narrative.
> Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You forget that people with chronic illnesses can just be declined of that option.
I’m far more concerned about a government led by people who have no formal education beyond high school, have never worked outside of politics, lack subject-matter expertise in the fields they oversee, and can’t even speak a foreign language — yet are sent abroad to represent the country — than I am about a self-made millionaire serving as chancellor.
Germany’s economy feels like a freight train rolling downhill — momentum without direction, and no one in the cabin who knows how to steer.
And no, the health care system is not “working.” It suffers from systemic distortion and ideological decision-making. Doctors face strict budget caps and fixed, low reimbursement rates for treating regular patients, but those limits don’t apply when treating certain publicly funded cases — where compensation is higher. That incentive structure inevitably leads to unequal treatment. I’ve experienced it firsthand with my own child and couldn’t believe it. As in: they denied taking my kid in but took in two “publicly funded cases” while I was there.
The reaction is very weak, though. Chat Control is an act of terrorism and it should have triggered criminal investigation why this has gone this far.
Before you downvote:
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance.
Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.
It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.
The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
You can argue legality if you like, but the substance matches the textbook definition.
I actually upvoted this. It's a well-argued comment, but I'm not convinced.
My sticking point is the word "terrorism" itself. Words are defined by how we collectively use and understand them, and the common understanding of terrorism involves bombs and bullets, not software and surveillance.
I get your logic, however. You're breaking down the definition into intimidation for political ends, and you're not wrong that coercive control is a form of violence. But the leap to calling it "terrorism" just doesn't work for me. It feels like you've reverse-engineered a justification for a word that, on its face, is hyperbolic in this context. It's an authoritarian nightmare, for sure, but it isn't terrorism.
Fair point - but that’s mainly a reflection of how power defines language. The word terrorism was never limited to bombs; it was coined during the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France to describe state violence used to intimidate the population.
We’ve since normalised it to mean only non-state actors with weapons, while the organised psychological violence of governments gets rebranded as “policy.” The fact it’s done by men in suits, with forms instead of grenades, doesn’t make it less coercive - only more efficient and socially acceptable.
If a law deliberately instils fear in civilians to secure political obedience, it meets the core definition. The method evolved; the principle didn’t.
Also part of the reason it doesn’t feel like terrorism to many is bias. We’ve been conditioned to picture terrorists as outsiders with explosives, not officials with conference badges.
Sorry, but that's talk like that that cheapen the meaning of terrorism. Once you expand it to "targeting civilian or civilian infrastructure", already it's cheapened.
I agree with the expansion of meaning, but that mean nazi resistance was terrorism. Ukraine counterstrike on the crimea bridge/russian raffineries is terrorism. I do think it is, but now i do need to qualify terrorism before using the word.
If we expand to all kind of violence, not only physical, well any new policing laws is terrorism. Laws that increase poverty are terrorism, as poverty is an economic violence exerced by the society on its most frail. Taxation is violence too. I will need to add qualifiers each time i use terrorism, and that cheapen the meaning.
[edit] my la setnence cheapened my argument and could start a new side debate that doesn't interest me, i'm removing it.
While I don't want to defend the application of "terrorism" to chat control, the examples in your second paragraph don't follow from the definition outlined above. Resistance to Nazis was meant to damage military and administrative capabilities. The Crimea bridge is a valid military target. I think Russian refineries, too, could be considered a valid target, since they support the Russian military. But even if they can't be considered valid targets, the question of intention remains.
And while I'm sure there are some people (from opposites sides of the political spectrum) who would agree that poverty-causing laws and taxation are violence, perhaps even terrorism, there also remains the question of intention.
In contrast, the 2011 attacks in Norway, the Unabomber attacks, and anything the Rote Armee Fraktion did aside from robbing banks, all have a very clear intention to primarily affect public opinion, political discourse, and civil society in general.
My doubt in the parent comment's assertations lies in the intention as well. Certainly this policy would cause fear in some way, but I think the intention of this policy really is just a techno-authoritarian power grab.
Yes, I wasn't clear enough. The expansion of meaning 'targeting civilian infrastructure' is done, it's already in the current comprehension of the word, everywhere, and now terrorism is less bad because of it.
The US (and UK I think) tried to extend it to add 'surprise attack on an occupying force', and that didn't work, but if it did, the negative connotation of the word would lessen a lot faster, and you'd see it used as a positive already ('my little terror' could easily become 'my little terrorist' if the negative meaning is dissolved enough).
I agree on everything you say, I wanted to explain my point better.
Mr. Spahn is the minister in the video. He's a little controversial, because during COVID, he was minister of health and had to order a lot of FFP-2 masks. This order went to "friends" of him, which were clearly logistically not in the spot to handle such a volume. Furthermore, he spent A LOT of money to source way too many masks.
> Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power?
The lesson from history is to keep the autocrats from grabbing power. Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero. I'm not sure Berlin opposing Chat Control fits into their domestic anti-authoritarian arc.
> Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero
This isn't so much about making Chat Control illegal (thereby containing or limiting future authoritarians) as it is not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election.
I'd argue the current stance of being opposed to Chat Control is more like "Don't collect religious affiliation on the census" - meaning we can both agree with your comment I partially quoted, while also recognizing that Berlin's public oppostion can be meaningful.
Yeah, no. Ressilient state structure is there to slow them down long enough for the popular support to throw their weight behind something else.
If you have an absolutist monarchist state that is flourishing because its past 3 kings were good people that cared about the people and the country, a potentially bad leader that would take that over could use that power to cement their position indefinitely.
Meanwhile in countries with separation of powers, term limits and checks and balances, gaining absolute power and staying there is a higher difficulty level, requires for more things to align, and most importantly: takes much longer to pull off.
The point isn't to make it impossible for bad governments to yield power. The point is to add checks to that power that make it useless in the hands of a bad actor that doesn't outright use violent force.
For example a good stage might see use in keeping good data on which citizens are in which political movements, but whenever you collect and maintain such data on behalf of your citizens you should also consider how a bad power could abuse such data. Thst is literally the bare minimum when it comes to acting responsibly.
This is strange, because not long ago it was Germany (!!) that pushed heavily for mass-sniffing of people. I don't trust this. People should watch very, very carefully what Germany is actually doing next. I would not be surprised if the mass-sniffing comes in a few months when nobody is looking.
There is considerable opposition in Germany against these things. It’s true that some political circles keep pushing for it, but there is also a strong constitutional and civil basis against it. It’s exceedingly unlikely to happen that “nobody is looking”. The biggest risk is the far right coming into power.
No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it.
Other European countries like Switzerland, also banned full face veils(burqas) in public. Try entering a bank, city hall, school, etc with a balaclava, ski mask or motorcycle helmet see how that goes.
Allowing the surveillance of minors if they show signs of radicalization? This to me makes sense under existing child protection laws. If kids are being raised in environments that are harmful to themselves and society, should we just sit by and let them get permanently wrecked till they reach adulthood, over a technicality? The earlier you can catch the issues the better for everyone and the higher the chance you can rescue the child. Existing child protection laws in Germany already allow the state a lot of power to take children away from parents if they're seen as unfit.
Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me. The fact that it's currently not acceptable to enter a bank with a covered face would indicate a law banning it in all public locations is not needed.
Taking rights away from people labelled as terrorists is a pretty standard way for governments to control viewpoints. It gives them the power to add any group they don't like to a list, and deport/imprison them with minimal judicial process.
I don't know enough about surveillance of minors to comment on that one.
>Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me
You're making it sound like under these rules, the government can force you to wear GAP jeans instead of Levi Strauss, when in reality the government has always enforced laws on public attire in public to preserve decency and security.
Otherwise it would be tyrannical since I'm not allowed to go naked in public or wearing the loincloths and Tribal Penis Gourd of my ancestors near schools.
Similarly, burkas are a security risk in public since people could hide and smuggle weapons under that, or there could be men hiding underneath using it to enter female only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms, or so much more nefarious cases.
Then on top of that, you also have the cultural and optics aspect, that burkas are a symbol of a backwards oppressive culture that's incompatible with western progressive liberal and feminist values that the west cherishes or at least pretends to.
You're throwing a bunch of straw man arguments out, which makes it a lot of work to actually respond to this whole post.
Rights are always on a spectrum with a large amount of grey area.
> burkas are a security risk in public since people could hide and smuggle weapons under that
This is silly. Everyone wears coats in the winter.
> there could be men hiding underneath using it to enter female only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms
Is this actually a concern? AFAICT this isn't happening, it's just something that could theoretically happen, which doesn't make it a reason to decrease people rights. That would be another standard tactic for pushing authoritarian laws.
> Then on top of that, you also have the cultural and optics aspect, that burkas are a symbol of a backwards oppressive culture that's incompatible with western progressive liberal and feminist values that the west cherishes or at least pretends to.
This seems valid, but I'm pretty hesitant to force my cultural values on people. It hasn't gone well historically.
>Is this actually a concern? AFAICT this isn't happening
How do you know it isn't happening if their faces and bodies are always covered? Did you undress all of them to check?
> it's just something that could theoretically happen
Welcome to the real world where a lot of laws are made to cover things that could happen precisely so that when they DO happen, there's a law ready to enforce. Why? Because if something CAN happen, it WILL definitely happen.
> but I'm pretty hesitant to force my cultural values on people.
I'm not. You come to my house, you follow my rules, you come to our country you follow our values, simple. If you want to live in the west and benefit from the western system that brings you free education, healthcare, justice, financial opportunities, welfare, freedom of speech, then you must follow the western values that built that system you came here to enjoy. Otherwise if you want to live like in Afghanistan, then go live in Afghanistan, not in our country.
Otherwise if you allow one flavor of imported oppressive cultures out of suicidal empathy, just so you don't "force your values on other people", then why not allow domestic oppressive cultures too, like fascism, nazism, communism, antisemitism, sexism, homofobia, etc? Why open your doors and only tolerate the foreign imported ones?
>It hasn't gone well historically.
Then you need to go back to the schools you went to and ask for a refund, because historically it definitely has. The federal government forced their values over the confederacy via war in 1865 and the US of today is better off from it. Allied powers forced their values over the Axis in WW2 and the world was better off from it. So many historic examples why you're wrong.
> I'm not. You come to my house, you follow my rules, you come to our country you follow our values, simple
I wish it was this simple, so badly, but that strategy has been tried many times before and it always ends in violence. First off, who is "our"? Is it the majority? That leaves every minority group vulnerable. Is it the most powerful (it usually is)? That leave everyone screwed. It all seems great, until you end up as a target. This is why we base our systems of rights to more universal, and not based on our ethnicity.
For example, some of the historical opinions of my fairly recent ancestors: All Jewish people should be dead; ditto for Homo/Tran-sexual; also the Irish; black people aren't humans; the middle east should be owned by Western Europeans, and if not, designed to minimize the chances of them forming successful nations; same for Africa
Seeing this as bad assumes you think hurting other people is bad, which I do. If you don't agree, then there isn't much to discuss, you are entirely correct withing your framework
> Otherwise if you allow one flavor of imported oppressive culture so you don't ":force yurt values on other people" why not allow domestic oppressive cultures too, like fascism? Why only tolerate imported ones?
Where I'm from being a Nazi is completely legal. We tolerate both. There is still an ongoing discussion about where to draw the line, but the standards are always higher than wearing clothes that you don't like. Germany may not tolerate Nazi's for obvious historical reasons.
I would recommend "They Thought They Were Free" for a more of a look into this. It's an interesting book.
Edit: This is not true, almost all laws are passed to deal with a situation that is already occurring.
> Welcome to the real world where a lot of laws are made to cover things that could happen precisely so that when they do happen, there's a law ready to enforce.
>but that strategy has been tried many times before and it always ends in violence
Then don't import people of divergent/adversarial cultures who aren't willing to integrate into your country and are only there to extract the monetary benefits of your society without conforming to the laws, customs, social contracts, cultures and obligations that society requires.
If you only accept people who gladly accept your culture and values, there is no violence. History has proven this yet it seems like uncharted territory to some people. "you mean putting the fox in the hen house ends in violence?!"
>First off, who is "our"? Is it the majority?
It's the amalgamation of culture, history, collection of laws, constitution, 'Volk Geist' and the voice of the democratic majority of the citizens of the country where you choose to emigrate that compose the concept of "our country", which you need to accept when you choose move somewhere, or GTFO. You can't move to a different culture and expect them to accept your alien values that might go against theirs. Their values hold precedence over yours.
> That leaves every minority group vulnerable
No it doesn't, this is just an empty appeal to emotional manipulation.
In most western democracies, minorities and legal immigrants have the same human rights and equal access to healthcare, education, justice system, etc as everyone else so they're not "more vulnerable" just because they can't wear a burka in public. To receive those rights, it requires them to accept and conform to the laws and values of the society they chose to move to, like the law of not wearing burkas for example, or the law to tolerate LGBT people. Not wearing burkas in public is not making the wearer more vulnerable. On the contrary, foreigners wearing burkas in public makes the locals feel uncomfortable and vulnerable in their own country.
>For example, some of the historical opinions of my fairly recent ancestors: All Jewish people should be dead;
You see, since all your arguments are just empty appeals to emotional manipulation or moving the goalposts from laws banning burkas to somehow being similar to genocide of jews, I will stop the conversation here since you're clearly arguing in bad faith. I've already covered all your points with arguments, there's nothing more I can add. If you want to accept them fine, if not, also fine. Good day.
To play devil's advocate, isn't it illegal wear a swastika in Germany? How is wearing a burqa, a symbol of female oppression any different?
Freedom of religion only goes so far, because the culture of the host country takes precedence. To take it to the extreme, if there were a religion where part of standard practice involved assaulting women and children, we would obviously limit those practices.
The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law, it's just one which is popular enough there that there isn't enough support to repeal it despite it being an unambiguous constraint on speech.
Non-consensual violence is prohibited because it directly harms other people. Face coverings don't directly harm anyone and laws that exist only for the government's convenience are authoritarian laws. There are ways to investigate bank robberies even if the robbers are wearing masks and in fact a law against masks is fairly ridiculous because anyone willing to break the law against robbing banks would be willing to break a law against wearing a face covering, so such laws only afflict innocent people.
>The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law,
With this type of logic, all laws authoritarian then, like speeding laws, theft laws, and anything else that prevents you from doing what you want to do becomes authoritarian.
“Expression” is a bit of an overloaded word here. Carrying a swastika is considered similar to hate speech. Just like you cannot just make death threats in the U.S., even though you are just “expressing” yourself as long as you do not carry out the threat. Not saying those are exactly the same, but there are limits to expression, and spreading hate against large swathes of people is considered like that in Europe. Especially because that kind of speech can at some point turn into actual physical violence against the groups in question.
Threats aren't illegal because of their information content, they're effectively evidence of intent to commit violence. It's like confessing to a crime. You're being punished for the crime, not for the admission, but you admitting to it sure makes it easier to prove.
You and the parent both made good points. In Germany a swastika might be seen as more of a direct threat of specific action than other places. That makes it more sensible to classify as a threat.
That's the argument authoritarians use when they want to censor something. The problem with it is that it proves too much. Do we also get to apply it to symbols of communism because of the millions of people who died under Mao, or the US flag because of slavery? What about that book Marx wrote that led to all the horrors under the USSR; can't displaying books also be symbolic?
You don't want the government to have the power to decide things like that. It's better that they censor nothing.
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?
Because governments shouldn’t be allowed to just wash their hands of any responsibility to a citizen, just because they don’t like their views, regardless of how extreme and vile those views maybe.
We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems. Those are never healthy behaviours in any democracy.
Societies should deal with their own citizens properly, not just strip them of citizenship and declare them someone else’s problem. I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave, except by dying, terrorist organisation would be a good idea. That must ensure all members of terrorist organisations literally have nothing else to live for. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to ensure that all terrorist go out with a bang.
>We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems.
What are you on? Taking away someone's naturalized dual citizenship is done by the judicial system via due process according to the draft proposal, not on the spot by police or whatever nonsense you imagine it.
If only you would have skimmed the proposal paper before commenting instead of getting your knickers in a twist over stuff you made up in your head, you would have saved us all the wasted time.
>I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave
They can leave with their other citizenship, genius. This law applies only to dual citizens, since you aren't allowed to make citizens stateless, Einstein. It's even written in the proposal which of course you haven't read but have strong options against it.
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?
Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists, this is really dangerous. If the government can classify any organisation as terrorists, and then remove citizenship from any members of that organisation, that is horrifying.
So yes, I very, very, strongly disagree with this measure, for very good reasons. How could anyone with any common sense support it?
>Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists
If your current laws allow for such oppressive abuse on the population without due process, then these new laws won't make things any worse for the people and you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away form registered ISIS members is the biggest problem.
I disagree completely. Citizens are protected by laws, such as the First Amendment, that are not applied to non-citizens (see the Julian Assange mess for details). If the government can designate a group of people as terrorists, and remove their citizenships for being terrorists, then they can additionally apply yet more tribulations on those people while not straying out of the legal protections afforded to citizens.
You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. For example:
> you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away from any organisation that the government disapproves of is the biggest problem.
I think you'll agree that this would be a big f**ing problem.
> You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable.
Which other organizations who didn't kill or committed acts of violence to people in order to be wrongly considered terrorists by the government in the same vein as ISIS was?
>I think you'll agree that this would be a big f*ing problem.
It isn't. In most western democracies, if not all, gaining dual citizenship via naturalization is a voluntary privilege, not a right, that can always be revoked for crimes such as being part of a terrorist group. It's part of the contract you sign when you apply for citizenship. As it should be. That's who the law is targeting.
Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.
Precisely my point about terrorist organisations; Palestine Action did not kill anyone, yet the UK considers them to be the same category of organisation as ISIS.
If I read this right, you're thinking that only naturalised citizens would be affected by such a law; those with dual nationality that can be "sent back to where they came from". Which explains why you think this is a good idea.
That's not how citizenship works. If you allow for removing citizenship, then all citizens, regardless of "primary" nationality, can be made non-citizens. There's no second-class citizenship that can be revoked while still retaining a first-class citizenship that cannot.
> Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.
I’m sorry but you’re badly misinformed here. There is no concept of “primary citizenship”, you’re either a citizen or you’re not. If your government has a right to strip your citizenship, then mechanism by which you acquired citizenship is relevant. The whole point of citizenship is to declare that everyone with citizenship has identical rights and protections from their government.
There has been one person in the UK who had her citizenship revoked for joining ISIS. She was a born in UK, and was a British citizen from birth by right of decency. She is now stateless, a citizen of no country. These are the actual laws you’re defending, the hypothetical laws that only apply to naturalised citizens don’t exist, and aren’t being proposed.
No, it is you who are misinformed. According to your Wikipedia link she was a dual citizen so the UK had the legal rights to strip her of her British one and she was left with her Bangladeshi citizenship, so not stateless.
>However, the UK government contended that Begum was a dual national, also holding citizenship of Bangladesh, and was not therefore made stateless by the decision.
>However, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission found that as a matter of the Bangladeshi nationality law, Begum also holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951.
She was born in the UK as a UK citizens to parents that were naturalised UK citizens. By your definition her “primary” citizenship was British. That was where she was born, that was where she grew up, that was the first citizenship she gained.
Due to her parent Bangladeshi origins, she had a separate right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship, but at the point she lost her British citizenship had not claim that right. She has also never lived in Bangladesh, and has never held a Bangladeshi passport.
At the time UK was going to remove her citizenship, Bangladesh said the following:
> The Government of Bangladesh stated that Begum did not currently hold Bangladeshi citizenship and, without it, would not be allowed to enter Bangladesh.
You’ve made some pretty silly claims about countries not removing people’s “primary” citizenship. Begum is quite clearly a case where their “primary” citizenship based on the parameters you provided, was her British citizenship, and the UK has quite clearly stripped her of that citizenship. Bangladesh has also refused to acknowledge her as a citizen, which seems a lot fair that the UKs stance, given she’s never lived, worked, or paid taxes in Bangladesh, so it not clear why they should be responsible for her, rather than the country where she was born and raised.
>She was born in the UK as a UK citizens to parents that were naturalised UK citizens.
Her parents were not UK citizens, they were Bangladeshi citizens making her Bangladeshi first. Her parents had "settled" status in the UK granting her UK citizenship but her parents were not UK citizens. It's literally in the wiki link you shared.
"Begum was born in London to immigrant parents of Bangladeshi Muslim origin and citizenship"
Oh sorry I didn’t realise your definition of “primary citizenship” required your parents to also be born in the country. How many generations back do we have to go before someone is allowed to have parents not born in the same country as them?
I naively assumed that given she was born in the UK to legally settled parents, given British citizenship in the UK at birth, grew up in the UK, was educated in the UK, radicalised in the UK. That would make her “primary citizenship” British. But obviously not, she’s obviously secretly a citizen of a country she’s never visited, just hiding in the UK until she could show her true colours.
What’s your view of people with mixed heritage? If one of her parents was born in the UK so she’s “50% British”, does that make her primary citizenship British? What if she was 25% or 75% how about 90%? Where do you draw the line?
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?
Sounds great on paper, until it starts happening to X, which is your group, now suddenly a terrorist organization, and you happened to have joined in their view.
So then would you want to live next to an ISIS member just so you're not agreeing with "authoritarians"? What's with this form of suicidal empathy?
Calling the people you disagree with as "authoritarians", "-phobes", "racist", "nazis" and all kinds of slurs, without any arguments, doesn't work in your favor or help the conversation in any way, on the contrary.
Agreeing with common sense takes doesn't make one "authoritarians".
Learn to do critical thinking and augmenting, instead of heard mentality parroting oppressive slurs against people you disagree with, just because you convicted yourself (or propaganda has) that you're on the right side of history, and everyone else with contrary viewpoints is evil reincarnate that needs to be crushed or silenced.
Authoritarian is often used as a pejorative strawman rather than as any particularly coherent concern. For instance Italy's Meloni was framed by the media, and people who still believe it, as being the next Mussolini, if not Hitler. In reality? Her time as leader has been largely inconsequential and relatively popular, especially contrasted against the leadership in places like Germany and France.
In general it's not authoritarians that are winning everywhere, but anti-globalists - which is disingenuously framed as authoritarianism. Globalist views were adopted on a wide scale, and they simply didn't lead to positive results, and so it's an ideology which is on the decline, ironically - globally.
Globalist views didn't lead to positive results? Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better. Now it goed a little less and the underbelly starts whining. And of course people do believe misinformation. People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade and now 'only' got inflafion correction whining its the globalist issue because some guy on tiktok explained it so well. Italy (or me personally for that matter) would be have been absolutely screwed without the EU and globalism, but keep listening to propaganda while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez.
>Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better.
The stock market, and your housing and investment portfolios going up, didn't mean that everyone was happy, just the asset holders like yourself and those in your bubble but you're not majority of the working population.
You need to learn to differentiate between "the stock market" and "the economy". Working class people can easily be getting poorer while the stock market is going up. So of course they're mad.
>People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade
Huh? Who? Where? When? Maybe in your tech bubble but in the real world a lot of people's salaries haven't kept up with inflation, let alone consistency get raises ABOVE inflation. In France for example the average pension is now higher than the average salary.
>while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez.
Top 10%er can't understand why those bottom 90% without assets who got screwed by globalism and saw their jobs offshored and salaries and savings obliterated by inflation caused by endless money printing are mad at the globalism that caused this massive wealth transfer from the working class to the upper asset owning classes.
You can't make this up. The sheer ignorance of reality of most people and the "fuck you I got mine" attitude is shattering. No wonder young people are flirting with communism.
Man, I am reading this whole thread in utter disbelief at all the naive "defenders of freedom", and I have to say that I fully agree with every single one of your comments.
The current systems in many places are breaking, but communism isn't a solution. Because the main reason the systems are breaking is not because of the systems themselves, but of the people in charge of them. Communism faces the exact same issue, except in that case the people in charge have orders of magnitude greater power and the people orders of magnitude less.
In a contemporary democracy we could, at least in theory, completely vote out literally every single pro-corporate, pro-war talking head in the next election. Now of course this won't ever happen, but at least in theory its an option. By contrast in communism, if one ends up unhappy with the system you have very little ability to change it.
Furthermore, in a capitalist system one can even start a communist sub-society. In fact there are many communes throughout the country, at least in the US. But in a communist system, you can't simply start a capitalist sub-society. The centralized nature of the system entails limits on freedoms, to ensure that every person is contributing to society as a whole. And this, in practice, trends towards dystopic authoritarianism in terms of how non-compliant individuals are treated.
The reason that people always claim that various efforts at communism weren't "real" communism is because the concept and theory of communism doesn't, and probably cannot, survive first contact with the interests and whims of humanity. By contrast I'd look at the overwhelming majority of the history of the US as an argument for capitalism. It's only relatively recent times, particularly after 1971 [1], that things have gone so terribly wrong.
> Because the main reason the systems are breaking is not because of the systems themselves, but of the people in charge of them
I disagree with this assessment. The reason systems are breaking are inherent contradictions in capitalism that inevitably lead to crisis. See Crisis Theory [0] for a more thorough description of the mechanisms at play.
Communism doesn't need to be authoritarian either - Salvador Allende famously tried for a more democratic socialism before the CIA couped him away - can't have the systemic competitor look good...
Then what would be your explanation for why the issues seem to be largely contemporary in nature, and in particular with 1971 being such a critical inflection point? That 1971 site is alluding to the end the Bretton Woods economic system. Prior to that date, 'money printing' by the government had extreme external constraints. After 1971, we became a completely free floating fiat economy.
This was a radical economic shift. And at first it yielded massive returns as one could expect with the ability to suddenly have infinite money in a world where, to date, money had been very "real." But over time, it turns out that pumping endless 'funny money' into an economy causes lots of bad things to happen, even when we can export much of the immediately apparent inflation.
Essentially the modern economic system we have only truly began in 1971. And it's separate from capitalism itself. The powers that be wanted the power to print unlimited money. And so they claimed that power. Prior to that year we lived in an entirely different world. For instance one interesting inflation index is a can of Campbell's tomato soup. From its introduction in 1897 to 1973 it cost about $0.10. Today it costs $1.24.
I do not believe the problems are contemporary in nature. We've had the Great Depression, the Long Depression of 1879 - 1899 etc etc.
Labor value and market value have been out of sync since the beginning of market capitalism. You might have a point about the end of Bretton-Woods making it worse, but it has been broken since the beginning.
I think there is a clear argument to be made that this is provably false. For instance the median income in 1960 for a worker was $5,435. [1] The GDP/capita at the time was $3002 [2]. So a median worker was getting very nearly 2x a share if the entire national GDP was equally distributed! And note that is for people with any income. That census did not collect data on 1960 for college educated full time workers, but based on trends from later years it was about 3x higher on average!
This is why the older generations were initially so aloof about the economic state of the US. They grew up in a time where they could go to college, graduate debt free, have a decent car, and even enough saved up for a down payment on their [first] house - all on income from a part time job.
You literally could not get a much more fair compensation for labor, because that's a huge chunk of the entire GDP being derived from median wages! Of course now we live in a time when the median wage is something like $50k and the GDP/capita is $90k. And many critical things, like housing, have increased in cost way beyond the rate of inflation, to the point that a median house is now something like 7 years of median labor which is just lol stupid driven by funny money that, again, mostly did not exist before 1971.
But getting back to 1960 - how would this, in any way, seem to suggest an out of sync labor value? If anything the flaw in my argument is that labor compensation was perhaps unsustainably high, because wages that high were only possible when you had a relatively large chunk of the population not working. On the other hand if we're going to create a society with a sustainable fertility rate and well raised children, then it's completely sustainable.
This is the context for Kennedy stating things like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Now a days even a pretty ardent nationalist would have to hold back a groan on hearing things like that, but it was a different world in the 60s.
The problem is that most Indo-European languages have grammatical gender, with English being a notable exception. In many cases, trying to fit that inclusive language means contorting or breaking the language grammar in unnatural ways, that's why many people oppose it.
Ring wing conservatives avidly throw our freedoms under the bus when convenient. Their electoral base is also very susceptible to thinkofyoungsebastian narratives.
Extreme collectivism affects both extreme, that is the concept that people are nothing but sacrificial lambs for the religion, the country, or the revolution.
Nice gaslighting attempt, but no. "We types" are concerned with everyone's civil liberties. But trying to divide us is just basic, text book abusive behavior.
> I'm not familiar with the far right in Germany. Why should we be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it?
In addition to the authoritarian aspect pointed out by a sibling comment, the far-right generally consider the ends to justify the means because of their sense of righteousness. They will compromise their values to get what they want (control over others). Just look at the hypocrisy of the free-speech absolutists on twitter who have no complaints over Lonnie shutting down Leftist accounts.
Because, similar to the US, they have authoritarian tendencies - strong nationalism and anti-immigration. How are you going to round up the bad people if you don't have surveillance everywhere?
Well the Axis powers from World War II are the most obvious demonstrations of nationalism begetting authoritarianism. Germany, Italy, and Japan were nationalist in the extreme. And Italy from that time is such a clear example that it's basically the canonical example used to teach how fascism emerges.
Contemporary examples include the Philippines, Hungary, Poland's Law and Justice Party, and arguably Russia, Turkey and India. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. The United States unfortunately is shaping up to count as an example as well.
Extreme forms of nationalism tend to have a narrative of grievance, a desire to restore a once a great national identity, and a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens, and enemies without and within, against whom authoritarians powers must be mobilized.
So there's a conceptual basis, in terms of setting the stage for rationalizing authoritarianism, as well as abundant historical examples demonstrating the marriage of nationalism and authoritarianism in action. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but I would say there's an extremely strong and familiar historical canon to those who study the topic.
But that would only be something nationalism signaled if the converse weren’t also true — eg, totalitarian states like the USSR, CCP, etc.
Those also had:
- grievance narratives;
- a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens and enemies; and,
- use the above to justify authoritarian powers.
You haven’t shown that nationalism played a particular part in that cycle; just that it also happened in nationalist states. Almost like the problem is those factors, rather than nationalism.
The USSR absolutely used a nationalist view in their propaganda [0]
As did the CCP [1]:
> Ideals and convictions are the spiritual banners for the united struggle of a country, nation and party, wavering ideals and convictions are the most harmful form of wavering.
I actually considered listing them as additional examples, but I had to stop somewhere and they had their own distinct wrinkles.
I think the major difference in their respective cases pertain to the ideological dynamics of the particular strains of communism that manifested in those countries. What they lack is a fixation on the purity of national heritage as a primary source of moral truth and a foundation for a self conception. Instead they tended to regard themselves as part of universal, international struggle and understood conflict in economic and ideological terms. What they had in common was the sense that conflict with this chosen enemy necessitated authoritarianism.
There's more than one path to authoritarianism, and they overlap. Different mechanisms don't disprove one another, they exist side by side.
Here is an interesting review of how the two are historically strongly correlated[1].
Their conclusion is that "[...] ethnic and elitist forms of
nationalism, which combine to forge exclusive nationalism,
help to perpetuate autocratic regimes by continually legitimating minority exclusions [...]"
Right-wing nationalism as we're currently experiencing it is exclusive. It broadly advocates for restoring revised historical cultural narratives of a particular ethnic group, for immigration restriction and immigrant removal, for further minority culture erasure, and so on.
Do you know the history of nationalism in Europe, and Germany in particular? Hint: it’s the “Na” part of “Nazi.”
You are getting downvoted because this pretty basic stuff. Either you’re part of today’s lucky 10k, or your post reads very much like far-right Gish galloping.
I don't know. It seems like from what you saying that you and honestly an enormous amount of people need to actually learn about 20th century European history and WWII. People are throwing around these terms of NAZI and Gestapo and all of this and I think they have no idea what they mean. The left is not against authoritarian. The left does not even want to really eliminate the police. They just want to be the ones to decide who are the thought-criminals and what to do with them. Also, that is not what Gish galloping. I don't know what is happening here.
I do know my history. The Nazi party was a pan-German nationalist party. I'm not sure why this is controversial.
Germans, and Germany are obviously quite sensitive to the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Not just because of WW2, but also the experience of East Germany.
Authoritarian? You're saying this because of immigration; this comes from a position that is basically open borders. It is an interesting double standard. The people that hold this position would not consider non-Western countries that don't want to have open borders or have dramatic demographic shifts in their population and culture to be "authoritarian." This whole notion of "rounding up the bad people" is just infantile leftist stuff. How do you have a sovereign country if you are not able to have a policy that prevents unfettered 'immigration' or unable to deport those that immigrated contrary to law?
The whole concept of a country as a related group of people from one ethnicity or historical origin is relatively recent.
Feudalism did not have this concept; a country was the land belonging to a king (or equivalent), mediated through a set of nobles. There was no concept of illegal or legal immigration; the population of a country were the people who worked for, or were owned by, the nobles ruling that country. There were land rights granted to peasants who had historically lived in that place, but these could and were often overruled by nobles.
European nobility had no such idea of ethnicity or national grouping; the English monarchy is a German family, and most of European nobility were related to each other much more closely than to the citizens of their country.
Early post-monarchy states didn't have this concept. The English Civil War and the French Revolution didn't create states that had a defined concept of the citizen as a member of any ethnic grouping. Again, there's no mention of immigration in any of the documents from this period. It just wasn't a concept they thought about.
The whole concept that a nation-state is a formalisation of a historical grouping of ethnically related people is a very recent one, only a couple of hundred years old.
So to answer your question: It is very easy to have a sovereign country without a policy that prevents unfettered immigration; you just don't care about your population being ethnically diverse. Your citizens are the people who live in your country, and have undergone whatever ceremony and formality you decide makes them citizens.
This is, after all, how America historically did this; if you arrived in America and pledged allegiance, you became a citizen of America.
Because it’s just manipulative and abusive, self harming and self destructive narcissistic psychopathic people calling things that thwart their suicidal mindset as “far right”. If you don’t want to LoL yourself, you must be far-right. If you don’t feel safe in your own community because of foreigners that have no right to be there, then you must be a racist.
It’s an odd phenomenon called a mass formation in large populations, when groups of people get fixated or obsessed with a certain concept or even a thing that the group ourself becomes self-reinforcing; usually until a point of exhaustion is reached or self-destruction. It can also be effectively injected into a culture as it was in Germany’s case after the war through endless and limitless collective and hereditary blame abuse to the point that Germans generally do not have self-respect, and if they show even a slight bit of self-respect they are branded far right, as of that means anything being the subconscious conditioning people have been subjected to.
It’s kind of sad and unfortunate and humanity should never have allowed the collective torture, abuse, and punishment of Germans even to this day 80 years later. It’s a sick and depraved thing only the most devious and evil people would condone, let alone perpetrate.
> No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it.
We seem to have a general problem with people not understanding that democracies have regular elections and the other party is going to get back in at some point. So then whenever one party is in power, instead of thinking ahead by five minutes and realizing that adding new constraints on the government and adding rather than eroding checks and balances will help you the next time the other team gets in, everybody thinks of them as an impediment to doing whatever they want immediately.
And then like clockwork they get butthurt when they checks they eroded or failed to put into place aren't there after the next election, as if they had nothing to do with it.
1. Censorship in German constitutional law is only defined as the state pre-screening before publication. That's a very narrow area and rarely applies. Most people from an US legal tradition will consider censorship to include other things such as mandating removal of certain content after the fact, but that's different legal branches with different mechanisms (i.e. libel).
2. What Schulz is talking about in the second link definitely is state censorship (blocking a TV station), but it's not implemented by Germany but on the EU level. (Germany is still involved - complicated matter).
Finally we should appreciate that the US government's opinion on censorship seems to have pivoted quite a lot, so I would expect free speech maximalism to not remain a very popular position on the government level (even though many people may still support it, either naïvely or with robust arguments).
Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians, which is why politicians are very active suing random supporters of their opponents, because that is an effective way to police speech, open specifically to politicians.
I do think a lot of people care, but censorship in Germany does a lot to protect the people who could change the law. That law obviously needs to be abolished, politicians are uniquely unworthy of protection when it comes to speech.
If you look at the concrete laws, they are less spectacular.
For example, the concept of privacy protecting against media coverage is actually weaker for politicians (when in official duty) than for ordinary citizens (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht).
And libel only applies to statements of facts. I.e. you can't (easily) be prosecuted for opinions, just for making harmful false claims.
>If you look at the concrete laws, they are less spectacular.
And if you look at how these laws are used by politicians they look quite spectacular.
>And libel only applies to statements of facts. I.e. you can't (easily) be prosecuted for opinions, just for making harmful false claims.
The Wikipedia article and how the law was applied article disagrees.
Do not forget that this applies to insults. E.g. calling a politician "dumb" is enough to get sued. These laws create a way for politicians specifically to prosecute people criticizing them. This isn't a hypothetical, it is how the law is actually used.
> This isn't a hypothetical, it is how the law is actually used.
You make it sound like it happens all the time and everyone is used to it. I know of once case (Pimmel-Andy), and that led to a shitstorm, including part of the police operation being declared unlawful after the fact.
A good friend of mine was recently sentenced to prison for publicly using this kind of phrase during a protest for climate justice. When Germany's equivalent of the Supreme Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, learned of this case, the court immediately ordered their release and declared the original verdict void: According to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, (in the specific situation at hand) this phrase is more a value judgment and less a factual claim.
Together with a fellow activist, who also served as informal legal counsel, they gave a talk on this case at the 38th Chaos Communication Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5RmTOGucZo
The CCC hasn't been only about computers since inception. They were clearly already political in the 80s, just have a look at this zine: https://ds.ccc.de/pdfs/ds024.pdf
>Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians,
As Lee Kuan Yew pointed out, the idea that you should be able to slander anyone in power is a nice underdog philosophy (particularly popular in the US, where the underdog is always right) but what it gets you is a post-truth environment in which reputation means nothing.
And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an honour based society, not an English or French liberal society. People in power aren't suspicious just because they have power, the crank is not correct just because he's the little guy. I think Lee Kuan Yew was largely correct if one looks at Anglosphere media and politics, where truth and reputation have entirely been replaced by conspiracy and tantrums. Far from the wisdom of the crowds being some truth finding mechanism you just enable the most charismatic nutjob.
>And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an honour based society
We aren't. We are a totally Americanized failed state governed by mentally ill losers who continue to destroy this country in every possible way imaginable.
The German society which was the basis for this law does not exist anymore. Politicians are all complete clueless losers who do not deserve an ounce of respect.
> I would not be surprised if the mass-sniffing comes in a few months when nobody is looking.
That's the problem with these proposed laws.
We (privacy advocates) have to constantly fight and win over and over again. The nations that want this mass spying only have to win once.
We need a way to permanently stop these proposals once defeated the first time so that they cannot just continue to try over and over again until it passes.
No you don't, that's not how laws work, if you want society to look the way you want you need to actively work for it, you can't delegate that process to a law. It's not how participation in a free society works
Permanently stopping those proposals wouldn't necessarily eliminate illegal, back-door mass government surveillance, nor would it eliminate private sector mass surveillance (think social media) which then gets accessed by the government (whether legally or not).
Fighting corruption only works when enough people fight it at enough levels, and continue to fight it. There is no getting around the fact that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
> We (privacy advocates) have to constantly fight and win over and over again.
We do have a way to reinforce our position, though!
We can design and consume technology that makes this hard.
We can stop working for companies that build centralized platforms for messaging.
We can teach our neighbors how important rights to privacy and speech are in language that they understand.
There can be enough friction that this becomes harder for politicians. Remember the Reddit Sopa and Pipa protests? - that was pretty epic! I don't think Reddit will help us in its current state, but we can absolutely mount those defenses on Wikipedia, Mastodon, Bluesky, and others.
And we should continue to move off of platforms that don't align with our freedoms. And build our platforms in a way that encourages "normies" to join.
Yes to all of the above! I just want to whine a bit that every time I try to educate anybody about this, I am promised a tin foil hat in return (even from Software Engineers!).
The tinfoil hat treatment is due to the fact that these days everything that fits the mould of a conspiracy theory is dismissed simply for fitting the mould of a conspiracy theory. In the same time as this cultural headspace was being cultivated in the US:
A billionaire pedophile ran a covert sex ring with a suspected who's who of a client list who was almost barely prosecuted for "reasons™"
Social media companies caught red-handed psychologically manipulating users for various ends
Damn near everyone helping to destroy actual free speech and privacy willingly because they've been talked into it (ironic)
Governments that engage in mass surveillance so egregious if you had tried it 40 years ago there would have been an uprising. Aided by the tech community I might add.
Industries that abuse data and algorithms to manipulate pricing or commit outright fraud.
A pharma corp addicting countless americans to opioids with almost no real consequence, killing hundreds of thousands and ruining millions of families.
Several industries have poisoned the planet and its inhabitants in various long term ways for profit.
And yet if you suggest something is a conspiracy it is dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. Speaking of conspiracies that doesn't sound like an accident... The trick to conspiracy theories is critical thinking and not uncritical dismissal.
If I have any words of consolation: when the "conspiracy theory" turns out to be more practice than theory you get to say I told you so.
This is just lifestylist nonsense to make yourself feel better than everyone else. If you design technology to make this hard, they will hit you with a stick, and find everyone who uses your technology and hit them with a stick. If you still do it, they will hit you all with the sticks until you are dead, and also hit your family and friends with sticks. If you don't work for them, they'll find a bro who will. Teaching your neighbors just makes them another potential victim, and they will report you or curse you as they die with you. Moving off platforms when there are no alternatives just means you won't be able to bank, or file your taxes. And if you fail to file your taxes, they will hit you with a stick.
The cage is real, it's not a state of mind. It's not something that can be recycled out of. You'll know when you're really doing something when you can give people a time and a place to show up; when that showing up isn't to stand in the street and socialize with each other, burn down a Starbucks, or spit in the face of a cop who makes less than you do; and when most of you end up dead or in prison.
I always reply like this, but some people think everybody else in the world is so weak and naïve, when they themselves aren't doing anything important and have not taken a fraction of the risks or suffered a fraction of the loss of the people they're asking to speak up. Speaking against power is an impotent magic spell. You can recognize journalists who speak against real power by their deaths.
Everybody is just aping the US black civil rights struggle, where watching the violence done in their name to nicely dressed, well-behaved people filled enough people with disgust that politicians wouldn't get a boost from continuing to support it. That was how a small minority population faced with irrational restrictions in a media-saturated society was able to barely overcome explicitly unfair laws (and go no further, we're still the underclass, we're still dying.)
The history of effective, revolutionary, positive protest by what are often majorities involved people getting out into the streets as a show of strength, not a show of weakness. It always involves converting and including portions of the army and the police forces. It involves building strong shadow governments. Not this pantomime where everybody pretends to be black, and the people who are the blackest, weakest, most undeserving of their treatment win because mommy parliament or daddy supreme court are moved enough to declare them the winner.
I can't remember where I read it, but I read that Signal's popularity was high (highest?) in Germany. Assuming I'm not misremembering or that the situation hasn't changed, it seems that Germans care enough about the issue to stake out a position.
They'll do nothing now, people don't want it, people complain, it's a bad thing politically. They'll wait for a year, people will forget, a new proposal for "Clean Chat" will appear, with effectively the same measures, they'll try to pass it quietly, maybe no one will notice, maybe there will be a terrorist attack or something similar by then, and more people will want it, and if it fails again, rinse and repeat a year after.
They only need to succeed once, we (the ones opposing the law) have to succeed every time.
Never trust the CDU. They were the ones pushing for the illegal data retention (Vorratsdatenspeicherung) and von der Leyen from the CDU is big on censorship and mass surveillance. They are just against it now because the country has bigger problems and the CDU has the worst approval ratings in history.
At voting is a bit late probably. You don't just trust leaders, you watch, you criticize, you communicate and sometimes you act. Political or otherwise as a matter of fact
Germany will not abandon chat control just like the data perseveration they're so keen on. Europe is preparing for war so they need ways to make opposition more difficult. They're just waiting for the opportune moment where the opposition to these acts won't be as organized or is distracted with something else.
What war, against who? I don't know what kind of narrative you are tying to push here but know that any attempt would immediately meet strong opposition (I've seen the graves of Verdun and I for one would do anything to actively undermine and sabotage any kind of active war effort)
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Couldn't be further from the truth. Just look at how NATO countries have tiptoed around supporting Ukraine. Every major step (artillery shells, tanks, rocket artillery, air defense systems, and fighter jets) took ages of largely pointless discussion before the decision was made. Not to mention the very weak response to Russian military intelligence terror cells that have been caught red-handed across Europe in recent years while they were preparing attacks like smuggling incendiary devices onto DHL cargo airplanes. If this isn't an unbelievably unconfrontational reaction to Russia's actions, then what is?
Absolutely fair point, the response has been weak.
But here's the thing. The official action is slow, but the media stories about the threat are turned up to eleven, 24/7.
For a year & a half the story about the Nord Stream bombing was "Russia did it". End of discussion. Then it turns out it was probably some Ukrainian group, and everyone just shrugs and moves on. The original media-instilled fear doesn't disappear, though.
And that fear is what they use to sell us things like Chat Control.
So... when you mention "Russian military intelligence terror cells caught red-handed," my bar for skepticism is raised. I'm not saying it's impossible (on the contrary, militaries have been doing hybrid warfare for ALL of known human history), I'm just always failing to find the convictions that should follow someone being caught red-handed.
Yeah, it's getting quite obvious that HN prefers to remain within the bounds of Wikipedia, NYT/WaPo narratives. Good luck with that, I'll just refrain from commenting on these topics. It's useless anyways.
Jens Spahn, the speaker in the video OP shared, is not a member of the government but a leading member of the parliament and of one of the ruling parties. A tiny but important difference.
I think ‘a leading member’ is underselling it a little. He is the “Fraktionsvorsitzender”, which is comparable to the majority leader in the US Senate.
> which is comparable to the majority leader in the US Senate.
Not really. First of all, Jens Spahn doesn't lead a majority, he merely leads his party's parliamentary group, which has 208 of 630 seats. Second, he has already proven this year that he doesn't have the members of his own parliamentary group under control, so his stance on a matter should not be taken for more than it is.
True, I guess I was thinking of the meaning of "government" in German for a second. Either way, though, if you consider "government" to include all three branches (executive, legislative, judicative), then there is really no way for the "the" government to take a stance on any issue, so "German government comes out against Chat Control" would be a rather nonsensical headline.
Every thread on this I have to post the same thing, which I hope will make people inform themselves, because we need our attention to be directed at the correct people.
> The EU tries something like this every few years.
This is NOT the EU trying it (I'm not even sure you know what you mean when you say "The EU"). This is certain groups of politicians from certain EU member states raising it again and again.
Please keep yourselves informed, don't spread an incorrect message, because this is an important issue to fight and needs accurate information.
This IS eu trying it since late 2021. The original proposal was adopted by the lead european commissioner Ylva Johansson in May 2022 and the commission has been trying to find support for it in the council ever since.
2. maladministration: Decision on how the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) dealt with the moves of two former staff members to positions related to combatting online child sexual abuse (case 2091/2023/AML) (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/200017)
Please keep yourselves informed, don't spread an incorrect message, because this is an important issue to fight and needs accurate information.
Citing articles is tricky because people have agendas. I cannot take any of them at face value because we both know that the writing will skew to push the narrative they want.
There is a long history to CSAM, long before your 2021 date. If we want to keep it fairly recent, here is a straight from the source link for you (no journalist or blogger added their skew). This is 2019 where The Council (elected ministers of member states) are deciding for push this forward. This is how the EC (commission) usually get their mandate.
Research also tells us that various NGOs and Europol have been pressing the commission to act on this (side stepping national governments), but ultimately The Commission goes through the Council to get their mandate.
And keeping it more recent, this is being pushed (again unfortunately) through elected ministers of member states onto the Commission.
I'm not saying that the commission are not involved, but your message is trying to make this complicated scenario down into "evil unelected beurocrats" coming up with schemes to spy on us. It is narrow minded and directs people the wrong way.
Just like breathing, sleeping, and eating, you will always have to oppose tyranny. People who seek control will always try to get more. As long as ordinary people sustain strong opposition in word and deed it is sustainable, just like breathing.
Yep. And that's exactly why the EU has the structure it does.
Unfortunately the only country that ever left proceeded to shoot itself in both knees, light itself on fire and jump in a pool of gasoline. For NO reason.
It's not going to get reversed once they're able to analyze all comms automatically for wrong think and stop 'extremist groups' because something 'Nazi'. The Stati letter steamers could only dream of such a system.
Online control is like a squatter waiting for years in the bushes on your yard and it only takes one time that you forget to lock your door and he sneaks in and claims he lives in your home, and uses all possible legal loopholes to prevent any imminent relocation.
A pedigree of chatcontrols has already been turned down several times in the past but there's nothing stopping it from being raised from the dead a couple of years later over and over until it finally passes. And then it's very much impossible to unpass.
What’s your point? That you should just give up and invite the squatter in? Serve him a cup of tea while you’re at it, and give him the house?
That brand of defeatism has been spewed every step of the way every time. If everyone thought like you, the first version of Chat Control would have passed. But it didn’t. And even if it eventually does, later is better than sooner. Later is worth fighting for.
Look, it’s fine if you yourself want to personally give up, this is tiring. But please don’t rub your despondency on the people who are trying to fight for something which benefits you. You’re not helping. On the contrary, you’re making it worse for everyone, including yourself.
Every time you make that sort of comment, you’re helping those who want to oppress you. Either join the fight or move aside.
Good effing luck with that. Government is an institution that grows until it controls every single aspect of its citizens’ lives. What to do when government grows cancerous?
Agreed, it won't happen in practice. It's common people who are in favor of more legislation without realizing that are shooting themselves in the foot.
> It's common people who are in favor of more legislation
I know. I've always called myself a progressive left individual, then found out the modern progressive left is all about solving every issue with more rules, more centralisation, more bureaucracy and more prohibition. It's maddening to see how many people feel their government isn't legislating enough and is still too liberal.
Case in point: Online Safety Act has been heavily pushed by Labour (despite starting as a Tory thing). Chat Control is being pushed by the Danish Social Democrats.
We could instead say “promote a utopia where everyone is treated fairly and empathetically and everyone’s needs are met without destroying the planet or a need for government”. That’d “fix” the current problem and more, the issue is what exactly can we do to “promote” that change.
It's actionable if you have some imagination. Raise funds for a nonprofit. Start lobbying on both sides of the aisle. Enlist an advertising company to show the dystopian future if something like chat control comes into effect, poll for focus groups and target them. Find ways to undermine and expose the forces that are pushing for authoritarian legislation.
"Mit der CDU/CSU wird es keine anlasslose Chatkontrolle geben, wie sie von einigen Staaten in der EU gefordert wird."
Anlass is cause/reason here, so keine anlasslose literally translated means: not without cause/reason.
What about "reasonable causes", and the infrastructure enabling those? Be it legal/bureaucratic/technical? IMO it's already in place, mostly, and got abused many times, already.
This is just "weasel wording", changing nothing for so called "lawful interception".
If you got flagged by some algorithm somewhere, or got reported by someone behind your back, there will be Anlass!
Automagically...
Because neither the algorithms, nor the organizations handling the flagging, enabling the reporting are transparent.
They are unaccountable (to the public/affected) black boxes by design, be it for economic, organizational, or political reasons.
That's the main crux with the current EU proposition: that they want to surveil all chat, regardless of whether the citizen involved is suspected of a crime.
Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats?
> Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge
> has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more
> acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats?
The problem is that it's not technologically possible. Many major messaging apps - including WhatsApp, which is the market leader by far in Europe - provide end-to-end encryption, and have done so for years. After a judge has ruled that an individual's WhatsApp chats are to be surveilled, how would you achieve this? In the current situation, there's just nothing you can do. You might try to wiretap the phone, but there's really not that many zero-days left: both iOS and Android are quite secure these days, so this isn't even an alternative.
The only way to make court-mandated surveillance possible is to ensure that nobody's chat is encrypted to begin with, such that after a court order has come in, the data can be easily read. So to outlaw end-to-end encryption entirely is what this proposal is really about: break privacy guarantees for everybody to enable surveillance in a few outlier cases.
Of course, once encryption has been broken, three-letter agencies the world over will be reading your chats whether they have a warrant or not.
There is no way to have private communication for good people only. Either you have freedom for all, or freedom for none.
Freedom will not ever be finally settled in this life. Laws can be changed, constitutions amended, and of course the law is only as good as willingness to enforce it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as nice as it would be if that wasn't so.
Speech is restricted the world over for things (fraud, threats, libel/slander, secrets, and more), and we're almost universally in favour of that.
It's a balancing act, and the point where we set the balance is difficult, and constantly changing (should we allow speech that encourages the persecution of other people, sometimes called "hate speech" or should people be allowed to advocate for the murder/rape/extermination of other human beings because of the way they look)
I'm not sure that's relevant to Chat Control. What's at stake here is not a definition of 'acceptable communication' in public, but the possibility of all private communication being scanned.
That's not to say that private communication can't already be illegal; mere 'conspiracy' is a crime in many places. Yet the level of surveillance that would be enabled by legislation like Chat Control is greater than any other in history. Even notorious agencies like the Stasi had to pick and choose their targets based on prior suspicion, simply because of the logistics involved in traditional surveillance.
We don't fully know what effects this kind of unceasing, universal monitoring would have on society, and what little historical precedent exists doesn't bode well. Restrictions on public speech however are pretty well understood; we've had censorship in various forms pretty much everywhere in the world at one point or another. We can look to history for lessons about what happens, and can properly discuss (even if not agree!) about when censorship is good or bad for society.
My comment is 100% relevant to the comment I was replying to. (Sometimes I do wish people who down vote were forced to comment why they were making such erroneous decisions)
And again with the passive aggressive "downvote because you have no ability to explain your disagreement"
Edit: To anyone reading and thinking of joining in to any of the discussions, the message is clear - Facebook or Reddit level of inanity is all you will find here.
I don't think that this is really relevant to my point. My point is not that the proposed EU laws are good or bad (frankly, I don't know anything about them and I'm not in the EU so it's not my business), but that this topic can't be definitely settled for all time. No matter what resolution is reached in the EU today, in 5 years' time someone will be fighting to change it. That's just how it goes.
I expect it to become settled, just not in the way we want it.
Sure, there is the rollercoaster, ups and downs, small wins and losses going on all the time. But look at the general trends - these freedoms that we enjoyed are by and large being chipped away, it's all trending down, worldwide. It's two steps back, one step forward. Maybe CC doesn't get put in place this particular time, but they will ram it through eventually, at some point the right angle will be found to make the right people vote for it. Then the battleground will move onto something even more egregious, and so on. I'm not seeing why there would be a sudden reversal of this trend in the coming decades.
From a non-EU perspective, it seems like the EU tries to push something akin to this every couple of years. So I guess it’s settled for at least a few years…?
Chat control very likely violates at least german law, if not EU law too already. As experts as well as the ministry of justice of the previous government in germany have pointed out time and time again.
Yet still that was never enough for a clear and definitive "no".
It is very likely that the people in favor of this would still try to push it through, or let that happen. They know that the legal battle afterwards to determine its unlawfulness would take years.
And during that time it could already be put it place. And once the legal battle is over (and likely won) severe damage is done and they could still adapt the law or just offer companies to continue doing this "voluntarily". And personally I wouldn't count on Apple, Google, or Facebook to roll this back quickly in that case once they've put it into place.
Laws can be changed, can be reinterpreted, there are no absolutes. What matters is who is in power, and how powers are kept in check. There is no finality to any of that. It’s a constant process of keeping things up, or failing to keep things up.
This is actually one of my own fears for efficient organization at state level and above:
- any new technology, any new opportunity either has checks and balances or gets exploited by smart optimizers with no regards for the commons or human flourishing
- checks and balances are as you say a constant drain on public attention and resources: you need smart people doing the checking (finite resource), and receptive eyeballs (finite also)
- it is thus an optimization problem. attack_surface - check_capacity = societal_explots
I worry that the check_capacity term is constrained, but that the attack_surface keeps aexpanding with new technologies. At some point, we started playing whack a mole, frantically jumping from one check to another, and we're holding the fray stochastically. but at some point it's going to become extremely adversarial.
It's difficult to entrench things. In the UK they have often said "one Parliament can't bind another Parliament", and in the U.S. it's also sometimes said "one Congress can't bind another Congress".
The most obvious mechanism is a constitutional amendment, but in the U.S. the only amendment to be drafted and adopted in modern times is the 26th amendment (1971), 54 years ago. (The 27th amendment had a weird status where it was belatedly adopted with a 200-year delay.) It's hard to imagine many constitutional amendments actually being passed now because it's been challenging to find consensus on many things within U.S. politics lately.
I don't know that the EU at a supranational level has any mechanism at all to ban future EU directives. Maybe they could decide to remove something from the list of areas of competence of the EU? But Chat Control is under the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" and I can't imagine the EU deciding that that should be abandoned as an area of Union competence.
Edit: The international human rights treaties, at least in regulating law enforcement, have tended not to follow the idea that some kind of regulation or law enforcement power is completely off-limits, but just that they need procedural safeguards -- especially for surveillance and investigatory powers. In this case, Chat Control opponents (including me) would like it to be completely off-limits, but the human rights instruments arguments might more naturally go into "did they create enough surrounding rules and mechanisms about how it's used and how it's regulated?" rather than "can we just say governments just can't make this rule?".
Given that freedom can mean different things even to the same society at different times and in different circumstances, such a law would essentially have to be sentient.
I mean, the right to privacy is already enshrined in the EU's human rights. The courts would likely strike Chat Control down if it were to pass. But I wish there was a way to prevent our politicians from even trying this shit.
Other things are enshrined in the EU human rights as well, many of them ultimately contradicting each other if you follow them to their logical conclusion.
It's the task of parliaments, governments, and courts to reevaluate and resolve all these contradictions over and over again. It's tedious and takes a lot of resources, but that's the price for democracy.
> I mean, the right to privacy is already enshrined in the EU's human rights.
The constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (i.e. North Korea) famously guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right for the people. That hasn't stopped the government from trampling all over freedom of expression, though. The EU is of course nowhere near North Korea in terms of what is considered acceptable, but don't ever trust that the words in the constitution will be enough to keep the government from doing something.
Just imagine some other people will carry the burden and mentally distance yourself from it to relax from it wearing you out. You can take up the burden again later once you've recovered and others are worn out
"anlasslose Chatkontrolle" => Chat Control without cause.
Ok, maybe these are not weasel words in this case. The CDU probably wants to present itself as a friend of the people using a popular issue that they don't really care about. My suspicion is that this is exactly why the ChatControl issue is brought up yearly. It distracts people from wars, the economy etc., there is a big discussion and finally the government graciously comes down on the side of the people. Each and every year.
Were this true, some politicians would do it for that reason. It would need to get a lot of attention to be an effective distraction, and it does not. The mainstream press barely covers the issue. Many people who would be directly harmed by it don't even know what's being considered.
Yeah, this isn't being covered at all. At least, up to its significance. Most people are computer illiterate too, so it is unlikely they would understand or care either.
It's no wonder we see the countries that oppose this as well. Makes one think.
Sweden's case is peculiar given their military opposed it. I wonder what's going on there.
The German social perspective on privacy has been strongly for the individual over the state for a long time. Chat Control goes too far, and Germany should be a loud voice in the heavy moderation of state surveillance powers.
Any software mandated by the government should be required to be open source to diminish the incentives for big spyware firms lobbying for their product.
Not only conservatives. Social democrats now positioned themselves against this, but they only do when convenient. They very much support increased surveillance attempts.
But if you look up past decisions, you will quickly notice that they have very similar ambitions here.
At some point they were against ISP saving connection info, only to switch in the last moment and then fully support and even pushing for it.
Aside from privacy violations, this did not have any positive effect on crime at all. It also showed that the German constitution is more or less a paper tiger.
the internet is already dying and social media largely sucks. the whole ass thing is going to be 100% ai driven ads, scams, astroturfing, propaganda, trolls and other fuckery sooner rather than later. just let chat control kill it, fuck it. accelerate to a cyberpunk future of local mesh networks.
It won't but luckily no government is powerful enough to govern math and therefore cryptography. Mathematics is more of a liberator than the second amendment in this respect.
Physical hardware can be controlled, yes. Decentralization and obfuscation similar to TOR is probably needed here.
If running a mesh network is illegal, does it matter that the traffic is just math? Without a network, there's no data transmission of that math. The government controls the airwaves. It doesn't matter if you're broadcasting Top40 or encrypted messages, if they say no to your transmitting, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your transmitting, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your forgetting to scan the case of water on the bottom of your cart, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your hacked cable box, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your speeding, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your weed, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your growing a mushroom and mailing it to your friend, you're going nowhere.
There's a whole spectrum of how illegal something is to consider. People break the law every day for a range of reasons from accident, to ignorance, to convenience, to want, to need, etc.
In the hypothetical world that you've set out, where surveillance is so extreme and overreaching as to help finish off the entirety of the internet for good, there's no way it would stop at the internet. The goal isn't controlling this set of standards and protocols that defines just the internet, the goal is controlling communication and the internet is the #1 way of communicating between people at the moment.
If people all started talking through letter mail, you'd get Letter Control, they wouldn't just forget about it because it's not the internet. If the people somehow become smart and coordinated enough to move to some cryptographically-secure method of communication, your government will probably outlaw the equipment and actions associated with using it in the first place instead of trying to decrypt all communications.
The goal is control of information, and the way of doing that is to force everyone to use unsecured communication with no feasible alternatives. I wouldn't expect kid glove treatment with that, unlike speeding or minor shoplifting.
> to force everyone to use unsecured communication
Treat social media as any other unsecured channel. You can do e2e on Facebook, you'll just have to do it yourself. I'm only half joking, I'm sure somebody has done this already, they just keep quiet about it.
Lot of probably's and maybes moving at the speed of government in your comment, look how many decades this has been in the works.
Circumventing the Great Firewall in China is against the rules, comes with some risk for vpn operators and users, yet we know it happens regularly.
Buying and selling drugs online is illegal, yet there's always a Silk Road or Empire Market with enough buyers and sellers to make the risk worth it. We already have "letter control" for drugs, but it doesn't stop me from buying a QP of weed and a federal employee delivering it conveniently to my house.
Good luck outlawing the parts and software, maybe they'll get to them when they finally gather up all the fentanyl.
Even if chat control doesn't happen, the social internet is fucked. Just look at Quora for a preview.
running an actively transmitting network is an easy thing for them to come and shut down. you doing any of the other things can easily be done without them knowing about it. you can be flippant about it all you want, but you don't look intelligent by doing so
More than anything, this is a good lesson in information theory. A blank sheet of paper isn't devoid of information just because it doesn't contain ink - rather, it is the context of the current situation that defines the information being conveyed. This is true in all forms of communication.
This reminds me of a story I read once about when Victor Hugo had just published Les Miserables. Just after publication, he went to his vacation home due to the controversy he was sure was going to follow the publication of the book. Wanting to know how the reception was going, he mailed his publisher a letter simply containing a question mark. The publisher responded with only an exclamation mark, and Hugo immediately understood - he had written an eternal classic.
(BTW, I read this in the book The User Illusion - a fantastic read)
you missed the reference. as a history lesson, the deCSS code was written on a t-shirt and was deemed acceptable. having the deCSS compiled as an executable was deemed not acceptable.
I got the reference. Seems like it worked out quite nicely for the government/court though, given that deCSS isn't much use printed on a t-shirt, compared to in a binary on a computer?
you can't share the compiled binary, but you can share a shirt. if you have the shirt, you can compile on your own. the t-shirt became the sharing network
That’s the thing about speech: It’s very hard for governments to physically prevent it, but attaching consequences to making use of that capability usually works just as well.
-ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking
-Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look
-So, something has got to give. Either 'chat' services need to become 'providers of telecoms services' and therefore implement lawful interception laws, or the malware industry will continue to flourish, or something even more stupid will happen
> -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look
Why on earth would mass intercept be necessary or even help in that?
If you got scammed by someone, then you can contact the police and hand over your message history. Why would the cops be interested in someone else's message history for this?
It's the ability to surveil traffic from/to a clearly identified party, upon a judicial order for specific reason, for a limited time.
ChatControl, on the other hand, is mass interception. I'm against it. Most people in the EU are against it. But to prevent things like ChatControl coming up over and over again, a basic tool to combat Internet crime is required.
The problem we have is that was OK when someone had to actually listen in or you had to have a tape recorder connected up to every line you want to tap, or physically open individual letters.
Now we have found “lawful intercept” can easily just become mass surveillance, and not just by the people who are meant to use it but other parties too. We saw this with CALEA which was used by China (and who knows who else) for espionage and spying for years before anyone realised.
You make a system for the “good guys” and it always turns out adversary, criminal groups etc. will gain access, even if the “good guys” don’t start acting like bad guys themselves.
Technology made mass surveillance easy, so every lawful intercept becomes mass surveillance as well as vulnerable to scammers, criminals and foreign intelligence.
And we don’t have any way of making lawful intercept possible without that unfortunately.
From what I know this basic tool already exists. In the US, the government can just ask any old company for their data and they have to give it up, just like they would their mail or their physical locations. I'm assuming the rest of the West has similar tools, warrants of some kind.
The problem is nobody uses them to combat crime on the internet. They use them for stupid shit usually or stuff that involves lots and lots of money.
We're jumping the gun here. We already have a fire bomb, and we're not using it, but we're going ahead to developing the nuke. Makes no sense.
We're talking about end-to-end encrypted data here. It doesn't matter if LE have the company's data because it's just a scrambled mess. They don't have the keys to decrypt it. They only exist on the users' devices.
Chat Control seeks to execute on each and every device before/after encryption so it has access to the data pre/post encryption.
Sigh. We already have a mechanism to get the data off the devices.
If the servers don't have it, what do you do? You go to the end points, you issue a warrant, and there's your unencrypted data.
What if they don't wanna do that? I don't know, that's out of scope.
People refuse warrants all the time. You know what we DON'T do? Say, "fuck it" and no longer require warrants.
Again, let's look at good old mail. I can encrypt mail. I can write in ciphers.
Okay, now FedEx gets a warrant. They give me the mail. I can't read it. Uh oh. What do I do? I go to the sender and recipient, and I issue warrants. Problem solved.
That's how we do things, that's how weve always done things, and that's the only reasonable way to do things. We don't say "hey post office, open up every letter and read it. And if it sounds suspicious, tell us". We don't do that.
Okay, so everyone understands that and there's no confusion. When we go online, suddenly there's confusion. Is it confusion, or is the confusion a viel for authoritarian?
Something does have to give: the constant demands for interception capabilities on end-to-end encrypted protocols. Those demands must be thoroughly destroyed every time they rear their head again.
It's interesting that this initiative seems to be mostly driven by influential actors in the "online safety" space that want their flawed scanning tech embedded into every device. Thorn is the most public-facing one, but if you dig into advocacy groups you'll find there's a dozen or so more, and they competed for being the technical solution to the UK online safety act too. But if it involves CSAM it's an even more perfect monopoly - only a very select group of people can train these models because the training data is literally illegal to possess.
If you needed any indication for how these pseudo-charities (usually it's a charity front and a commercial "technology partner") are not interested in the public good, SafeToNet, a company that up until last year was trying to sell a CSAM livestream detection system to tech companies to "help become compliant" ("SafeToWatch") now sells a locked down Android phone to overprotective parents that puts an overlay on screen whenever naked skin can be seen (of any kind). It's based on a phone that retails for 150 pounds - but costs almost 500 with this app preinstalled into your system partition. That's exceptionally steep for a company that up until last year was all about moral imperatives to build this tech.
I am having a legitimately hard time wrapping my head around not being able to prosecute bank fraud because signal exists. Was it impossible before when criminals would talk in person instead over a recorded telephone?
There is a famous case of US Mafia meeting in rooms, or out on streets to discuss their "business activities" face to face to prevent authorities from surveilling the phone calls.
The reason we know is because authorities were able to place listening devices into the rooms that they were in, or surveil them from other buildings.
This is analogous to getting a warrant to someone’s phone. (Chat control is like putting a microphone into every room in case the government wants to listen after the fact.)
I’m still unconvinced that this make’s law enforcement’s job so hard that something has to give.
No, there is definitely abuse of lawful interception.
But, in a jurisdiction with a functioning rule of law, these abuses can be spotted and remedied.
Doing the same for mass surveillance (such as ChatControl) or state-sponsored malware is much harder.
I'm advocating against ChatControl and malware, and proposing existing lawful interception frameworks as an alternative. But, apparently it's not my day :)
Why would the malware industry benefit from digital message privacy?
If you're the victim, just hand over the relevant chats yourself. Otherwise, just follow the money. And if the attackers are sitting in a country whose banks you can't get to cooperate, intercepting chat messages from within that country won't do you any good either.
Also, if someone has malicious intent and is part of a criminal network, the people within that network would hardly feel burdened by all digital messages on all popular apps being listened in on by the government. These people will just use their own private applications. Making one is like 30min of work or starting at $50 on fiverr.
”Follow the money”. Yes, let’s decide that no bank is to have anything to do with crypto from next year. And not do business with other banks that accepts crypto. That would help stop fraud much more effective than
Chat Control.
For the vast majority of crypto currencies tracing the transactions is trivial. And even currencies like XMR are hardly as anonymous as people think.
The challenging regulations around technically anonymous crypto currencies require you to actively make trackable arrangements with your financial service providers. VERY few people will ever do this, and therefore if anything suspicious were to occur, all you've achieved is putting yourself on the suspect list preemptively.
Sure, if you want to read the messages, but the whole point is that that's rarely necessary and the price isn't worth the minimal gain.
Of the serious criminals, the only ones you'll be catching are those with low technical knowledge (everyone else will just be using their own applications) and the Venn diagram of those with little tech knowledge and those whose digital privacy practices could deceive law enforcement resembles AA cups against a pane of glass.
Regarding Encrochat, it is no surprise that an (unintentional?) watering hole gathered up a bunch of tech-illiterate, the fallacy is that those people wouldn't have been caught if they weren't allowed to flock to a single platform for some time.
Would some people have not been caught until much later or even not at all? Sure, but if LE would do its job (and not ignoring, or even covering up, well known problem areas and organizations for years to decades), only those of low priority.
Is that little gain worth creating a tool to allow Iran or similar countries to check every families' messages if they suspect some family member might be gay?
Hard nope.
> Or just downvoting me.
Don't worry, I rarely do that and that's not just because I can't...
The prevailing opinion here seems to be that we’d really like for there to not be an omnipresent panopticon because protect the children or terrorists or, apparently, malware. If your imagination is particularly lacking on how this might be weaponized just remember that antifa is now designated as an terrorist organization in US, so you better not be a suspected member of it — as in, you best not have sent a buddy a message on signal about how those tiki torch carrying nazi larpers aren’t exactly great guys, or off to a black site you go for supporting terrorism.
If you want to prosecute people send physical goons, which are of limited quantity, rather than limitless, cheaper and better by the day pervasive surveillance of everybody and everything.
OK, sorry to keep repeating myself here, but... I strongly oppose any kind of "panopticon" like ChatControl.
What I would like to see, is, say, Signal complying with lawful interception orders in the same way that any EU telecoms provider currently does.
So, provide cleartext contents of communications to/from a cleary identified party, for a limited time, by judicial order, for a clearly specified reason.
> pervasive surveillance of everybody and everything
This is exactly what lawful intercept laws are supposed to prevent. And yeah, of course, abuse, but under a functioning rule of law there are at least ways to remedy that, unlike with mass surveillance and/or malware...
> I strongly oppose any kind of "panopticon" like ChatControl. What I would like to see, is, say, Signal [...] provide cleartext contents of communications to/from a cleary identified party
Those statements simply aren't compatible.
Right now, Signal is designed by cryptography experts to provide the best privacy we know how to build: messages are only readable by you or the intended recipient. "Lawful intercept" necessarily means some additional third party is given the ability to read messages.
It doesn't matter what kind of legal framework you have around that, because you can't just build a cryptosystem where the key is "a warrant issued under due process." There has to be a system, somewhere, that has access to plaintext messages and can give law enforcement and courts access. The judges, officers, technicians, suppliers, and software involved in building and using this system are all potential vectors by which this access can be compromised or misused -- whether via software or hardware attacks, social engineering, or abuse of power.
Maybe your country has "functioning rule of law", and every single government official and all the vendors they hire are pure as snow, but what about all the rest of us living in imperfect countries? What about when a less-than-totally-law-abiding regime comes into power?
You're proposing that we secure our private conversations with TSA luggage locks.
> You're proposing that we secure our private conversations with TSA luggage locks
No -- that's an incredibly reductive summary, and the attitude you display here is, if left unchecked, exactly what will allow something equally ridiculous like ChatControl to pass eventually.
There has been plenty of previous debate when innovations like postal mail, telegraph traffic and phone calls were introduced. This debate has resulted in laws, jurisprudence, and corresponding operating procedures for law enforcement.
You may believe there are no legitimate reasons to intercept private communications, but the actual laws of the country you live in right now say otherwise, I guarantee you. You may not like that, and/or not believe in the rule of law anymore anyway, but I can't help you with that.
What I can hopefully convince you of, is that there needs to be some way to bring modern technology in line with existing laws, while avoiding "9/11"-style breakdowns of civil rights.
We can draw analogy between any two things. An encrypted chat is not a letter in the mail or a call on the telephone. It is an entirely new thing. Backdooring such chats is not "bringing technology in line with existing laws" it is, very clearly, passing new laws, and creating new invasions of privacy. It must be justified anew. The justification for wiretapping was not that there was no way to fight crime without it. Otherwise, when the criminals became wise to it, and began to hold their conversations offline, there would have been a new law, requiring that all rooms be fitted with microphones that the police could tap into as necessary. No such law was passed. Instead, the justification for wiretapping was simply that, once police had identified some transmission as relating to the committing of a crime, they could obtain a warrant, and then tap into the communication. The physical capacity without any effort by uninvolved individuals was the entire justification. That capacity does not exist with encrypted chats. The analogy is therefore much closer to the "mandated microphones" described above. Everyone is being required to take action to reduce their own privacy, regardless of whether they are subject to a warrant.
What is most striking about our "mandated microphone" analogy is the utter futility of it. Criminals have no issue breaking the law, and hence have no issue outfitting a room with no microphones in which to carry out their dealings. The same is true of any law targeting encrypted chats.
For a real-world example of the problem you're describing, China's Salt Typhoon attacks compromised lawful intercept infrastructure in the USA to engage in espionage. A mandatory backdoor in Signal would be at risk from similar attacks.
I would rather online banking be impossible, or only available to those that take training and sign waivers, than have all my communications surveiled.
OK, you be you, But please note that I did not list "online banking becoming impossible" as a likely outcome. Merely malware continuing to be state-sponsored, or certain communications to be surveilled. Not all of yours, unless you draw an especially vinidicative judge (and yes, I'm assuming a functioning rule of law here -- if that's gone, what's left?)
> But please note that I did not list "online banking becoming impossible" as a likely outcome.
No, but it should be a likely and maybe even desired outcome, especially if a justification for surveillance is the prevention of online banking fraud among other crimes.
> Merely malware continuing to be state-sponsored, or certain communications to be surveilled.
Norms and mores change over time, so the only conclusion is that "certain communications" will become "all communications" at some point in the future. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Yeah, but laws tend to be more constant, and lawful interception laws are, 100% guaranteed, a thing, right now, in the country where you live.
They apply to telegrams, postal mail, telephone conversations, and a whole bunch of other things nobody really does anymore. They don't really apply to the things people do tend to do these days.
ChatControl is an incompetent attempt to remediate the lapses in law enforcement that this has caused. I strongly oppose it. But I also strongly oppose the idea that the Internet should be off limits for any kind of law enforcement, unless it is through dubious mechanisms like state-sponsored malware.
Your "slippery slope" argument is much more compelling in the absense of extended lawful interception than in the situation where Signal messages would somehow be equated to postcards or SMS messages...
And yet lawful intercept laws cannot force you to decrypt the OTP-encrypted physical letter you sent to your friend. (Except in authoritarian shitholes like the UK.) Same principles would seem to apply here.
A hot take: removing protections guaranteed by constitution should require modification of the constitution. There is already a "temporary" European regulation [1] that is in violation of the German constitution [2]. CSAR would be a further erosion of the legal foundation. Americans were happy when their federal laws that restrict marijuana use were simply ignored by executive fiat without proper processes, well, they aren't so happy now to see that other laws can be freely ignored too.
If people speak up and say "take away our rights" at a referendum, let that be their decision, not a political backroom deal.
> A hot take: removing protections guaranteed by constitution
Lawful intercept laws exist in most, if not all, EU countries.
It's just that super-national overlay services like Signal don't entirely fall within the framework of those.
So, there is now a choice: expand interception powers indefinitely (a.k.a. ChatControl, which, to make things crystal-clear, I'm 100% against), or bring new services into the fold of existing legislation.
No existing legislation requires proactive interception of mail, physical or electronic. Bringing new services into the fold of existing legislation would mean forbidding any proactive scanning by civilians and forbidding such scanning by authorities without a warrant or court order.
> proactive interception of mail, physical or electronic
Lawful interception is not proactive: it requires a judicial order to collect plaintext communications from/to specifically identified individuals (resident in the country demanding the interception), for a limited time and for a specific purpose.
ChatControl, which I strongly argue AGAINST would sort-of be what you describe. But: I. Am. Arguing. AGAINST. That.
A piece of open source software running on Alice's computer exchanges keys with a piece of open source software running on Bob's computer. Later Alice and Bob exchange messages encrypted with those keys through Charlie's server.
Eve, a police officer has evidence that Alice and Bob are messaging each other about crimes and obtains a warrant to require Charlie to intercept their communication. Charlie has no ability to do so because it is encrypted with keys known only by Alice and Bob.
If you want a different result, someone has to proactively change part of this process. Which part should change?
One option is to mandate that any encrypted messaging software also give a key to the government or the government's designee, but someone using open source software can modify it so that it doesn't do that, which would be hard or impossible to detect without a forensic search of their device.
Another option is to mandate that a service provider like Charlie's only deliver messages after verifying that it can decrypt them. This, too is hard to enforce because users can layer additional encryption on top of the existing protocol. Signal's predecessor TextSecure did that over SMS.
Both of those options introduce a serious security vulnerability if the mechanism for accessing the mandatory escrowed keys were ever compromised. Would you like to suggest another mechanism?
About the only thing I can think of is to mandate the use of (flawed) AI to identify messages that seem nonsensical and refuse to pass them, and then to play a game of Chinese-style DPI whack-a-mole in an attempt to suppress open alternatives.
If you have the ability to run custom software—even if it’s a bash script—you can develop secure alternatives. And even if you somehow restrict open source messaging, I can just use good old pen-and-paper OTP to encrypt the plaintext before typing it in, or copy/paste some other text pre-encrypted in another program. But even then, all this will do is kick off a steganographic arms race. AI generated text where the first letter of each word is the cyphertext may be nearly impossible to identify, especially at scale.
If anything like this were to pass, my first task would be making a gamified, user-friendly frontend for this kind of thing.
But that's not a fair statement. Police did their work for centuries but it was nowhere near "fine" by modern standards and today there's a hundred ways more to commit crime
why do you think they want relation trust. unless you mean trusting that if you go against the man, the man will come for you. maybe it would be better for s/trust/fear/
Malware has existed nearly since the dawn of computing. Making the world even less secure under the guise of combating w/e today's latest bogeyman is is not gonna solve that. And having secure private communications is not gonna make it worse.
That anyone thinks this blatantly obvious attack on free speech is actually going to be used only for law enforcement is wild to me.
> You want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud
No, that's not how lawful intercept laws work.
I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity.
ChatControl is not that, and it's one of the reasons it's a nonstarter.
"I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity."
They already have that in most (?) jurisdictions by now.
With a warrant, they can install a virus on the device that will then do targeted surveillance.
ChatControl is bad, because it is blanket surveillance of everyone without warrant.
But to further clarify: I would like existing lawful interception laws to be extended to services like Signal.
Not in the sense that any EU country should be able to break Signal crypto (as ChatControl proposes, and which I think is an utterly ill-advised idea), but that competent law enforcement agencies should be able to demand unencrypted Signal communications from/to an identified EU party, for a limited time and purpose, upon a (reviewable) judicial order.
Most, if not all, EU countries currently have similar laws applying to telegrams, snail mail, email, telephony and whatnot. If you don't like those either, that's fine, but that's the status quo, and I would like to see that extended to services like Signal, as opposed to incompetently dumb measures like ChatControl...
Ok, so you want to break Encryption by law demand.
Because this is what this means. Or how exactly would it work, technically?
Signal does not know the private key of the 2 parties. Signal would have to inject a infected update into the client .. which is also malware. I rather have just those on target devices with a warrant, instead of breaking all encryption.
Or would you go extreme and outlaw decentraliced encrypted communication alltogether?
> law enforcement of which countries, under which sets of laws?
We're taking about ChatControl here, so law enforcement of EU countries, under their respective laws, into which EU law should have been incorporated
> Should Thailand be granted access to enforce their lease majeste laws
Same answer as "should Thailand be granted arrest rights to enforce <whatever>": they submit a legal assistance request to the country where the alleged crime occurred.
In the case of a lawful interception request for "lease[sic] majeste" reasons, I'm pretty sure this would be immediately rejected.
But, if not, the EU subject of such interception would have lots and lots of avenues to get redress.
Again, and I'm getting sort of tired from repeating myself: "lawful interception" does not mean "indiscriminate surveillance at the whim of whomever" -- it is a well-defined concept that has been used to determine which telegrams and mail pieces to open and which telephone calls to record for ages now. Your country absolutely does it, as we speak, no matter where you live. It's just that modern technology has far outpaced the scope of this legislation, and things like ChatControl are (incompetent) responses to that.
ChatControl is not a good idea, and has very little chance of becoming reality. But to stop dumb proposals like this from coming up over and over again, something has got to give.
I’ll go a step further: if EU sovereigns claim the right to “lawfully intercept” their citizens' private communications, why shouldn’t every state enjoy the same privilege? Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Uganda will be exemplary custodians of such technology. You have nothing to fear, citizen: their democratic constitutions and impeccable legal codes will protect you.
Your comment is incoherent and displays a total misunderstanding of the technology. There is no way to make lawful intercept work with end-to-end encryption: it is mathematically impossible. And don't waste our time with stupid suggestions about key escrow or the like. We know that those keys will inevitably be leaked or misused for political purposes.
Fail to see that it would even work. If the scam has happened how would lawful interception afterwards help? The criminal can just use burner accounts and the chat log exist on the scammed persons device.
No matter what the state says, or what legislatures pass what laws, we're going to continue to live out our right to general purpose computing, including sending only what we choose to send over the wire, and encrypting content as we see fit.
That works until the government and media successfully push the narrative to the public that anyone using encryption is supporting child molesters and terrorists.
That doesn't counter the argument. The people arguing against encryption would just liken it to the government being able to use military equipment that you, as an individual, can't have. "Free communication is a dangerous tool, only the government can be entrusted with the power it provides" and so on.
This may work on boomers but for younger people 90% of the use of a phone is for messaging and obviously you don't want anyone listening in to your private conversations especially for sexting.
People are not going to stop sending each other their boobs or penii, and while that remains the case, encrypted messaging will thrive.
I like the sentiment but it sounds very similar to Soverign Citizen nonsense. You can't just plug your ears and say that a law doesn't apply to you because you didn't consent to it.
The reasoning isn't about consent or social contracts, but about the evolutionary trajectory of humankind.
By way of example: in the United States, the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees freedom of "the press" - it is referenced not by the right to print what one wants, but specifically in reference to the technology of the time, the printing press.
It's obvious that our evolutionary trajectory is one in which widely distributed general purpose computing is normal.
Making laws that contradict this is just childish, and at some point the adults in the room need to be willing to ignore them.
The CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it.
Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nicht. Wir müssen Wachsam bleiben. Mit dem Argument das es böse Menschen gibt, wurde schon viel böses getan. Massenüberwachung zerstört jede Gesellschaft. Deutschland hat mehrfach darunter gelitten. Und die Versuche Massenüberwachung einzuführen wiederholen sich.
Also, even AfD agrees with them on this.
I don't understand why AfD would be expected to disagree here. What, just on principle, because it's CDU/CSU?
AfD has f'd up views on many things. I wouldn't even be surprised if they would vote for it, as soon as they are in a position of power. However in its current state, they would hurt themselfs with a chat control law. So yes, your a right. I would also not expect them to vote for it.
AfD is consistently the pro-choice and pro-personal-freedom party in Germany. They are the only party advocating for an unrestricted American-style free speech and against all kinds of government mandates that other mainstream political parties are pushing.
You may disagree (or agree) with many of their other views, but as an opposition party, they are precisely the corrective Germany and Europe need to keep the power-hungry elites in check.
They voted to ban the terms vegan sausage and vegan burger just earlier today. So much about being pro free speech.
Votes by party affiliation and name to verify this can be accessed here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2025-10-...
As an American currently in Germany, the food situation is soooo much better here and they would do well to not allow incorrect or misleading labels on consumer products. I understand what you’re saying about censorship, but this is a pretty weak example, IMO. We had something similar in the US with attempts to ban the word “milk” from “almond milk” [0]. Are there other examples that are more egregious?
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/almond-milk-can-keep...
It’s not misleading in any way for consumers though. The consumer protection agency in Germany explicitly stated that no consumers have been confused so far (https://www.wiwo.de/100160889.html). The vegan/vegetarian sausages such as the soja sausage, which Konrad Adenauer invented more than 100 years ago, are in a completely different section and shelf in the supermarket and clearly marked as vegetarian. This law is a clear example of the government banning people from calling their products what they are and it is the opposite of free speech.
I dont understand that view : peanut butter, coconut milk, cacao butter and plenty, plenty others exemples exist probably since languages apparition. A vegetal burger shouldn’t be called beef burger obviously but we all know what almond milk means. The misleading argument isn’t serious but an attempt to block a cultural changes some don’t like or profit from.
Further, then the term beef shouldn’t be allowed.
They should call it what it is. Cow corpse flesh.
The concept of calling a food that is meant to mimic another food with an appropriate modifier in front has existed forever.
So, for example, white chocolate isn’t chocolate…but with the appropriate modifier no one is confused about it.
Also, in regards to the “cow corpse flesh” comment, I think we (particularly Americans) are far too detached from the fact that eating meat is downstream from killing an animal. If we had more appreciation for that fact, perhaps we would be eating more plant-forward meals. Whether or not that would lead to a decrease in obesity or other co-morbidities would be interesting to test.
In English, we frequently use the French-derived version of the same animal to mean the food version.
I agree with you on white chocolate (and Hershey’s chocolate bar for that matter).
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I wouldn't assume this to be their position were they already in power. They however need votes to get into power to implement that takeover. Parties like this inherently need to run on a (deceptive) populist platform for the plan to work.
While you can force law abiding people to give up their encryption because it's against the law there's no way to prevent encryption from being used by people that are already violating several laws...
However, for the same reason, it's in everybody else's best interest that an organisation that might be taken over by fascists not have access to a panopticon.
I think that "everybody else" include literal fascists. Nazi's Gestapo had serious issues with Wernher von Braun to the point Hitler had to be bothered. East Germany's Stasi had more personnel per capita than Russian KGB had. They would know that a secret police in a German state isn't a great idea regardless of ideology.
Had Hitler not able to stop Gestapo from sending von Braun to a death camp, not only history of spaceflight would have been delayed by decades, but the associated reputational bonuses to postwar Germany as "genius tech nerds that made a gross mistake" had been way lower. Not having the panopticon and just keeping freedom of speech and privacy as they are removes that type of risk. No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.
> No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.
Unless Germany's serious neo-Nazis are especially wiser than America's equivalent far-right groups (which have played the political game well enough to achieve significant power already), I am not sure current evidence supports this supposition.
[flagged]
The Verfassungsschutz disagrees with you.
The Verfassungsschutz is anything but objective.
And even if: They don't at all claim that the AfD plans a "fascist takeover". I've read the whole report. Did you?
Sure. That is why the former boss had to step down. But by now they surely weeded out all the nazi sympathisers?
Are you aware of the NSU case?
"They don't at all claim that the AfD plans a "fascist takeover""
But no, they don't claim that. They claim parts of the AfD plan a fascist takeover.
they also don’t claim the last thing.
"https://netzpolitik.org/2025/verdachtsfall-rechtsextremismus..."
Then maybe read again.
"Der Verfassungsschutz belegt Bestrebungen gegen das Demokratieprinzip in der AfD. Auf allen Ebenen der Partei wird demnach die demokratische Nachkriegsentwicklung der Bundesrepublik diffamiert sowie der Staat und die Parteien verunglimpft. „Gewichtigen Teilen der Partei“ geht es „nicht mehr um eine scharfe kritische Auseinandersetzung in der Sache“. Stattdessen soll das Vertrauen in die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung „von Grund auf erschüttert“ werden, damit „die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung als Ganzes fragwürdig erscheine“.
Der Verfassungsschutz belegt Bestrebungen gegen das Rechtsstaatsprinzip in der AfD. In der Partei wird demnach die Gewaltenteilung abgelehnt, das staatliche Gewaltmonopol infrage gestellt und sich auf ein vermeintlich legitimes Widerstandsrecht berufen. Einerseits ergeben diese Aussagen laut Gutachten „kein verfestigtes Bild innerhalb der Gesamtpartei“. Andererseits wäre die Verwirklichung der „menschenwürdewidrigen und diskriminierenden Vorstellungen letztlich nicht ohne eine Verletzung des Rechtsstaatsprinzips umsetzbar“."
"Bei einer Kundgebung in Merseburg (ST) am 25. Mai 2020 konstatierte Daniel Wald (MdL, ST), dass im Zuge der Corona-Maßnahmen eine „Gesundheitsdiktatur“ errichtet worden sei, gegen die er zum Widerstand aufrief:
There are hundreds of statement verifying their goals of a violent takeover. They don't respect any of the democratic institution. They refer positiv to Nazi germany. They are connected to the literal Nazis of today.That is called preparing for a fascist takeover.
this is your reading my friend. in your whole quote, there is no mentioning of the word “fascist”.
also nothing about “violent takeover”. if you take those statements to mean that, then what is Antifa doing? Or XR? Or the pro-pallies?
ah right. only radical left is allowed to use “violence”, right?
So .. you are saying because modern fascists seldom use the term fascist for themself, they ain't no fascist?
Well, to me it is enough if people subscribe openly to all the main ideology of Hitlers party and that time in general.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck.
Höcke can be officially called a Fascist due to his statements. Was he removed from the party? Or shunned even a little?
Not as far as I am aware.
If a party negates the democratic foundations of the state they are - they do, see the quotes
If they connect with people and organisations who openly call for the nationalistic revolution - they do, see the quotes.
And if the Verfassungsschutz collects all that and labels them "largely radical right extremism" .. then it say exactly what I was saying. Preparation for a violent uprising. Just not in immediate action, otherwise they would be forbidden.
He is just a bought troll, ignore him. Most of his comments got deleted from hn, just look at his profile. The ones he made here don’t even show up.
Edit: I mean the one with lol in his name.
Thank you. I got triggered ..
It's not that the so-called "modern fascists" don't use the term, it's that the VS does not even use the term. Not that it matters because it lost any meaning anyway.
Also the AfD does not subscribe to the main ideology of Hitlers party. Did you read the party's program? Where in god's name do you find anything in there that can be compared to the program of the NSDAP? The AfD is in large parts much more liberal than any of the other parties when it comes to the economic side of things. The AfD is also not against immigration per se, as long as it provides a benefit for teh country. Much like countries like Canada do. If you don't believe me, watch some speeches from their members, for instance the one that took place in Hannover a while ago. Don't believe just randomly what some leftist ARD/ZDF journalists want you to believe.
DieLinke on the other hand is a direct follow-up party from the SED. They want to end our capitalistic system and replace it with democratic socialism. That's 1:1 SED.
Anway, coming to Höcke. Höcke is far-right. For sure. Is he extreme? Does he want to use violence? Nope. I don't think so. It looks like people elect him in a demogratic elections. Does he say things that are on the edge? Sure! Is that his right: YES! If you don't like him, then don't vote for him. Attack his arguments with your own arguments. Labelling him fascist is a poor tactic and doesn't mean anything anymore anyway.
And you know. You base your arguments on the Verfassungsschutz. I think its a biased agency that should be removed from power as soon as possible. Same as with most of the judges, especially the radical left judges in Berlin. And I know, I know, you will call this now "anti-democratic" or whatever. Well, in a democracy, it is my RIGHT and my DUTY to critique the powers that be. That also includes the judges. Left wingers did that as well, until they successfully conducted their marche throught the institutions. Now, they LOVE the institutions. Don't believe me? The Greens SUED at the Verfassungsgericht, I think in 1983, AGAINST Germanys entry in the EU. Together with the Republicans. The reason? The EU is anti-democratic. Well, they lost because the Verfassungsgericht was pro-EU back then. However, now they LOVE the EU. Were TheGreens now less democratic than they are now? Were TheGreens "fascists" or "Nazis" or whatever you wanna call them becasue they dared to critize the institutions? The answer is no. And so aren't people that are critizing the current institutions.
And finally, to the guy claiming that I am a troll and that my posts are hidden. That's bs. I posted here maybe 10 times. And I am not a troll but a sincere citizen who just happens to really like the AfD and what it stands for.
You only become a Verdachtsfall when your organization is deemed to want to dismantle the state, get rid of rule of law or want to erase basic human rights.
"You base your arguments on the Verfassungsschutz."
I live in saxony ffs.
So I do believe you are not a payed troll, as I had countless debates with people like you.
I just don't believe you really have a intention of having a honest debate here.
AfD is classified as extreme-right not only in the eyes of the public, but also by German intelligence. Therefore I'd personally expect them to support potential tools that authoritarian governments would find useful.
They are not in government just yet. But if they gain control, expect their position to change. That's why it is critical to reverse government positions across the block, or we'll see a new authoritarian wave sweep Europe.
I was thinking just this. Anyone strongly opposed by those in power (whether right, left, or whatever) will oppose the concentration or power.
Very few are principled enough to stick to that in power.
[flagged]
[flagged]
- All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits).
- The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome...
- Europe needs to spend its savings to get nuclear going again, with a massive construction program for nuclear, solar, hydro, batteries. It also needs battery tech re-capitalisation to keep its car industry viable.
- Leaving won't make it better, it is the same or worse in most places you could go.
The nuclear energy thing is a lark. The German nuclear base was already old and minimal by the time those decisions were made (unless you're talking about Greens in the 90s - but they barely had any power). Fundamentally Fukushima happened and Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had.
Anyway, nuclear just wasn't driving big energy percentages at low prices so getting rid of it had minimal impact.
The big impact was Russian gas being severed.
> Merkel realized that the blast radius of full sized nuclear plants is too big for Germany and there's no expectation that Germany has better controls than Japan had.
Unfortunate that she didn't realize that Germany does have less devastating earthquakes and tsunamis than Japan has. Less as in effectively zero.
Merkel is like the Caracalla of modern-day EU. Responsible for 3 of the biggest crises that the union is currently facing today. I do not know why people give a damn about that hag when all she did was stand up to Trump and laugh at him (while cozying up to Putin who threatened her with a dog, literally).
Nuclear energy is very expensive and does not necessarily provide energy security. You just have to check on the energy usage in France during the summer, when the nuclear power plants had to be shut down repeatedly now. Pushing nuclear power would neither provide reliable nor cheap energy. The route forward is solar, hydro, wind and batteries.
Yet it used to be very cheap. In some places it still is cheap whilst being much safer than in the past. Meanwhile the requirements for it and the processes it has to abide by are kafkaesque. Not in a double down on security way. Just plain nonsensical.
I have heard so many stories from outside and people workin in it. Things like considering refabricating the same lightbulb from some now non existant company from the 80's because that one got listed and is certified and the process to go trough to allow a new one is too cumbersome and the light went out in the toilets of some irrelevant sidebuilding. So you get a lightbulb that costs an insane amount.
Or here in belgium the greens pushed some new tests to detect microfisures deep in a ridiculously thick vat that isn't security critical that would have been there since fabrication and which nobody else in the world checks for and they shut down the place for it when found. Anything to validate their own theory that nuclear is too expensive whilst planning for new gas plants.
Meanwhile the plant in france that was shut down is because they didn't want to have an ecological impact on a nearby nature reserve. Something that indeed wasn't accounted for decades ago. At the same time one manages to have such plants running in Saudi Arabia?
Additionally Germany has spend untold amounts more on it's renewables. It still hasn't linked it's own damn grids, put strain on infrastructure and prices abroad... and those same investments won't go for nearly as long. A good part of that green wave investment already needs replacing. All whilst necessitating fossil fuel production because that capacity figure that people hold up means jack shit when it's not what they actually produce in summer and those panels in berlin produce not even a fraction of that capacity in winter.
It was never cheap. Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users, but not cheap in general. You can read a writeup of the parliamentary scientific service about that at https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88...
A striking example is the German state having to pay for storing the nuclear waste (temporary and final, see https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckba..., though Germany has no final storage). Also when tearing down the old plants it can happen that the state is paying for that, as in https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-n.... Those costs were not part of the calculated energy costs, and in the past there were further subventions for the companies that lowered the price. Those are also listed at my first link.
>Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users
You think that isn't happening even more now?
And yes it was a lot cheaper than it is now. One reason being that a lot more were built around that time in europe and our reactors actually went up in about 5 years.
Nuclear, while not cheap, is clean. Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production. All this endless talk about nuclear and whatnot, but other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now. A goal that Germany will never reach.
True, nuclear is clean, but only if the final storage question is ignored. (I would have used nuclear reactors for longer, at least so that those that were already built could work until they reach their planned end of life. But until the storage question isn't solved properly, one perhaps should not advocate for new nuclear reactors.)
The problem is nobody wants nuclear waste near their front door, even limited politicians were quick to realize that.
And yes, Germany's energy mix is a shame.
Nuclear is not clean. It causes toxic nuclear waste that will still be radioactive when our civilization ends, radiating the humans of the future. CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage.
> other EU country's have been net neutral for CO2 emissions for a while now.
No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please.
> Coal and Gas account for 40% of Germany's energy production
Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing.
> CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage.
Not nearly even in the same ballpark as setting fossil fuels on fire, or do you have any sources that show otherwise?
The low figure of CO2 usage often cited is based on an estimation you can read at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.... I don't remember it giving a clear estimate on how much it rises, but that is understandable, as already the current estimate is not a reliable figure.
But it's the wrong comparison. Nuclear energy is not to be replaced with fossil energy, but with renewables. So that "advantage" is completely irrelevant.
> Nuclear energy is not to be replaced with fossil energy, but with renewables. So that "advantage" is completely irrelevant.
This is exactly what Germany did tho.
> Nuclear is not clean
The EU court agrees with me. I trust it to have more knowledge than either of us. Nuclear is low-carbon. End of story. You can deal with toxic waste easily. [1]
> adiating the humans of the future.
Gas and coal produce more radiation than nuclear energy.
> CO2 emissions are also still caused by it, and would grow when mining for nuclear material got harder by continued usage.
But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious.
> No EU country has achieved that, to my knowledge. It would be very surprising giving the EU energy mix and the petrol based traffic sector. Sources please.
Sorry, mistake on my part, I meant low carbon electricity (so not burning literal poison, like Germany). Let's take France, the very country you critiqued [2]. Or Norway. Or Switzerland [3]. Now, compare it with Germany [4]. Note that every country that achieves a high score can either rely on geothermal energy or hydro, neither of which is reliably useable in Germany. So for anyone who can't make use of these technologies, nuclear is the only option.
> Which means 60% is renewable, and that part is actually growing.
There is a hard limit here for Germany. We are not a prime candidate for neither wind nor thermal energy, so our renewable mix actually decreased this year, back to 55%. [5] We need a flexible backup option for situations like this. The only option is either continuing to burn dirty fuel, go back to nuclear energy or to make ourselves eternally dependent to buy electricity from other EU states (which is the current plan).
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/europe-nuclear-energy-natural-gas...
[2]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/France
[3]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Switzerland
[4]: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Germany
[5]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
You can not deal with toxic waste easily, as all attempts to do so have shown. See https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de... for a report.
Nuclear energy is decidedly not a flexible backup option for anything. Those plants are slow to regulate, have never been and will never be a backup. The solution is energy storage and producing so much more at the peak that at the low end is enough. Also, there is no problem importing from countries that do have more geothermal or hydro energy.
> But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious
The comparison is invalid in the first place. It's not about nuclear vs fossil, I never did argue for fossil energy. So the comparison you opened up is bs anyway. It's a propaganda talk point of nuclear proponents that tries to mislead from the actual comparison to make, which is renewables vs the other options.
The decision of the EU court was unfortunate, stupid, and that appeal to authority does not function.
> You can not deal with toxic waste easily, as all attempts to do so have shown.
This is, factually speaking, not what attempts have shown. cf. France, cf. Canada.
> The comparison is invalid in the first place. It's not about nuclear vs fossil
This topic of discussion started with someone explicitly making the comparison about exactly that.
Nuclear is cheap if you still have the expertise to make plants cheaply. Countries like Korea, India and China are rapidly expanding nuclear power plants, building them in the range of $2-5 billion dollars, while a smaller-sized plant in the West would set the books back by at least $5 billion. Korea is even winning bids internationally to build powerplants - first they won the bid to build the UAE's first powerplant, and more recently they won the bid to build another large powerplant in Czechia.
> The lack of energy security is because the Red/Greens convinced everywhere except France (go Framatome!) to give up nuclear. I wonder why resource rich Russia would push such an outcome...
This is completely untrue. The Atomaustieg happened under Merkel (CDU) and was catalyzed by Fukushima. That's democracy, for you, btw.
The current energy "crisis" was due to idiotic trust (CDU/SPD) in Russia's goodwill and consequently opting for huge structural natural gas dependency. Foreign energy dependency wouldn't change with with nuclear power, since uranium isn't mined in Germany. Russia actually is a major uranium exporter (btw still supplying the US). Uranium mines are a horrible dirty shit show, western nations tend to outsource...
Another grave mistake was discontinuing the funding/support of renewable energy industry and research, where Germany was leading once. Now, China rules in solar manufacturing. Germany still got game for wind energy, tho.
Germany does not have a need for "base load" nuclear power plants, we need a substitute for gas power plants, which can be easily turned on/off as needed. Factually, no one in the energy industry in Germany wants to go nuclear, again. It's just not economical, sensible (as for time scales) or overall competitive with renewables (unless less regulated/dangerous, enormously substituted).
Overall, we got mostly off Russian gas dependency exceptionally well and quick, all things considered, because of pragmatic green politics at the time (Habeck's image suffered because of deliberate smear campaigns, not because of severe factual failings). Lights stayed on, things kept moving, under downright hostile conditions. Renewable energy is booming. You see solar everywhere, no matter the political alignment.
Considering the real threat of war with Russia, distributed renewables are an invaluable asset. Try bombing wind power or solar... gonna get expensive. Many houses here are becoming quasi autarkic for heating, electricity and mobility, due to household solar panels, heat pumps, energy storage in electric cars and dedicated batteries. A central multi-GW nuclear power plant is a huge liability for national security, especially, since Germany is existentially dependent on the French and UK strategic nuclear deterrent. (US not reliable/trustworthy anymore.)
The only sensible reason to build reactors in Germany would be breading/enriching weapons-grade fission material, for self-sufficient nuclear defense... Which I don't see happening really.
> This is completely untrue. The Atomaustieg happened under Merkel (CDU) and was catalyzed by Fukushima. That's democracy, for you, btw.
So, when the government does something populistic (with majority support) that is bad for the country, it's a democracy.
But when the government refuses to do something populistic (with majority support) that is good for the country, that's also democracy.
Looks like our democracy #unsereDemokratie it is not possible to do good, only harmful dealings are allowed :)
I suggest you read the German constitution, if you have questions about these sort of things.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
I suggest you explain your point here instead of dropping random links in a typical passive-aggressive way that suggests the poster has no clue and needs to be educated about the basics. That may work in your SPD Kreisverband, but not in a digital Neuland.
If you have questions about how to respond, this is a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_alphabet
> All your fellow citizens keep voting for said welfare state/pension system (which is undoubtedly pro-Boomer and has unsustainably low retirement ages and large benefits).
60% of the voting block is above 55. Of course they would.
>>I have over 50% of my income taken from me into a collapsing welfare state/pension system
That's incredibly high - where do you live if you don't mind saying?
Anywhere in Germany? Our pre-tax income is pre-pre-taxed. Before your employer pays out your wage, they are taxed for it as well.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong - but according to this random website I found in 5 seconds of googling:
https://www.expat.hsbc.com/expat-explorer/expat-guides/germa...
The highest band of income tax in Germany is 45% and obviously that's only on any amount over the threshold - so even if you make that much money your effective tax rate will be closer to 30% than 50%.
So unless I'm missing something - I don't see how Germans could be paying 50% tax on their earnings?
> Well, correct me if I'm wrong - but according to this random website I found in 5 seconds of googling:
I will, because you are! Unfortunately, it's really easy because the German government applies a simple slight of hand. They call it a "gross employer contribution", which increases this band of income tax beyond the 45% you pay after the GEC. [1]
It works like this: As your employer is paying your wage, amount X, they pay half of your contribution to social insurance companies. This so called "employer contribution" is subtracted before you are paid out your gross wage, amount Y, which you see on your pay slip. Now, on amount Y, you pay the other half of social insurance fees and taxes. Then you get your net, amount Z. Most sources you will find online will only talk about Y and what is subtracted to get to Z. But your employer pays your full wage for what your work is worth, and they of course are not as nice to gift your one half of social insurance payments to you.
[1]: https://publikationen.bundesbank.de/publikationen-de/bericht...
I mean sure, but does that actually add up to over 50% of your income? Here in the UK it works exactly the same as you described, but the NI is 10% of your income - even if you are in the highest band for incomne tax(also 45%) you wouldn't get to 50% overall, maybe if you make millions a year that average would start getting close to 50% (and if you do, congrats!)
And can I comment on the fact that Germany seems to be incredibly generous with their bands - the 45% band only kicks in at 280k euro, so like maybe 0.00001% of all workers are in that band? Here in the UK you start paying 45% from £125k and up.
Anyway - the reason why I'm asking is because UK taxes and social obligations seem to be crazy high as it is, but even they won't get you to 50% total, not unless you literally make millions in income per year.
I don't know about Germany, but in France for 100k gross salary, the employer social contributions will be around 40k, the employee social contributions another 20.5k, then 15.5k income tax.
In the end 140k that employer pays result in less than 64k take-home salary. The real tax rate is around 54%. So, I can't verify what OP says about Germany but I can easily believe it.
You can see chatgpt calculations here (and they do match my experience): https://chatgpt.com/share/68e64456-020c-800b-8443-1a2726e9a3...
Right, but I've never met anyone who looks at it this way - this part: "the employer social contributions will be around 40k"
Is not your salary. This is what the employer has to pay to keep you. So even in your example your tax on your earnings is around 35%. The fact that the employer has to pay another 40k to keep you employed is......well, shocking, but I wouldn't say that's a tax rate on your earnings - for the simple reason that if the government reduced the employer contribution to zero it wouldn't change anything about your take home salary(unless your employer decided to be generous and give you a raise).
> Right, but I've never met anyone who looks at it this way - this part: "the employer social contributions will be around 40k". Is not your salary.
I don't know, maybe you should speak more to people about this. Literally everyone who I discussed it with (like dozens of people) see it in the same way:
* There's the money your employer spends to pay your salary
* There's the money you take home
* Everything in between is the government tax. There's absolutely no difference between "employer social contributions" and "employee social contributions" except in the name
Well now I kind of know one person who sees it differently, but this PoV still doesn't make sense to me.
> for the simple reason that if the government reduced the employer contribution to zero it wouldn't change anything about your take home salary(unless your employer decided to be generous and give you a raise).
Believe it or not, but for multi-national companies job offers in France are smaller for this very reason: you have a fixed budget to hire an employee, you subtract the "employers contributions" and calculate the gross salary you can offer in various countries where you have legal entities. There's also the "adjust to local market part", it's not a single-factor formula of course, but "contributions" play a huge role in it. After all budget is budget, you can go lower if you like but you can't go higher.
> Believe it or not, but for multi-national companies job offers in France are smaller for this very reason: you have a fixed budget to hire an employee, you subtract the "employers contributions" and calculate the gross salary you can offer in various countries where you have legal entities.
This! It's hard for me how some people can't see this.
We can see it, it's obvious that the system in France(and other EU countries) works this way, it's just not really relevant when talking about salary. When I sign an employment contract for 100k euro that's my income. The fact that the employer then has to pay another 40k or 100k or a 1M euro on top of it to keep me employed is not really relevant because it's not my salary - it's their cost to keep me employed. The main proof being in two things
1) like I asked you in another comment - if that contribution was removed, I'm sure you wouldn't feel like you got a paycut.
2) if that did happen, your employer wouldn't magically decide to give that money to you instead, right? It is not and never was your income.
Well obviously, yes, but again, I don't know anyone who looks at it this way. If your salary is £100k and you know your effective tax rate is 35% then you're taking home £65k a year. I don't know how much on top of that my employer is paying in contributions, if it's another £100k on top or zero - and frankly I don't really care? The negotiated salary is £100k/pa and that's what anyone uses as a number of their compensation, if I ask you your salary and you say it's €140k but that's including my employers social contributions......that's just weird? Are jobs advertised this way in France?
Edit:
I just want to add one more thing - this entire comment chain started by OP saying, and I quote "I have over 50% of my income taken from me into a collapsing welfare state/pension system".
The money that the employer pays to have you employed isn't your income, so adding it to your total earnings and saying "well I'm paying 50% of my income to the state" is just not correct. The employer probably pays money for the office and a desk for you to sit at, but it's not your income - it's part of their cost to keep you employed. I will say it again - if those costs dropped down to zero, you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you?
No, I'm sorry but this is just pointless, arguing about some technicality like "you can't call that income". That doesn't matter, these are just words.
What matters in real life is the size of the cut the government gets from the employee-employer transaction. That cut definitely includes all the "employer contributions". The bigger it is, the less the employee gets.
And no, it's not the same as the cost of buying the desk. If would be the same if the state prohibited remote work making a desk a necessity and then forced everyone to buy desks from state-owned providers at the price set by the state. In this case -- yes, absolutely, this becomes a "desk tax" which is eating into your income.
UPD Since you insist, I'll address this part too:
> I will say it again - if those costs dropped down to zero, you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you?
I'll go to my boss directly and say that "my income is now smaller than it should be" and ask for increase in gross. If this doesn't work out, I'll go and get an offer elsewhere. Knowing how hiring and budgeting works, this is the only sane course of action. Companies suddenly find them with money they've already budgeted but aren't spending, expect the arms race for professions with high demand.
In parallel to that I'll make sure to distribute raises to key members of my team anticipating them doing the same. I'll lose a few less valuable members of the team in the process because they'll receive offers that I won't be willing to counter.
In general, I pay more attention to what people do, not what they say. This is why I didn't reply to the question "you wouldn't say your income is now smaller, would you?" the first time -- it's inconsequential, but we can consider it if you like.
>>That doesn't matter, these are just words.
Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent.
>>I'll go to my boss directly and say that "my income is now smaller than it should be" and ask for increase in gross
......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid. If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too?
>>The bigger it is, the less the employee gets
Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would.
>>In general, I pay more attention to what people do, not what they say
But this is a comments section on hacker news - discussion is the entire point.
But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet.
> Except it isn't, because you keep doing this to pretend like you're paying 50% of your salary in taxes which just isn't true. No one advertises a job as "pays €60k a year" and then you find out it includes the employer contribution too so actually your salary is more like €40k. If anyone did that you'd call it fraudulent.
You consider the world as static picture where a salary is what your contract says it is. It doesn't have to be like this. Your salary is what you contract says, but you have a certain power over what it says. Contract by itself is a derivative of the economic situation, not the source of truth.
In the end your salary is what you can negotiate and in this view you salary is heavily affected by employer contributions because it affects the negotiations. If your negotiation power increases, your salary can increase. If it drops, the company will pay you 3 months of wage, fire you and hire someone cheaper.
> ......why? You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid.
Because I'm getting the maximum of what I can negotiate with the company. If they suddenly have more money in the people budget, I can obviously negotiate more. And if not, I'm getting a better offer elsewhere because the job market is very different now.
> If your employer negotiated cheaper electricity deal for the office would you go and ask for a raise too?
It depends, in a realistic scenario: no, because electricity is not a part of the people's budget, impact on the company profitability will be near zero and in the end this doesn't change the job market much, only affects my company locally. So counteroffer technique won't work either.
However in an imaginary case of electricity prices crashing all across the country overnight making businesses more profitable: yes, I think I'll try to negotiate a raise.
> Again, why? The company would just pocket the money and not pay you more. I honestly don't see why they would.
It depends on how hard it is to replace you. Effectively there's new money on the table and you'll split that money with your employer. If you're hard to replace, you'll take the bigger cut or even all of it. If you're easy to replace, you get zero or else they'll get someone else who agrees to get zero.
> But look, we just aren't going to agree on this. I just never met anyone in my life who would consider their employer's legal obligations paid directly to the state as part of their salary - if you do that's cool, I have no interest in making you change that view, we're two random strangers on the internet.
Of course, we argue for the pleasure of it but I think our intentions are different. I don't have a goal of changing your definition of words -- you can keep the ones you like. However I think it's worth trying to change your world view. My suggestion: try thinking of your salary (if you're a hired worker) as something you can negotiate not something set in stone (you can call it $alary if you like). Twice in my career I approached my employer with an external offer and twice I got a 2x counter-offer. They didn't say "You are paid exactly what you agreed to be paid", it's not how it works.
You need to play it well but it's an extremely strong negotiation technique. There are others but they're more complicated to execute so I suggest to start with this one.
> Is not your salary.
It IS your salary. If the employer didn't pay it, YOU would have to pay it anyway. If you are a freelancer, you will have to pay that employers share anyway.
It's the cost of social security systems, and someone has to pay it: You. With your work hours and salary.
>>It IS your salary. If the employer didn't pay it, YOU would have to pay it anyway.
So if the government reduced the share that the employers pay down to zero tomorrow, would you then go to your partner/family/friends and say "hey, I just got a paycut at work" ?
When you are negotiating payment for any good and service, you care only what the end cost is to you.
It doesn't matter how you decide to slice it - "this share you pay, this share I pay" at the end of the day it will be seen through the lens of Total Cost of Ownership.
I like how you didn't answer my question. If you don't see it as a paycut then it's not part of your salary.
>>you care only what the end cost is to you.
Yes, so I care what my salary is. What the employer has to legally pay to employ me is literally irrelevant other than academically. It's not my salary, the same how their cost of maintaining an office or providing me with equipment to do my job isn't my salary.
No, it adds up to almost 50% of your wage. People who make millions of dollars (freelancers, company shareholders, etc) pay capital gains taxes of 25%. High earning people have capital, not a wage, either by way of company shares or asset payouts. They pay a tiny bit more tax and no social obligations
You forget that the 42% band kicks in at 68000 (up until 280k) not 10k from the median wage. You pay this with 1.2% of the median wage, when in the distant past (around 1960) you had 42% at 15 times the median wage. They never changed these bands to adjust for inflation.
>> People who make millions of dollars (freelancers, company shareholders, etc) pay capital gains taxes of 25%. High earning people have capital, not a wage, either by way of company shares or asset payouts. They pay a tiny bit more tax and no social obligations
Yes, obviously - it works the same way here. You just said that "anywhere in Germany" you will pay 50% of your income in taxes, so I'm asking if your average worker actually pays that, or even a high earning IT worker/lawyer/doctor, or just somone who takes home millions in pay(not capital gains) so that the averages catch up.
>>You forget that the 42% band kicks in at 68000 (up until 280k) not 10k from the median wage.
I didn't forget, but like I said 3 comments earlier - your average will work out closer to 30% not 50%(I'd guess) because you only pay it on anything above the threshold, not on your entire income. Again, Germany seems very generous here - in the UK you start paying 40% once you cross £50k/pa.
> You just said that "anywhere in Germany" you will pay 50% of your income in taxes, so I'm asking if your average worker actually pays that
I earn about 60k (the government pays me, so you can look this up) and that is my effective rate of tax.
> They call it a "gross employer contribution"
It feels disingenuous to me to see "someone else pays tax, so that counts as a tax on me" leveled as a serious argument.
Maybe it's just my cold pragmatism speaking, but if your employer suddenly didn't have to pay that tax, I don't think they would bump your salary up.
Americans make this same argument (they call it "trickle down economics"). So far, it doesn't seem to have worked out for them.
> It feels disingenuous to me to see "someone else pays tax, so that counts as a tax on me" leveled as a serious argument.
They don't pay tax. They pay half of the social insurance fee for their employer. Of course that half is part of the wage you're being paid.
> Maybe it's just my cold pragmatism speaking, but if your employer suddenly didn't have to pay that tax, I don't think they would bump your salary up.
I could certainly use that range to negotiate my salary.
> Americans make this same argument (they call it "trickle down economics"). So far, it doesn't seem to have worked out for them.
None of this has anything to do with trickle down economics. The trick is that if social insurance payments go up, which they do a lot, my employer is charged automatically and I no longer have that room for negotiating a raise.
> Anywhere in Germany? Our pre-tax income is pre-pre-taxed. Before your employer pays out your wage, they are taxed for it as well.
What? No. I'm an employer in Germany and I can tell you that's wrong.
Then you should really have a look at either your payroll or this simple calculator: https://www.steuertipps.de/service/rechner/brutto-netto-geha...
People frequently hold remarkably strong opinions on a system they appear to have very little understanding about.
Yea, and it's the guy above ironically. If I add my net here [1], I can see that I land pretty much exactly at 49.7% of my wage being deducted from when my employer pays me to where it lands on my bank account.
[1]: https://www.steuertipps.de/service/rechner/brutto-netto-geha...
You are not living under socialism, but under capitalism, don't try to paint it another way.
No, the defined economic model in Germany is called "Social market economy", not capitalism. It is one of the systems furthest removed from capitalism that is not yet Socialism (or similar systems). It's a regulated market economic model and it is designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism. You can read this up if you like.
Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality.
> It's a regulated market economic model
So is the USA.
> Yes and North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names don't reflect reality.
Our model came first, then came the name. I explained it's origins thoroughly, it is rooted in economic theory and it is what is really happening in Germany. It's codified in Articles 20 and 14 of our constitution. Social welfare is among the best in the world and covers a lot, but taxes are high. This would never happen in any free market economic models. I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.
What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers? What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits?
Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism?
> I recommend you read up on it a bit before making snarky comments on the internet.
It's not a snarky comment. Regulation and welfare are requirements even in a capitalist economy, otherwise you have people dying on the streets en masse and companies dumping toxic waste next to the fields where you grow food. You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things.
The US has more "freedom" in this sense than Germany - is the average person doing better over there? I don't think so, I certainly don't know any "average worker" currently living anywhere in the EU who would want to swap places.
Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare. If you think social welfare is a problem, feel free to argue that, but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.
> What percentage of German companies are owned and managed by its workers?
This sentence does not apply because "social market economy" does not imply that companies should be owned by their workes.
> What percentage are owned by capitalists, generating private profits?
This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening.
> Are those numbers indicative of socialism or capitalism?
You should really - really - read up on "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and ordoliberalism before you make a point. If you don't know how they are defined and what they mean, you cannot make a coherent argument.
> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet - that more "freedom" (from regulation), more inequality will somehow fix things.
I have not and you are free to cite where I did.
> Germany is a capitalist country with strong social welfare.
Congratulations, you combine this with "Regulation" and a state mandated "Economic Conscience", you have finally found out what "social market economy" means. It's not "capitalism with X". It's so far removed from the idea of capitalism that we use another term entirely.
> but one thing that's not up for serious discussion is its economic model.
I encourage you to look up the terms. Again.
By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless.
>> You're essentially arguing that real capitalism hasn't been attempted yet
> I have not and you are free to cite where I did.
It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed.
> By your own definitions the USA isn't a capitalist economy due to regulations and their social welfare policies. If that's where you stand then any further discussion is going to be pointless.
Those are not my definitions.
> It's a straightforward logical inference. Your definition of capitalism excludes every capitalist economy that has ever existed
No. A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships. The U.S. mostly has free-market capitalism, with fewer regulations and weaker social support. So the main difference is that a social market economy tries to control capitalism to protect people, while the U.S. mostly lets the market run on its own.
> A social market economy is capitalism with rules and safety nets, like strong labor protections, healthcare, and pensions, to make sure people are protected from big hardships
so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.
You are way too into polar opposites here. Try thinking difference beyond/before that.
@j-krieger Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make. Everyone else recognizes "capitalism is a system based on private ownership, wage labor, and private capital accumulation" as a fundamental truth, including, like, all experts in this field. Ultimately, you're making a No True Scotsman argument.
Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism.
What you're writing reminds me very much of "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" (as if a republic isn't a type of democracy called "representative democracy")
> @j-krieger Arguing that the existence of regulations makes an economy non-capitalist is something I've only ever seen extreme left and extreme right-wing people make.
Good thing I haven't argued that at all. I was arguing that Germany, which calls its economic system "Social Economics" in fact employs this very economic strategy, which is defined as not being straight forward capitalist but as a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
> Germany's market is an example of welfare capitalism, which is a type of capitalism.
Germany's market is per definition not welfare capitalism, but "social economics". This term exists, it is well defined, you can look it up.
exactly, it is like the "this is not capitalism it is corporatism!" argument the libertarians like to make about the US.
> so it is not socialism, the whole point of this discussion.
No, the whole point of this discussion is that someone claimed Germany was capitalist. Which it isn't. It's in between systems.
> This sentence does not apply because a "social market economy" does not forbid the generation of profits. Profits are to be shared with the populace to pay for social policies, which is happening.
Sure. But that is as socialist as it was the National Socialist German Workers Party.
The continued reference to "socialism" here is a strawman. The discussion started with pembrook's complaint https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512714 and then had j-krieger explaining how the system works starting with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513552 . At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism". j-krieger was even explicit in referring to "'Social market economy'... a regulated market economic model [,] designed to sit exactly in the middle between laissez faire capitalism and socialism". But interlocutors continually insisted on dragging it back to "socialism" simply because j-krieger denied that it was "capitalism", applying a false dichotomy.
What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse and I'm amazed that j-krieger put up with it that long.
I met j-krieger at their discussional level. The "USSR guidebook" quote was uncalled for and plain hyperbole. It also was factually incorrect.
I have re-visited and re-read all of my comments. Nowhere did I mention a USSR guidebook anywhere! This must have been from another commenter. Sorry!
Thanks! I am trying to educate only!
> At no point did either person describe the system as "socialism"
> What you, mfru and dns_snek did here is not respectful, open-minded discourse
Give me a break, the original complaint, the one you linked but apparently didn't read, went even further, likening the European economy to communism:
> The USSR was supposed to be a cautionary tale. Not a guidebook!
Not sure why you are downvoted. Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system.
The goal of social market economy is to 'correct undesirable effects' of free markets. Depending on your perspective, you categorize it as capitalist, socialist or in-between system.
> Not sure why you are downvoted.
Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are. This doesn't stop critics from ironically mentioning that free markets altogether don't work for example in our renter's market (which is the most restricted market we have). The ill-effects we are now feeling are from strangulating regulation, bad policy and European countries with large welfare states like France or Germany having little moveable capital to invest into infrastructure, because most of it is forever bound to welfare. Note that I'm not critical of welfare, but we have lost the plot that money needs to be earned before it can be redistributed.
> Social market economy is the self-description in Germany, it's what you learn in school and how German politicians name the system.
All this and also scholars attributing this very real system to be effectively what we have in Germany is not enough for some.
If you ask nearly any person on the street in Germany (or Austria, or Switzerland) which economic system is in effect, they will say it is capitalism. Because it is.
The means of production are in the hand of capital. Profit is the driving factor of companies. "Number go up" is still the default goal.
> If you ask nearly any person on the street in Germany (or Austria, or Switzerland) which economic system is in effect, they will say it is capitalism. Because it is.
If I ask the average person on the street if they think the moon phases have impacts on their life, chances are a good portion will agree. Majority opinion does not make for facts.
> Because the reality of this is unpopular for critics of capitalism. Most people rarely have an idea how far removed from laissez faire capitalism European countries are.
No, it's because you keep strawmanning like this for rhetorical effect. Laissez faire capitalism isn't the only form of capitalism that exists and nobody has claimed it to be the form of capitalism that applies to Germany.
Sorry, but lol. Germany even makes you pay to be able to piss in a toilet. Even public libraries aren't free! And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck. "Social market economy" my ass. Germany is a country led by incompetent extremely paternalistic leaders, the major part of which come from the capitalist class, the rest of which are their Akademiker servants. The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested.
> Even public libraries aren't free!
Because they aren't public. They are provided by a company.
> And let's not mention the health care system, which literally has two tiers, one for the poor and one for the rich, with of course the poor-tier being barely functional, and still expensive as fuck
This is because of inefficiency, an aging demographic and regulation, not because of capitalism. The "system for the rich" was worse back in the day, and only became "better" for doctors because they adjusted their rates for covered services. In fact, because the "poor tier" insurance companies have not adjusted their rates according to inflation for a long time [1], services are of course getting worse. The average dentist earns 50% of what he earned 1970 adjusted for inflation. [2] This is called the "Punktwert", it hasn't changed since 1980 ([3]) and it is the single most important factor why services are getting worse and worse. No one is getting rich off of GKV members. Not doctors, and certainly not insurance companies.
> "Social market economy" my ass.
Sorry, no. This is the direct outcome of a social market economy, when the economic motor isn't doing so good, you still have to pay for permanent social gifts that were given to the largest voting class (old people). The government mandated insurance companies are close to being bankrupt because of this exact policy. In fact, they would already be bankrupt if we didn't have a social market economy [4], which pays billions of tax dollars to prop them up.
> The only people getting any kind of social benefits are the retired boomers and if you were to do the accounting, even they got massively shafted by the capitalists, because those boomers would be 3x richer if their lifetime savings were properly invested.
Well, boomers, pensioners and those close to retirement make up 60% of the voting base. They got what they voted for, good and bad, a social market economic model that bleeds the workers to pay for pensions. That matches the definition of a large welfare system exactly. They also voted pretty clearly against an investment backed pension scheme and have been voting like this for 4 decades now. As always, economic models have disadvantages, and we are finding out now that models close to socialism stop working when you run out of other people's money.
[1]: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/amtliche-gebuehrenordnung-...
[2]: https://praxis-analysen.de/das-verfuegbare-zahnarzt-einkomme...
[3]: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/mehrere-vertragsarztliche-le...
[4]: https://www.pkv.de/positionen/bundeszuschuss/
>> Even public libraries aren't free!
> Because they aren't public. They are provided by a company.
If you are talking actual libraries here: Hm? Public libraries are provided by the city - all I have ever seen in Germany. They usually cost a member pass, though I have seen completely free ones, but it's either a one-time payment or a yearly recurring fee. Small numbers though, can be as little as 5 Euro.
Public libraries provided by a company are an oxymoron, I doubt that exists in Germany.
> If you are talking actual libraries here:
Nope, sorry, I made a mistake. I was writing about the public toilets from the sentence before.
> This is because of inefficiency, an aging demographic and regulation, not because of capitalism.
The Korean healthcare system has a much worse aging demographic as well tons of regulations, being nothing like e.g. the US.
Yet in terms of "system for the poor" the difference with Germany could hardly be bigger.
To blame it on those is straight up wrong, in that it's an oversimplification of a complex topic to such a degree that it no longer makes sense.
This goes for nearly all of the discussion in this thread, for what it's worth. On these topics sociocultural and historical factors that aren't simply represented by "regulations" or "current tax burden" or "demographics" have an enormous impact.
It's the classic STEM, and especially CS, mistake, so it's no wonder HN is full of it on any governance-related topic. And I say this as a CS guy myself. As a group, we are predisposed to the idea that a set of rules, regulations and statistics leads to a certain set of real-world outcomes. The reality could hardly be less true.
Could you elaborate on the differences in the healthcare systems?
How horrible, feel very free to leave for greener pastures, then.
The only reason for your high taxes and poor living standard is that some boomers have too much cash.
So they buy luxury apartments, outbidding you for construction companies capacity. Or they buy €20M luxury cars from limited 100-item series, outbidding state for engineers that could be designing next generation public transportation.
Public sector has been bled almost to death by regressive taxation, you bear nearly all of the tax burden so that a geezer who lived through nineties free-for-all can cope with his second midlife crisis while you struggle to get even a small apartment with ever-expanding commute times as you are forced outside of the city center.
Just. Tax. The. Rich. Geezer. More.
Seriously. If you've talked to some of them, they are not "titans of the industry", they are mostly greedy, average inteligence people that got lucky. No political nor economical nor cultural awareness. Half of them binge Russia fake news and/or Bloomberg and that's it.
God, some of those sick fucks even refuse to pay alimony despite owning huge companies. They would rather invent crazy schemes to hide their ownership and claim $10,000/y earnings than to take care of their kids. And they pay jackshit in taxes.
Not joking: https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/domaci-kauzy-beru-20-tisi...
100%. The biggest economic problem plaguing Germany and most of the EU is that all the capital is in the hands of incompetent old farts, so called, "business leaders", and the economic class system is way more hierarchical and old fashioned than in the US and I dare say, even China. Supposed "market capitalism", means your economy is planned, by diaper wearing boomers whose thinking and worldview are stuck in the 20th century.
> but also by German intelligence
You may it seem like they operate independently. They do not. This determination (while I subjectively agree) came of a report was released by a failed government's acting minister of internal affairs, on her last day of office. I read it myself and even though I don't like it, it's pretty imprecise and does some pretty heavy straw grasping at times.
Authoritarians always oppose those things when they are not in govt.
they will, just not as long as it could potentially be used against them.
Open communication online about the problems of mass migration is what has fueled the rise of right wing parties across the west, so no they would not support suppressing communication (which is aimed primarily at stopping this very rise).
But this is not about suppressing all communication, this is ultimately about giving the ability to steer the conversation to avoid what people in power would find problematic.
[flagged]
> Many German political parties have extremist elements in them.
No, they don't. Extreme in this context is defined as anti-democratic, those who want to dismantle the system at its foundation and destroy democracy, usually while removing certain groups. That's not something other parties aim for. Sure, they want to change the system, but only to improve the democratic.
> but not okay calling out the far left
There are not many real far left parties in Germany, and usually they are very small, irrelevant and called far left. Most of them are also not against democracy, they are fine with the general system, but argue about details or the economic system. The biggest far left party is "Die Linke", and they are radical left, not extreme left. Maybe they do have some extreme voices, but they are irrelevant.
I'm sorry you don't understand the anti-democratic goals of many of the parties in your own country.
If you are re-branding a belief in authoritarian seizing of all private capital as "Minor democratic arguments on details of the economic system" then it's obvious you either don't know the constituents of the political coalitions in most major European countries, or are not arguing in good faith.
Just like the actual extreme right, the entire goal of any left extremist (eg. your communists, eco-terrorists, anti-tech doomers, etc.) is to dismantle democratic freedoms and enforce their unpopular agenda via absolute authority.
The bolsheviks never ran on the idea they would brutally murder middle class families and seize their assets. This was just an inevitable step necessary to achieve their 'utopia.'
> Why they are okay with calling out the far right but not okay calling out the far left I will never understand.
Lets skip over the fact that far left is being called out as well (especially by... the far right...).
The AfD is actually a extremist far right political party which has been steadily growing and growing. They are much more relevant to anyone living in germany than small extremist far left factions.
>>Why they are okay with calling out the far right but not okay calling out the far left I will never understand
So help me out here. "Far right" is usually full of brilliant ideas like lets round people up and deport them without due process, doesn't matter where - or starting to look into getting rid of people with fully legal right to stay, or saying that they haven't seen a single white face in a town somehow isn't racist and is a perfectly normal thing to say.
In the meantime far left is doing.....what exactly. Saying that we need to tax the rich? That everyone should have healthcare? That people should be free to decide their gender?
Honestly, help me out - what are those "far left" ideas that you say should be labeled as "extreme"?
If we're genuinely asking, real actual communism comes into play. I think children being raised by government programs and not their parents would be extreme left. Making it so that no one can have more than $1 million to their name would be extreme left. Forcing people to be impregnated and give up those babies to government to be raised by them would also be extreme. Maybe left? Prohibiting religions. Making it illegal to be Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/anything. Making it illegal to have a gender. The problem of oversimplifying everything into a spectrum of left and right means that there's no room for ideas to exist not on that spectrum.
I was genuinely asking, so thank you for replying with actual examples.
Forced euthanasia for people when they reach the age of 70. Legalized post-birth abortion until the child is 3. Testing people and sorting them into castes (alpha, beta, gamma, etc). Legalizing all drugs. I don't know if any real world political parties actually back these ideas, these are drawn from science fiction novels.
It is the legally accurate description of the AfD [1]. Just like it is legally correct to call Björn Höcke a fascist.
[1] https://medienservice.sachsen.de/medien/news/1071656
While I agree with this decision, it was not made by an independent court. Courts are often stacked with politicians in Germany.
Quote please
[dead]
There's distinction between legality, reality and morality. Most of the time no one uses full formal legal terms in normal conversation.
I don't support AfD, I'm not German either - i just agree with parent poster's observation that for some reason left extremism(and I'm talking actual eco-terrorism for example) is more widely 'accepted' in public space when talking to Germans. Meanwhile mentioning even slightly Right ideas gets you lynched, and any form of discussions stops.
And from small sample size of Germans i know, this is the reason that did push quite few of those people towards AfD.
Frankly AfD is a perfect marker of your own policy making - are more people pushed towards it? you probably are doing something severely wrong as a policymaker.
People that vote and support the far right do it as reaction, that is likely. But not to "extreme left nonsene" appearing. That's just a pretext.
The real reason, to which they react, is that they can no longer covertly express and exercise their ideas.
In other words, it's a reaction to getting publicly called out about being racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic etc.
I believe the far right starts winning when it attracts not just the types it naturally attracts all the time but more mid field folks as well. People who you don't get to your side by saying they're facists or other accusatory statements.
I've heard plenty of times from such people that they've felt the government/establishment parties have made my bordering country less safe for women, gay people, etc and now numbers are also starting to show that. Pair that with those parties targeting those votes more and more and bringing in some more gays and women into the party and labels of mysoginist or homofobic that you used don't work to attack the far right anymore I've found gay people voting for the supposedly homofobic far right because they start to see their main talking points as a long term existential matter. Prisons that have a huge share of non nationals and are overfilled so prison strikes and shutdowns happen aren't helping either. The economical picture for non-eu migration has been abysmal too. The list goes on and on.
Even in france le pen who's father had some well known extreme views about gays she draws a lot of votes among gay men. Especially in Paris.
At that point you seriously, seriously fucked up.
> People who you don't get to your side by saying they're facists or other accusatory statements.
How do I get folks that literally vote fascists to "my side"?
Does it involve changing "my side" to be a little fascistic?
What is to be done with the overlaps, e.g. people that are homosexuals but are racists, people from racial minorities that are homophobic, and so on?
Like, realistically, what do you think should happen to the left? Just tone it down?
>At that point you seriously, seriously fucked up.
I think we've realistically introduced a source of political hubris for generations to come and created a scenario where if we're not being too optimistic about the perfect path being taken there will be sharp edges whichever way you go.
The same happened here in the past with our flemish/wallonian sectarianism that should've never been started and inflamed. In fact over many decades migration seems to be the only thing that managed to overtake it.
Acknowledge issues and start doing stuff these parties have been calling for for the past 2 decades to stop influx and you legitimize their ideas and admit fault in some ways. Don't do anything, continue the status quo claiming everything smells of roses and you just build up more sectarian bullshit.
Ideally you slow migration down without too much noise about it imo. For example you adjust treaties so that people rejected in other european countries can be sent back and actually follow trough and employ european political power to actually facilitate this sending back and discourages staying in a way that was possible in the past. You start limiting family reunion schemes depending on the country, etc Additionally you invest hard in integration and not in the weird paternalistic shit that i hear about from germany now.
If I remember wel here in Belgium in 2005 or so well over 70% had big concerns about migration and had it in their top 3 issues. That was 2 decades ago well before the big influxes. Not losing many of them was easier than getting them back that's for sure but there's plenty more still on that edge. I'd also say we're doing way worse than Germany on these fronts and additionally a far greater share of german migration is actually refugees i believe. The only reason we haven't had an afd equivalent governing yet is how fractured our political landscape is when compared and the flemish/wallonian split.
My guess for the future btw is that none of this will happen here and instead social trust will get worse and it will also be used as an excuse/force pushing to build down social security more regardless of who wins (like in denmark i believe).
I'm not your chatgpt, man
What?
You're just rambling, talking more to yourself than me. Have a nice day.
Looking at your other responses in this thread was anything other than what could be twisted as "changing "my side" to be a little fascistic" or 'continue on as is being done now' a valid answer?
To also answer one i didn't address : 'What is to be done with the overlaps, e.g. people that are homosexuals but are racists, people from racial minorities that are homophobic, and so on?'
The later if not a national you could in many cases not let/keep in your country or otherwise give citizenship. As for the later it just happens that i know a lesbian VB (our far right) advocate. She was a callbus driver that got attacked for her sexuality. It's not the average but someone you are unlikely to ever win back regardless of whether you typify her as racist or xenophobe or not because she sees "your side" as the origin of the former, the unintended champion of islamists and the like.
You've made a lot of assumptions about people i know and talk with - without knowing them, exactly showcasing the problem that I've mentioned.
As soon as the topic is mentioned it becomes a discussion stopper. Thank you for your contribution into proving my point.
If we were to categorize AfD voters and supporters into two groups:
What share would you assign to each?majority in 2, due to worsening economic situation over the years and total disappointment in current options with no other option to break this impasse than to throw hand grenade into the mix.
exactly one person in first group - a genuine belief in efficiency of authoritarian system from someone on spectrum.
I also love how you neatly divided whole political spectrum into two, and bundled a lot of options into 'bad' category. Another example of political tribalism. while option "2" is clearly 'misguided' one.
For example anti-environmentalism can be seen from 'does not like Greens', through 'i think we should reevaluate our energy policy for feasibility of moving to renewables/nuclear and do a slow transition while persevering our beautiful nature' to 'we should only burn coal and gas forever'.
Same thing with xenophobia - it can be pure nationalism, or being anti illegal immigration while supporting legal one, or even just idea that government has responsibility for their own citizens first and foremost. Which one do you have in mind?
Where you draw the barriers between those arbitrary labels?
is there even anything i could say that would change your mind, or are you looking for validation of your views only?
Let's remove "anti green" and "anti immigration" (but not pure xenophobia) out of group 1, since you seem to protest those two as the most ambiguous (I do agree that those areas may be too blurry).
I also think you misinterpreted "authoritarianism for their group", or I expressed it poorly. I don't mean "support of authoritarian governments", but rather "give more power to their group over others, or favor keeping such a status quo", in the context of race, sexuality, gender, culture, etc.
Yes, group 2 may be protest voters, and their rationale is that the best protest against some leftist policies and monologue is to vote the right - not blank, not abstention, and not some void middle-ground. Of course!
But these people are not complete idiots that forgot what the AfD obviously stands for. Thus, I cannot reasonably believe that they ALL fall under NONE of the categories of 1.
My most generous concession would be 20%, but realistically I would say there is maybe at most 5% that is purely protest and not at least one of: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist.
Simply put: If someone claims they are not racist, and not homophobic, and not misogynist, yet they still vote for AfD, then they are more likely to be some of that, or are okay with the current status of discriminations, and not some naive idiot.
What you could say to change my mind, is how someone votes/supports AfD purely based on e.g. strengthened immigration policies for purely economical reasons, or "do not like greens", or "just wants nuclear". I don't understand how someone could be so oblivious to the other standpoints, but maybe this is just my personal bias?
so you've made up your mind beforehand, and will never change your views on any of this.
why you even do you bother to keep arguing in bad faith?
Just answer
why would i bother when you've already established that you're arguing in bad faith?
So you make a claim, and when being doubted, essentially you say "you tell me why you're wrong, or else I've made my point".
Genius.
Du bist ein Ausländer.
Yes, now show me the legally accurate description of leftist parties with the opposite political craziness within it.
The greens are filled with communists for example.
Or the literal communist party, Die Linke. Why are they never referred to as the extreme left.
> Or the literal communist party, Die Linke. Why are they never referred to as the extreme left.
It's definitely not true that people never refer to Die Linke as extreme left. In fact, all kinds of people - including prominent politicians from e.g. the CDU - refer to Die Linke as extreme left.
This is not commenting on whether that is a correct moniker or not, I'm just pointing out that your dichotomy is nonsensical because the thing that you suggest to not be happening absolutely is happening.
Here you go: https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/sicherheit/extremismus/lin...
Feel free to read the chapter „Linksextremismus“. It talks about various violent Antifa groups and other cases. Keep in mind that the definition of „extreme left“ refers to organizations that want to replace the basic democratic system with communism or anarchy (according to the German constitutional court).
It does not necessarily include „political craziness“ that we may disagree with. The point of these legal descriptions of organizations is not to be used as a political weapon for parties you don’t like. You have to do some significantly malicious stuff to be considered as such.
> It talks about various violent Antifa groups and other cases.
As the time of writing, six different extreme left groups are tolerated within Die Linke and are also financed by their members. All of these groups are currently being watched by the government secret service.
But doesn’t this prove my point.
The AfD, like all political parties, is simply a coalition of various smaller subgroups.
It’s by no means “extreme” right in entirety. Yet, leftist parties harboring actual communists are not labeled “extreme.”
The AFD is extreme right in its entirely. It's a political party that wants to deport foreigners, remove the german citizenship from people with a migrational background, and it plans to destroy the democratic political parties - which means toppling democracy. They say so clearly and openly, also calling the other parties "Altparteien".
While the party started with a different background, by now voters and members do know about these majority positions and thus support them.
That's incorrect on every level.
The greens are not filled with communists. They would feel very unwelcome there, given the capitalist move the party did in the 90s.
Die Linke is also not a communist party. It supports capitalism, but targets a social capitalism, like the CDU did in the 50s and the SPD did until the 80s. There are communist parties in Germany, like the MLPD, but they do not get many votes. Background here is that in a divided Germany the communists were not popular in West germany, also most of them got killed by the Nazis before, and on top of that West Germany banned the main communist party already 1956.
Also, rightwing politicians do call "Die Linke" (incorrectly) extreme left, and accordingly the CDU/CSU has a mandate to never cooperate with them.
> Die Linke is also not a communist party. It supports capitalism, but targets a social capitalism, like the CDU did in the 50s and the SPD did until the 80s.
This is untrue and you will only have to go so far to read their party program to find out it isn't.
Be our guest and enlighten us with citations!
1 second google search -> https://www.die-linke.de/partei/programm/ -> Marx's manifesto is cited among the first paragraphs -> the literal first sentence in point 3's second paragraph -> "Our goal of democratic socialism in the 21st century is a society free of domination in which all people can live in dignity." They mention the process of transforming capitalism to state mandated socialism and control of all companies by a democratic process. A democratic socialism is not a social capitalism, they don't support capitalism in any way or form, and they want to actively move away from it, which they also say among the first sentences on this very page.
It took me all of 5 seconds to achieve this enlightenment. You should try it sometimes.
The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic.
German law tries to protect against anti-democratic groups and categorizes them as extremists (including left wing extremists) if they a threatening democracy.
In practice that means that group is then surveilled. If there is evidence that the group tries to overthrow democracy, they are banned.
Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and parties as they support direct democracy and workplace democracy.
> The crux of it is that they are not anti-democratic.
Die Linke tolerates antidemocratic hate groups within their party and is a financial sponsor of others. All of this is common knowledge, all of this can be looked up easily.
> Die Linke is in many ways _more_ democratic than other groups and parties as they support direct democracy and workplace democracy.
I know quite a lot of parties that were never once watched by a government watchdog, nor do they continue to support extremist groups, nor do those other parties continue to attract extremists at their demonstrations, nor do those other democratic parties have a continued problem of antisemitism within their ranks, nor do they have a dark past and continue to employ people at high ranks that were leaders in that past.
It's a little bit harder. The problem is that the SPD will also talk about democratic socialism and does indeed just mean social capitalism with that. And depending on who you talk with at the left, there is still the idea to use the power of capitalism, just to remove the negative aspects with various means.
But indeed, the program now does distance itself from social capitalism specifically and gives further reasoning to why. I wasn't aware they spell it out so clearly now. We can still argue about how much capitalism would be left when following their program - like when the means of production are owned differently, but used similarly - but I have to give you a point there. My comment as written was not correct.
Same in neighboring Holland, certain parties, groups, or positions can never be labelled "conservative", "right", or ... it must always be extreme. It is telling and very tiresome.
In the case of Germany I guess I can understand due to…uh…history. I’m sure the eastern bloc countries are more trigger happy to label people “far” left when they see it due to their history of the opposite.
But it seems to be a Europe-wide phenomenon in traditional media outlets. Nobody calls out the far left properly, and the bias is just oozing out from the pages of all European news media.
The backlash is just waiting to happen. It’s so obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking. And it will probably just lead to more irrational policies but from the opposite side.
The communist parties have very low ratings and never make it into coalition governments so they are not a threat. The Greens also have fairly low ratings and despite the image, they tend to be elitist neoliberal types. None of these people or parties are as bad or as dangerous as the AfD which is a party of grifters and fascists, full of unhinged people, who, even if you ignore all the hateful rhetoric, you couldn't trust to not destroy the country economically and politically.
[flagged]
It's the classical playbook. Capture the media, declare the opposition illegal, bye bye democracy.
The public was sold this Nazi story about the AfD by the established powers to keep them down. Looking at what has been going on it's wild to me to call the AfD authoritarian compared the the Altparteien...
> Altparteien
One of those empty words one needs to be careful with it does not mean anything, and everything. Politics is not about suppressing ideas of other people, somethings parties can agree on others not so much.
The AfD are ultra right and leading figures have openly admitted that they contemplate killing migrants, de-islamification of Europe by expelling all muslims, breaking the EU, etc. They also scatter their speech with fascist dog whistles, and even Nazi slogans from the man in charge, Björn Höcke [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/the-tr...
I think you need to go back to Grundschule and study the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Another TikTok zombie - get out of your emotionally charged environment please.
[flagged]
Giving credit where it's due, even (or especially) to someone you find distasteful, is a mark of maturity and good character.
AFDs operation-mode is to be always against the government and most others, so usually they are always debating against it, just because.. And in their case its far more than the usual playing opposition, they often switch even on their own stances.
Additionally, this is something that would be in their ideological background. I guess they just fear to become victims themselves.
How can you write this when the other parties have a cordon sanitaire (Brandmauer)[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(politics)
How is that related? The other parties are not defining their opinions based on AFDs stance. Brandmauer only means they are not working with them, if it can be avoided, not they have to be different on everything. And most parties will have a different stance from the AFD naturally, simply by the fact that AFD are far right fascists.
Conservatives sometimes have an interesting habit of using the freedoms to come into power and then take these freedoms away.
with their history of questionable chats and leaks i don't doubt it.
But so far the only german politician convicted of posession of pedophile material comes from the SPD as far as I remember?
(And the russia and china connections of the AfD should be a case for the secret services anyway. Unfortunately the former boss of one service is a fan of the party, so not sure if they are really looking now)
ja, aber Wachsamkeit ist Pflicht. Wer Freiheit für Sicherheit aufgibt, verliert am Ende beides - das haben wir mehrfach erlebt.
Germany has neither now. It seems you were sleeping on duty.
But I guess you can’t guard against something you either do not have the capacity to or do not wish to see.
Please clarify how people in Germany are unfree and unsecure now.
Last time I checked we had free votes and I could say that I hate Merz.
Being free to vote doesn't make you feel free and secure. It's not even safe to attend to a protest to ask for a ceasefire in Gaza. So yeah, you can say "I hate Merz", but don't even try to say "Free Palestine"...
Free Palestine - I already hear them knocking send help
Free Palestine. There, I said it. Although I think it's a rather dumb slogan, and doesn't even remotely do the situation justice.
Seriously though, the notion that free speech is impaired in Germany is completely ridiculous and just a massive hoax. Compare this with the situation in the USA where the same people - like Vance who brazenly attacked Germany for an alleged lack of free speech - were super quick to demand a cancellation of Kimmel, because "you can't say that!"
We have laws against hate speech, and they may not be perfect, but they have a reason - we simply don't want to tolerate something like the Nazis shouting "burn the jews" in the name of free speech. Calling for violence does not have to be protected by speaking your mind. That's completely silly.
But the idea that Germany is anything but a completely free country is ridiculous. Some of the shit that people say (AfD, BSW) drives me nuts, but well, it's a free country.
But its never just 'free palestine' or 'stop the war', is it. Its always mixed with 'from river to the sea', mixed with calls for hatred towards jews, sometimes even jewish genocide.
Extremists doing what extremists can, which is being extreme as a default. Don't expect much support from public, and greta's gradual slide to political extremism isn't helping much, most people are fed up with her and her persona just poisons topics with... extremism.
Freedom of Speech is being actively harmed by 188 StGB being increasingly abused.
People's homes get raided and their belongings get taken away for daring to insult the ruling class or for making fun of them.
Give us some sources sonst bist du einen Eimer.
Seems to be about Pimmelgate. Andy Grote to be specific.
Someone calling Robert Habeck a dunce. And please, don't counter with that old Spiegel article that has been debunked a million times.
https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2024-11/wirtschaftsm...
This went through the court system and it found that the "raid" was not appropriate and unlawful.
Mistakes happen and get corrected. Doesn't mean there is a systemic issue.
[flagged]
They are true though? Someone just had to shell out 16k because he posted that a politician's head was experiencing a drought [1]
[1]: https://www.cicero.de/innenpolitik/meinungsfreiheit-in-gefah...
Well, CBS News dedicated an entire episode on these “propaganda stories”…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/policing-speech-online-germ...
Germany’s constitution (the Basic Law) does protect freedom of opinion and expression, but it explicitly allows restrictions via “general laws” to protect personal honor, youth, and human dignity.
Recent enforcement shows how this plays out: police raids have targeted individuals posting “hate speech” or “extremist” content online. What constitutes hate speech or extremist content is “conveniently” interpreted at times.
The OP claimed that people's homes got raided for "daring to insult the ruling class", your source claims that people's homes got raided for posting extremist racist speech online. Unless you believe in some ridiculous conspiracy where ZE JEWS CONTROL ZE BANKS, this has absolutely no relation to your ability to insult the ruling class: Black people and Muslims are not "the ruling class".
And if you do believe in such a conspiracy, please post your personal information such that I can forward it to the relevant agencies and have your house raided. Because we have been through that shit in this country and have no desire to ever see it again.
Google the following:
Friedrich Merz insult – house search (2024)
"Pimmel" tweet and Andy Grote complaint (2021)
Robert Habeck "Schwachkopf" meme case (2024 / 2025)
They're all politicians. Houses were raided in all cases.
I’m just posting what other countries perceive about our way of interpreting and handling hate speech and share context around the legal limitations.
You do you. I have no intention engaging with people on “full kool-aid on whatever bubble they are in”.
Complain to CBS and the Americans.
Your comment has been debunked countless times. This man's home was not raided for his antisemitism (which is really damn bad!) but for calling a guy an idiot [1]. I suggest you stop spreading lies.
[1]: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/nach-schwachkopf-post-p...
That's a different case though. The Habeck meme thing happened somewhere near Bamberg, the CBS article recounts "state police [...] raided this apartment in northwest Germany".
Look, I'm not saying that the police or the ministry of the interior never abuse their power, far from it. (There was also the Andy Grote case a few years back.) But please remember that the original claim we are discussing, from a few comments up in this chain, was that Germany has neither "Freiheit noch Sicherheit" right now. It's ridiculous rabble-rousing to insinuate that because of these outlier events, while concerning, Germany has neither freedom nor security.
Germany does have limited Freedom. I won't move an inch in this matter. The exact paragraph behind the Habeck or Grote case is now being abused by the literal thousands each year. And violent crime is on the rise, we are currently back at a 2005 level. It is very easy to find sources on this matter.
This is patently false. Any claim of the contrary is AfD propaganda, aiming at destabilising society.
Source: https://www.dw.com/en/crime-statistics-knife-crime-drugs-lif...
Your claim is blatantly false. Any claim of the contrary is wrong. I won't go as far as to insult you in the way you did. I was talking about violent crime, which is indeed on the rise [1] (here sourced by the far right "Tagesschau" \irony), you are linking a study on crime, which includes non-violent crime such as petty theft. Violent crime is at a level not seen for 15 years. I suggest you read the comments of people thoroughly before embarassingly accusing them of spreading propaganda - which can be disproven with a 5 second google search.
[1]: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/straftaten-kri...
No place has absolute freedom, not sure what you are rambling about. Making up some extra categories that suit your own narrative doesn't change reality.
I was never talking about absolute freedom. You have moved the goalposts.
You are making typical argument shifting excuses. No one is talking about "absolute freedom" no matter how that is defined, notwithstanding even your infantile attempt at using insult in your absence of rational argument.
Please don't paint an - given wired and unjust - incident as the norm and not as am exception. Extrapolation from one local incident to Germany is unfree is like extrapolation from one politically motivated murder, that a country is in a civil war...
Sure, I have painted the incident, let‘s paint the norm. Just two ministers of the last government have sued 1400 people using 188 StGB [1]. An FDP politician sues 250 people this way in a month alone. We have seen an increase of lawsuits using this paragraph of 215% in the last three years.
[1]: https://verfassungsblog.de/ehre-wem-kritik-gebuhrt/
Propaganda is painting this as something different than it is. Here we consider speech for what it is: something you can express freely, within the limits of civil society. If you pass those limits, then you incur in problems. Germany let someone speak freely a tad too much in the twenties and thirties, and they don't want to make that mistake again. I understand the point of "absolute free speech", and I would subscribe to it if it wasn't that groups like AfD, or Trump's flavor of conservatism, hide behind it to achieve their authoritarian goals. To avoid that authoritarian result, you have to police certain types of speech like Germany does.
I say it again, it's nasty and needs a very strong set of counterbalances, which Germany - unlike the US - still has. Therefore this remains a much more freer country than Say-whatever-you-like-on-Rogan America. Freedom for us is free healthcare, a welfare state, an ethics-based concept of societal rights and obligations. We don't market ourselves as the beacon of free speech and FREEDOM by making both empty words fueled by extreme individualism. We still believe in Solidarität and on social-oriented policies, both on the right and left side of the isle. We have ferocious political battles about topics that are too violently policed, by the way, like right now about Palestine and Israel, and people take to the streets FREELY, despite some despicable police brutality episodes. We do have the contradictions and complexities of any modern western society.
Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works.
AfD is against all this, and it is because it's provenly funded by Russia and other enemies of the west. They appeal to the Volk, but in reality are infested by double-standards, hate, and a specific type of political individualism and authoritarian views that need to be stopped with all legal and societally-acceptable means possible.
It’s worth remembering who actually made the strategic choices that strengthened Russia’s hand and left Germany dependent and militarily weak. Those weren’t the AfD’s doing — they came from the CDU–SPD coalition governments, the same lineup that’s currently in power again.
• 2011: Under Angela Merkel (CDU) and the SPD coalition, Germany decided to abolish nuclear power after Fukushima, dismantling one of the few sources of domestic energy independence.
• 2011–2015: The same governments backed and defended Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, tying Germany’s critical infrastructure even closer to Russian gas — despite repeated warnings from Eastern European neighbors.
• 2011: The abolition of compulsory military service further weakened Germany’s defense capacity and NATO readiness.
These weren’t minor policy missteps — they systematically made Germany more vulnerable to Russian influence.
And it’s also worth noting a historical irony: Angela Merkel’s family moved from West Germany to East Germany in 1954, one of the very few families to go in that direction. Between 1949 and 1961, roughly 2.7 to 3 million East Germans fled the communist East for the capitalist West — virtually nobody went the other way.
> Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works.
A literal millionare is chancellor.
> reedom for us is free healthcare,
Last I looked I paid 10k a year for government mandated healthcare. Where can I apply for the free one?
I wonder what is the point of debating like this on the internet.
I say billionaires, you mention a "millionaire" chancellor.
We don't have anything against becoming rich. But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
He's a high-income lawyer who invested and has a net-worth of about 15 millions. If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
Re: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you. That is how a social-democratic society work. The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You are arguing with a person who doesn't care what people say, facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs, the story is set in their head and thats it. Not a discussion really. Usual avoiding of hard facts that challenge their fantasies.
A fairly typical behavior I've seen countless times in topics about russian war in Ukraine in recent years. No point at all, a wasted time.
> facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs,
This is dishonest at best. It's a matter of opinion. I rarely - if ever - think of anyone who disagrees with me as spreading "propaganda". This is a dangerous narrative you have built in your head. I suggest you stop.
> But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
Of course I don't. I actually like his history, he is a successful man. But he is again so far removed from my own situation that I do not trust him to do what is best for me.
> If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
It is problematic. Yes, he studied and worked hard. But he has been wealthy for a larger part of his life than he has not been.
> e: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.
So it's not free.
> The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
I too, can redefine words beyond their meanings to fit my narrative.
> Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You forget that people with chronic illnesses can just be declined of that option.
I’m far more concerned about a government led by people who have no formal education beyond high school, have never worked outside of politics, lack subject-matter expertise in the fields they oversee, and can’t even speak a foreign language — yet are sent abroad to represent the country — than I am about a self-made millionaire serving as chancellor.
Germany’s economy feels like a freight train rolling downhill — momentum without direction, and no one in the cabin who knows how to steer.
And no, the health care system is not “working.” It suffers from systemic distortion and ideological decision-making. Doctors face strict budget caps and fixed, low reimbursement rates for treating regular patients, but those limits don’t apply when treating certain publicly funded cases — where compensation is higher. That incentive structure inevitably leads to unequal treatment. I’ve experienced it firsthand with my own child and couldn’t believe it. As in: they denied taking my kid in but took in two “publicly funded cases” while I was there.
The reaction is very weak, though. Chat Control is an act of terrorism and it should have triggered criminal investigation why this has gone this far.
Before you downvote:
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.
It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.
The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
You can argue legality if you like, but the substance matches the textbook definition.
These people should be arrested.
I actually upvoted this. It's a well-argued comment, but I'm not convinced.
My sticking point is the word "terrorism" itself. Words are defined by how we collectively use and understand them, and the common understanding of terrorism involves bombs and bullets, not software and surveillance.
I get your logic, however. You're breaking down the definition into intimidation for political ends, and you're not wrong that coercive control is a form of violence. But the leap to calling it "terrorism" just doesn't work for me. It feels like you've reverse-engineered a justification for a word that, on its face, is hyperbolic in this context. It's an authoritarian nightmare, for sure, but it isn't terrorism.
Fair point - but that’s mainly a reflection of how power defines language. The word terrorism was never limited to bombs; it was coined during the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France to describe state violence used to intimidate the population.
We’ve since normalised it to mean only non-state actors with weapons, while the organised psychological violence of governments gets rebranded as “policy.” The fact it’s done by men in suits, with forms instead of grenades, doesn’t make it less coercive - only more efficient and socially acceptable.
If a law deliberately instils fear in civilians to secure political obedience, it meets the core definition. The method evolved; the principle didn’t.
Also part of the reason it doesn’t feel like terrorism to many is bias. We’ve been conditioned to picture terrorists as outsiders with explosives, not officials with conference badges.
I'm inclined to agree. I do feel terrorized by the mere prospect of total surveillance, and I can't imagine that's not the end goal here.
Sorry, but that's talk like that that cheapen the meaning of terrorism. Once you expand it to "targeting civilian or civilian infrastructure", already it's cheapened.
I agree with the expansion of meaning, but that mean nazi resistance was terrorism. Ukraine counterstrike on the crimea bridge/russian raffineries is terrorism. I do think it is, but now i do need to qualify terrorism before using the word.
If we expand to all kind of violence, not only physical, well any new policing laws is terrorism. Laws that increase poverty are terrorism, as poverty is an economic violence exerced by the society on its most frail. Taxation is violence too. I will need to add qualifiers each time i use terrorism, and that cheapen the meaning.
[edit] my la setnence cheapened my argument and could start a new side debate that doesn't interest me, i'm removing it.
While I don't want to defend the application of "terrorism" to chat control, the examples in your second paragraph don't follow from the definition outlined above. Resistance to Nazis was meant to damage military and administrative capabilities. The Crimea bridge is a valid military target. I think Russian refineries, too, could be considered a valid target, since they support the Russian military. But even if they can't be considered valid targets, the question of intention remains.
And while I'm sure there are some people (from opposites sides of the political spectrum) who would agree that poverty-causing laws and taxation are violence, perhaps even terrorism, there also remains the question of intention.
In contrast, the 2011 attacks in Norway, the Unabomber attacks, and anything the Rote Armee Fraktion did aside from robbing banks, all have a very clear intention to primarily affect public opinion, political discourse, and civil society in general.
My doubt in the parent comment's assertations lies in the intention as well. Certainly this policy would cause fear in some way, but I think the intention of this policy really is just a techno-authoritarian power grab.
Yes, I wasn't clear enough. The expansion of meaning 'targeting civilian infrastructure' is done, it's already in the current comprehension of the word, everywhere, and now terrorism is less bad because of it.
The US (and UK I think) tried to extend it to add 'surprise attack on an occupying force', and that didn't work, but if it did, the negative connotation of the word would lessen a lot faster, and you'd see it used as a positive already ('my little terror' could easily become 'my little terrorist' if the negative meaning is dissolved enough).
I agree on everything you say, I wanted to explain my point better.
[dead]
As others have mentioned, good points.
But we must stop somewhere, else we end up like the people arguing that the most democratic country in the middle east is somehow the apartheid one.
It only works if one looks away from the fact that there are so many more things that need to be declared terrorism first.
And it directly misleads people.
I'm not following. What exactly are you trying to say and how does it relate to OP?
Mr. Spahn is the minister in the video. He's a little controversial, because during COVID, he was minister of health and had to order a lot of FFP-2 masks. This order went to "friends" of him, which were clearly logistically not in the spot to handle such a volume. Furthermore, he spent A LOT of money to source way too many masks.
Here's a short teaser and links to more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Spahn#Controversies
So, what the parent poster is saying that the controversial Spahn did the right thing for once, which comes a bit as a surprise.
Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power?
Or maybe this course of action is just more convenient at this time?
Probably the latter.
> Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power?
The lesson from history is to keep the autocrats from grabbing power. Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero. I'm not sure Berlin opposing Chat Control fits into their domestic anti-authoritarian arc.
> Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero
This isn't so much about making Chat Control illegal (thereby containing or limiting future authoritarians) as it is not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election.
I'd argue the current stance of being opposed to Chat Control is more like "Don't collect religious affiliation on the census" - meaning we can both agree with your comment I partially quoted, while also recognizing that Berlin's public oppostion can be meaningful.
> not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election
Fair enough, you’re right. If they’re incompetent authoritarians (or just non-authoritarian right-wingers), this could mitigate the damage.
>> Fair enough, you’re right.
read both of your comments and was wondering what happens if both of you were correct.
Yeah, no. Ressilient state structure is there to slow them down long enough for the popular support to throw their weight behind something else.
If you have an absolutist monarchist state that is flourishing because its past 3 kings were good people that cared about the people and the country, a potentially bad leader that would take that over could use that power to cement their position indefinitely.
Meanwhile in countries with separation of powers, term limits and checks and balances, gaining absolute power and staying there is a higher difficulty level, requires for more things to align, and most importantly: takes much longer to pull off.
The point isn't to make it impossible for bad governments to yield power. The point is to add checks to that power that make it useless in the hands of a bad actor that doesn't outright use violent force.
For example a good stage might see use in keeping good data on which citizens are in which political movements, but whenever you collect and maintain such data on behalf of your citizens you should also consider how a bad power could abuse such data. Thst is literally the bare minimum when it comes to acting responsibly.
Bravo. Great start, disappointing conclusion. Why are you not sure?
This is strange, because not long ago it was Germany (!!) that pushed heavily for mass-sniffing of people. I don't trust this. People should watch very, very carefully what Germany is actually doing next. I would not be surprised if the mass-sniffing comes in a few months when nobody is looking.
There is considerable opposition in Germany against these things. It’s true that some political circles keep pushing for it, but there is also a strong constitutional and civil basis against it. It’s exceedingly unlikely to happen that “nobody is looking”. The biggest risk is the far right coming into power.
Are they pushing for it?
No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it.
I'm not familiar with the far right in Germany. Why should we be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it?
In simple terms, because the far right is about authoritarianism and control, not about civil liberties.
Interesting. So they have a history of attempting to legislate authoritarian rules that restrict civil liberties for citizens?
Yes, for example:
https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-p...
https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v...
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf
The first one is bad indeed, but what's so "authoritarian" about the rest?
>https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v...
Other European countries like Switzerland, also banned full face veils(burqas) in public. Try entering a bank, city hall, school, etc with a balaclava, ski mask or motorcycle helmet see how that goes.
>https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf
Allowing the surveillance of minors if they show signs of radicalization? This to me makes sense under existing child protection laws. If kids are being raised in environments that are harmful to themselves and society, should we just sit by and let them get permanently wrecked till they reach adulthood, over a technicality? The earlier you can catch the issues the better for everyone and the higher the chance you can rescue the child. Existing child protection laws in Germany already allow the state a lot of power to take children away from parents if they're seen as unfit.
>https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf
Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?
These are common sense viewpoints a lot of Europeans agree with, not authoritarian ones.
Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me. The fact that it's currently not acceptable to enter a bank with a covered face would indicate a law banning it in all public locations is not needed.
Taking rights away from people labelled as terrorists is a pretty standard way for governments to control viewpoints. It gives them the power to add any group they don't like to a list, and deport/imprison them with minimal judicial process.
I don't know enough about surveillance of minors to comment on that one.
>Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me
You're making it sound like under these rules, the government can force you to wear GAP jeans instead of Levi Strauss, when in reality the government has always enforced laws on public attire in public to preserve decency and security.
Otherwise it would be tyrannical since I'm not allowed to go naked in public or wearing the loincloths and Tribal Penis Gourd of my ancestors near schools.
Similarly, burkas are a security risk in public since people could hide and smuggle weapons under that, or there could be men hiding underneath using it to enter female only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms, or so much more nefarious cases.
Then on top of that, you also have the cultural and optics aspect, that burkas are a symbol of a backwards oppressive culture that's incompatible with western progressive liberal and feminist values that the west cherishes or at least pretends to.
You're throwing a bunch of straw man arguments out, which makes it a lot of work to actually respond to this whole post.
Rights are always on a spectrum with a large amount of grey area.
> burkas are a security risk in public since people could hide and smuggle weapons under that
This is silly. Everyone wears coats in the winter.
> there could be men hiding underneath using it to enter female only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms
Is this actually a concern? AFAICT this isn't happening, it's just something that could theoretically happen, which doesn't make it a reason to decrease people rights. That would be another standard tactic for pushing authoritarian laws.
> Then on top of that, you also have the cultural and optics aspect, that burkas are a symbol of a backwards oppressive culture that's incompatible with western progressive liberal and feminist values that the west cherishes or at least pretends to.
This seems valid, but I'm pretty hesitant to force my cultural values on people. It hasn't gone well historically.
>Is this actually a concern? AFAICT this isn't happening
How do you know it isn't happening if their faces and bodies are always covered? Did you undress all of them to check?
> it's just something that could theoretically happen
Welcome to the real world where a lot of laws are made to cover things that could happen precisely so that when they DO happen, there's a law ready to enforce. Why? Because if something CAN happen, it WILL definitely happen.
> but I'm pretty hesitant to force my cultural values on people.
I'm not. You come to my house, you follow my rules, you come to our country you follow our values, simple. If you want to live in the west and benefit from the western system that brings you free education, healthcare, justice, financial opportunities, welfare, freedom of speech, then you must follow the western values that built that system you came here to enjoy. Otherwise if you want to live like in Afghanistan, then go live in Afghanistan, not in our country.
Otherwise if you allow one flavor of imported oppressive cultures out of suicidal empathy, just so you don't "force your values on other people", then why not allow domestic oppressive cultures too, like fascism, nazism, communism, antisemitism, sexism, homofobia, etc? Why open your doors and only tolerate the foreign imported ones?
>It hasn't gone well historically.
Then you need to go back to the schools you went to and ask for a refund, because historically it definitely has. The federal government forced their values over the confederacy via war in 1865 and the US of today is better off from it. Allied powers forced their values over the Axis in WW2 and the world was better off from it. So many historic examples why you're wrong.
> I'm not. You come to my house, you follow my rules, you come to our country you follow our values, simple
I wish it was this simple, so badly, but that strategy has been tried many times before and it always ends in violence. First off, who is "our"? Is it the majority? That leaves every minority group vulnerable. Is it the most powerful (it usually is)? That leave everyone screwed. It all seems great, until you end up as a target. This is why we base our systems of rights to more universal, and not based on our ethnicity.
For example, some of the historical opinions of my fairly recent ancestors: All Jewish people should be dead; ditto for Homo/Tran-sexual; also the Irish; black people aren't humans; the middle east should be owned by Western Europeans, and if not, designed to minimize the chances of them forming successful nations; same for Africa
Seeing this as bad assumes you think hurting other people is bad, which I do. If you don't agree, then there isn't much to discuss, you are entirely correct withing your framework
> Otherwise if you allow one flavor of imported oppressive culture so you don't ":force yurt values on other people" why not allow domestic oppressive cultures too, like fascism? Why only tolerate imported ones?
Where I'm from being a Nazi is completely legal. We tolerate both. There is still an ongoing discussion about where to draw the line, but the standards are always higher than wearing clothes that you don't like. Germany may not tolerate Nazi's for obvious historical reasons.
I would recommend "They Thought They Were Free" for a more of a look into this. It's an interesting book.
Edit: This is not true, almost all laws are passed to deal with a situation that is already occurring.
> Welcome to the real world where a lot of laws are made to cover things that could happen precisely so that when they do happen, there's a law ready to enforce.
>I wish it was this simple
Why isn't it simple?
>but that strategy has been tried many times before and it always ends in violence
Then don't import people of divergent/adversarial cultures who aren't willing to integrate into your country and are only there to extract the monetary benefits of your society without conforming to the laws, customs, social contracts, cultures and obligations that society requires.
If you only accept people who gladly accept your culture and values, there is no violence. History has proven this yet it seems like uncharted territory to some people. "you mean putting the fox in the hen house ends in violence?!"
>First off, who is "our"? Is it the majority?
It's the amalgamation of culture, history, collection of laws, constitution, 'Volk Geist' and the voice of the democratic majority of the citizens of the country where you choose to emigrate that compose the concept of "our country", which you need to accept when you choose move somewhere, or GTFO. You can't move to a different culture and expect them to accept your alien values that might go against theirs. Their values hold precedence over yours.
> That leaves every minority group vulnerable
No it doesn't, this is just an empty appeal to emotional manipulation.
In most western democracies, minorities and legal immigrants have the same human rights and equal access to healthcare, education, justice system, etc as everyone else so they're not "more vulnerable" just because they can't wear a burka in public. To receive those rights, it requires them to accept and conform to the laws and values of the society they chose to move to, like the law of not wearing burkas for example, or the law to tolerate LGBT people. Not wearing burkas in public is not making the wearer more vulnerable. On the contrary, foreigners wearing burkas in public makes the locals feel uncomfortable and vulnerable in their own country.
>For example, some of the historical opinions of my fairly recent ancestors: All Jewish people should be dead;
You see, since all your arguments are just empty appeals to emotional manipulation or moving the goalposts from laws banning burkas to somehow being similar to genocide of jews, I will stop the conversation here since you're clearly arguing in bad faith. I've already covered all your points with arguments, there's nothing more I can add. If you want to accept them fine, if not, also fine. Good day.
> No it doesn't, this is just an empty appeal to emotional manipulation.
I intended for that to be a direct reference to the concept of "tyranny of the majority".
> You see, since all your arguments are just empty appeals to emotional manipulation ... you're clearly arguing in bad faith
Man, I really did my best. Why'd you have to be mean?
To play devil's advocate, isn't it illegal wear a swastika in Germany? How is wearing a burqa, a symbol of female oppression any different?
Freedom of religion only goes so far, because the culture of the host country takes precedence. To take it to the extreme, if there were a religion where part of standard practice involved assaulting women and children, we would obviously limit those practices.
The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law, it's just one which is popular enough there that there isn't enough support to repeal it despite it being an unambiguous constraint on speech.
Non-consensual violence is prohibited because it directly harms other people. Face coverings don't directly harm anyone and laws that exist only for the government's convenience are authoritarian laws. There are ways to investigate bank robberies even if the robbers are wearing masks and in fact a law against masks is fairly ridiculous because anyone willing to break the law against robbing banks would be willing to break a law against wearing a face covering, so such laws only afflict innocent people.
I understand your point,but consider it a scar.
How would the world react if Germany decided to repel such law? It doesn't paint a good picture
>The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law,
With this type of logic, all laws authoritarian then, like speeding laws, theft laws, and anything else that prevents you from doing what you want to do becomes authoritarian.
No, all those things harm other people.
The ban on swastikas would be considered authoritarian because it's only purpose is to limit expression.
Considering Germany's recent history though, it seems like a reasonable response.
“Expression” is a bit of an overloaded word here. Carrying a swastika is considered similar to hate speech. Just like you cannot just make death threats in the U.S., even though you are just “expressing” yourself as long as you do not carry out the threat. Not saying those are exactly the same, but there are limits to expression, and spreading hate against large swathes of people is considered like that in Europe. Especially because that kind of speech can at some point turn into actual physical violence against the groups in question.
Threats aren't illegal because of their information content, they're effectively evidence of intent to commit violence. It's like confessing to a crime. You're being punished for the crime, not for the admission, but you admitting to it sure makes it easier to prove.
You and the parent both made good points. In Germany a swastika might be seen as more of a direct threat of specific action than other places. That makes it more sensible to classify as a threat.
That's the argument authoritarians use when they want to censor something. The problem with it is that it proves too much. Do we also get to apply it to symbols of communism because of the millions of people who died under Mao, or the US flag because of slavery? What about that book Marx wrote that led to all the horrors under the USSR; can't displaying books also be symbolic?
You don't want the government to have the power to decide things like that. It's better that they censor nothing.
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?
Because governments shouldn’t be allowed to just wash their hands of any responsibility to a citizen, just because they don’t like their views, regardless of how extreme and vile those views maybe.
We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems. Those are never healthy behaviours in any democracy.
Societies should deal with their own citizens properly, not just strip them of citizenship and declare them someone else’s problem. I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave, except by dying, terrorist organisation would be a good idea. That must ensure all members of terrorist organisations literally have nothing else to live for. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to ensure that all terrorist go out with a bang.
>We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems.
What are you on? Taking away someone's naturalized dual citizenship is done by the judicial system via due process according to the draft proposal, not on the spot by police or whatever nonsense you imagine it.
If only you would have skimmed the proposal paper before commenting instead of getting your knickers in a twist over stuff you made up in your head, you would have saved us all the wasted time.
>I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave
They can leave with their other citizenship, genius. This law applies only to dual citizens, since you aren't allowed to make citizens stateless, Einstein. It's even written in the proposal which of course you haven't read but have strong options against it.
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?
Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists, this is really dangerous. If the government can classify any organisation as terrorists, and then remove citizenship from any members of that organisation, that is horrifying.
So yes, I very, very, strongly disagree with this measure, for very good reasons. How could anyone with any common sense support it?
>Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists
If your current laws allow for such oppressive abuse on the population without due process, then these new laws won't make things any worse for the people and you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away form registered ISIS members is the biggest problem.
I disagree completely. Citizens are protected by laws, such as the First Amendment, that are not applied to non-citizens (see the Julian Assange mess for details). If the government can designate a group of people as terrorists, and remove their citizenships for being terrorists, then they can additionally apply yet more tribulations on those people while not straying out of the legal protections afforded to citizens.
You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. For example:
> you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away from any organisation that the government disapproves of is the biggest problem.
I think you'll agree that this would be a big f**ing problem.
> You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable.
Which other organizations who didn't kill or committed acts of violence to people in order to be wrongly considered terrorists by the government in the same vein as ISIS was?
>I think you'll agree that this would be a big f*ing problem.
It isn't. In most western democracies, if not all, gaining dual citizenship via naturalization is a voluntary privilege, not a right, that can always be revoked for crimes such as being part of a terrorist group. It's part of the contract you sign when you apply for citizenship. As it should be. That's who the law is targeting.
Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.
Precisely my point about terrorist organisations; Palestine Action did not kill anyone, yet the UK considers them to be the same category of organisation as ISIS.
If I read this right, you're thinking that only naturalised citizens would be affected by such a law; those with dual nationality that can be "sent back to where they came from". Which explains why you think this is a good idea.
That's not how citizenship works. If you allow for removing citizenship, then all citizens, regardless of "primary" nationality, can be made non-citizens. There's no second-class citizenship that can be revoked while still retaining a first-class citizenship that cannot.
> Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.
I’m sorry but you’re badly misinformed here. There is no concept of “primary citizenship”, you’re either a citizen or you’re not. If your government has a right to strip your citizenship, then mechanism by which you acquired citizenship is relevant. The whole point of citizenship is to declare that everyone with citizenship has identical rights and protections from their government.
There has been one person in the UK who had her citizenship revoked for joining ISIS. She was a born in UK, and was a British citizen from birth by right of decency. She is now stateless, a citizen of no country. These are the actual laws you’re defending, the hypothetical laws that only apply to naturalised citizens don’t exist, and aren’t being proposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
No, it is you who are misinformed. According to your Wikipedia link she was a dual citizen so the UK had the legal rights to strip her of her British one and she was left with her Bangladeshi citizenship, so not stateless.
>However, the UK government contended that Begum was a dual national, also holding citizenship of Bangladesh, and was not therefore made stateless by the decision.
>However, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission found that as a matter of the Bangladeshi nationality law, Begum also holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951.
She was born in the UK as a UK citizens to parents that were naturalised UK citizens. By your definition her “primary” citizenship was British. That was where she was born, that was where she grew up, that was the first citizenship she gained.
Due to her parent Bangladeshi origins, she had a separate right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship, but at the point she lost her British citizenship had not claim that right. She has also never lived in Bangladesh, and has never held a Bangladeshi passport.
At the time UK was going to remove her citizenship, Bangladesh said the following:
> The Government of Bangladesh stated that Begum did not currently hold Bangladeshi citizenship and, without it, would not be allowed to enter Bangladesh.
You’ve made some pretty silly claims about countries not removing people’s “primary” citizenship. Begum is quite clearly a case where their “primary” citizenship based on the parameters you provided, was her British citizenship, and the UK has quite clearly stripped her of that citizenship. Bangladesh has also refused to acknowledge her as a citizen, which seems a lot fair that the UKs stance, given she’s never lived, worked, or paid taxes in Bangladesh, so it not clear why they should be responsible for her, rather than the country where she was born and raised.
>She was born in the UK as a UK citizens to parents that were naturalised UK citizens.
Her parents were not UK citizens, they were Bangladeshi citizens making her Bangladeshi first. Her parents had "settled" status in the UK granting her UK citizenship but her parents were not UK citizens. It's literally in the wiki link you shared.
"Begum was born in London to immigrant parents of Bangladeshi Muslim origin and citizenship"
Oh sorry I didn’t realise your definition of “primary citizenship” required your parents to also be born in the country. How many generations back do we have to go before someone is allowed to have parents not born in the same country as them?
I naively assumed that given she was born in the UK to legally settled parents, given British citizenship in the UK at birth, grew up in the UK, was educated in the UK, radicalised in the UK. That would make her “primary citizenship” British. But obviously not, she’s obviously secretly a citizen of a country she’s never visited, just hiding in the UK until she could show her true colours.
What’s your view of people with mixed heritage? If one of her parents was born in the UK so she’s “50% British”, does that make her primary citizenship British? What if she was 25% or 75% how about 90%? Where do you draw the line?
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?
Sounds great on paper, until it starts happening to X, which is your group, now suddenly a terrorist organization, and you happened to have joined in their view.
>until it starts happening to X, which is your group,
With that logic we shouldn't ever punish or jail criminals because you too might be a criminal one day.
No, by my logic we shouldn't take citizenship away, period. How can you be so dense?
You can't take my citizenship away if it's my only one, you dense piece of concrete. Why would I fear that would happen to "my group"?
So what's your point
If you find yourself agreeing with authoritarians, it might be time to reassess your views.
So then would you want to live next to an ISIS member just so you're not agreeing with "authoritarians"? What's with this form of suicidal empathy?
Calling the people you disagree with as "authoritarians", "-phobes", "racist", "nazis" and all kinds of slurs, without any arguments, doesn't work in your favor or help the conversation in any way, on the contrary.
Agreeing with common sense takes doesn't make one "authoritarians".
Learn to do critical thinking and augmenting, instead of heard mentality parroting oppressive slurs against people you disagree with, just because you convicted yourself (or propaganda has) that you're on the right side of history, and everyone else with contrary viewpoints is evil reincarnate that needs to be crushed or silenced.
Authoritarian is often used as a pejorative strawman rather than as any particularly coherent concern. For instance Italy's Meloni was framed by the media, and people who still believe it, as being the next Mussolini, if not Hitler. In reality? Her time as leader has been largely inconsequential and relatively popular, especially contrasted against the leadership in places like Germany and France.
In general it's not authoritarians that are winning everywhere, but anti-globalists - which is disingenuously framed as authoritarianism. Globalist views were adopted on a wide scale, and they simply didn't lead to positive results, and so it's an ideology which is on the decline, ironically - globally.
Globalist views didn't lead to positive results? Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better. Now it goed a little less and the underbelly starts whining. And of course people do believe misinformation. People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade and now 'only' got inflafion correction whining its the globalist issue because some guy on tiktok explained it so well. Italy (or me personally for that matter) would be have been absolutely screwed without the EU and globalism, but keep listening to propaganda while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez.
>Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better.
The stock market, and your housing and investment portfolios going up, didn't mean that everyone was happy, just the asset holders like yourself and those in your bubble but you're not majority of the working population.
You need to learn to differentiate between "the stock market" and "the economy". Working class people can easily be getting poorer while the stock market is going up. So of course they're mad.
>People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade
Huh? Who? Where? When? Maybe in your tech bubble but in the real world a lot of people's salaries haven't kept up with inflation, let alone consistency get raises ABOVE inflation. In France for example the average pension is now higher than the average salary.
>while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez.
Top 10%er can't understand why those bottom 90% without assets who got screwed by globalism and saw their jobs offshored and salaries and savings obliterated by inflation caused by endless money printing are mad at the globalism that caused this massive wealth transfer from the working class to the upper asset owning classes.
You can't make this up. The sheer ignorance of reality of most people and the "fuck you I got mine" attitude is shattering. No wonder young people are flirting with communism.
Man, I am reading this whole thread in utter disbelief at all the naive "defenders of freedom", and I have to say that I fully agree with every single one of your comments.
We've argued a lot on this platform before, but I fully agree with your post this time.
-- a young-ish person flirting with communism.
The current systems in many places are breaking, but communism isn't a solution. Because the main reason the systems are breaking is not because of the systems themselves, but of the people in charge of them. Communism faces the exact same issue, except in that case the people in charge have orders of magnitude greater power and the people orders of magnitude less.
In a contemporary democracy we could, at least in theory, completely vote out literally every single pro-corporate, pro-war talking head in the next election. Now of course this won't ever happen, but at least in theory its an option. By contrast in communism, if one ends up unhappy with the system you have very little ability to change it.
Furthermore, in a capitalist system one can even start a communist sub-society. In fact there are many communes throughout the country, at least in the US. But in a communist system, you can't simply start a capitalist sub-society. The centralized nature of the system entails limits on freedoms, to ensure that every person is contributing to society as a whole. And this, in practice, trends towards dystopic authoritarianism in terms of how non-compliant individuals are treated.
The reason that people always claim that various efforts at communism weren't "real" communism is because the concept and theory of communism doesn't, and probably cannot, survive first contact with the interests and whims of humanity. By contrast I'd look at the overwhelming majority of the history of the US as an argument for capitalism. It's only relatively recent times, particularly after 1971 [1], that things have gone so terribly wrong.
[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
> Because the main reason the systems are breaking is not because of the systems themselves, but of the people in charge of them
I disagree with this assessment. The reason systems are breaking are inherent contradictions in capitalism that inevitably lead to crisis. See Crisis Theory [0] for a more thorough description of the mechanisms at play.
Communism doesn't need to be authoritarian either - Salvador Allende famously tried for a more democratic socialism before the CIA couped him away - can't have the systemic competitor look good...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_theory
Then what would be your explanation for why the issues seem to be largely contemporary in nature, and in particular with 1971 being such a critical inflection point? That 1971 site is alluding to the end the Bretton Woods economic system. Prior to that date, 'money printing' by the government had extreme external constraints. After 1971, we became a completely free floating fiat economy.
This was a radical economic shift. And at first it yielded massive returns as one could expect with the ability to suddenly have infinite money in a world where, to date, money had been very "real." But over time, it turns out that pumping endless 'funny money' into an economy causes lots of bad things to happen, even when we can export much of the immediately apparent inflation.
Essentially the modern economic system we have only truly began in 1971. And it's separate from capitalism itself. The powers that be wanted the power to print unlimited money. And so they claimed that power. Prior to that year we lived in an entirely different world. For instance one interesting inflation index is a can of Campbell's tomato soup. From its introduction in 1897 to 1973 it cost about $0.10. Today it costs $1.24.
I do not believe the problems are contemporary in nature. We've had the Great Depression, the Long Depression of 1879 - 1899 etc etc.
Labor value and market value have been out of sync since the beginning of market capitalism. You might have a point about the end of Bretton-Woods making it worse, but it has been broken since the beginning.
I think there is a clear argument to be made that this is provably false. For instance the median income in 1960 for a worker was $5,435. [1] The GDP/capita at the time was $3002 [2]. So a median worker was getting very nearly 2x a share if the entire national GDP was equally distributed! And note that is for people with any income. That census did not collect data on 1960 for college educated full time workers, but based on trends from later years it was about 3x higher on average!
This is why the older generations were initially so aloof about the economic state of the US. They grew up in a time where they could go to college, graduate debt free, have a decent car, and even enough saved up for a down payment on their [first] house - all on income from a part time job.
You literally could not get a much more fair compensation for labor, because that's a huge chunk of the entire GDP being derived from median wages! Of course now we live in a time when the median wage is something like $50k and the GDP/capita is $90k. And many critical things, like housing, have increased in cost way beyond the rate of inflation, to the point that a median house is now something like 7 years of median labor which is just lol stupid driven by funny money that, again, mostly did not exist before 1971.
But getting back to 1960 - how would this, in any way, seem to suggest an out of sync labor value? If anything the flaw in my argument is that labor compensation was perhaps unsustainably high, because wages that high were only possible when you had a relatively large chunk of the population not working. On the other hand if we're going to create a society with a sustainable fertility rate and well raised children, then it's completely sustainable.
This is the context for Kennedy stating things like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Now a days even a pretty ardent nationalist would have to hold back a groan on hearing things like that, but it was a different world in the 60s.
[1] - https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED128674.pdf
[2] - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
The tried to prohibit inclusive language
The problem is that most Indo-European languages have grammatical gender, with English being a notable exception. In many cases, trying to fit that inclusive language means contorting or breaking the language grammar in unnatural ways, that's why many people oppose it.
In Germany? Yes. Yes, they do.
Ring wing conservatives avidly throw our freedoms under the bus when convenient. Their electoral base is also very susceptible to thinkofyoungsebastian narratives.
Extreme collectivism affects both extreme, that is the concept that people are nothing but sacrificial lambs for the religion, the country, or the revolution.
[flagged]
Nice gaslighting attempt, but no. "We types" are concerned with everyone's civil liberties. But trying to divide us is just basic, text book abusive behavior.
> I'm not familiar with the far right in Germany. Why should we be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it?
In addition to the authoritarian aspect pointed out by a sibling comment, the far-right generally consider the ends to justify the means because of their sense of righteousness. They will compromise their values to get what they want (control over others). Just look at the hypocrisy of the free-speech absolutists on twitter who have no complaints over Lonnie shutting down Leftist accounts.
Because, similar to the US, they have authoritarian tendencies - strong nationalism and anti-immigration. How are you going to round up the bad people if you don't have surveillance everywhere?
I am unclear on how strong nationalism is an authoritarian signal. Can you go into more detail there?
Because it makes it easier to create scapegoats, and excuses for why restrictions must be created.
Blame the Jews, the immigrants, the trans, and then people will grudgingly accept the Gestapo, ICE, prosecution without proof or courts.
Which then allows you to target the opposition without proof.
Because it’s a fake nationalism where they decide who and what is considered part of the nation and who and what not.
Well the Axis powers from World War II are the most obvious demonstrations of nationalism begetting authoritarianism. Germany, Italy, and Japan were nationalist in the extreme. And Italy from that time is such a clear example that it's basically the canonical example used to teach how fascism emerges.
Contemporary examples include the Philippines, Hungary, Poland's Law and Justice Party, and arguably Russia, Turkey and India. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. The United States unfortunately is shaping up to count as an example as well.
Extreme forms of nationalism tend to have a narrative of grievance, a desire to restore a once a great national identity, and a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens, and enemies without and within, against whom authoritarians powers must be mobilized.
So there's a conceptual basis, in terms of setting the stage for rationalizing authoritarianism, as well as abundant historical examples demonstrating the marriage of nationalism and authoritarianism in action. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but I would say there's an extremely strong and familiar historical canon to those who study the topic.
But that would only be something nationalism signaled if the converse weren’t also true — eg, totalitarian states like the USSR, CCP, etc.
Those also had:
- grievance narratives;
- a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens and enemies; and,
- use the above to justify authoritarian powers.
You haven’t shown that nationalism played a particular part in that cycle; just that it also happened in nationalist states. Almost like the problem is those factors, rather than nationalism.
The USSR absolutely used a nationalist view in their propaganda [0]
As did the CCP [1]:
> Ideals and convictions are the spiritual banners for the united struggle of a country, nation and party, wavering ideals and convictions are the most harmful form of wavering.
[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Commun...
I actually considered listing them as additional examples, but I had to stop somewhere and they had their own distinct wrinkles.
I think the major difference in their respective cases pertain to the ideological dynamics of the particular strains of communism that manifested in those countries. What they lack is a fixation on the purity of national heritage as a primary source of moral truth and a foundation for a self conception. Instead they tended to regard themselves as part of universal, international struggle and understood conflict in economic and ideological terms. What they had in common was the sense that conflict with this chosen enemy necessitated authoritarianism.
There's more than one path to authoritarianism, and they overlap. Different mechanisms don't disprove one another, they exist side by side.
Here is an interesting review of how the two are historically strongly correlated[1].
Their conclusion is that "[...] ethnic and elitist forms of nationalism, which combine to forge exclusive nationalism, help to perpetuate autocratic regimes by continually legitimating minority exclusions [...]"
Right-wing nationalism as we're currently experiencing it is exclusive. It broadly advocates for restoring revised historical cultural narratives of a particular ethnic group, for immigration restriction and immigrant removal, for further minority culture erasure, and so on.
1: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-42...
Do you know the history of nationalism in Europe, and Germany in particular? Hint: it’s the “Na” part of “Nazi.”
You are getting downvoted because this pretty basic stuff. Either you’re part of today’s lucky 10k, or your post reads very much like far-right Gish galloping.
I don't know. It seems like from what you saying that you and honestly an enormous amount of people need to actually learn about 20th century European history and WWII. People are throwing around these terms of NAZI and Gestapo and all of this and I think they have no idea what they mean. The left is not against authoritarian. The left does not even want to really eliminate the police. They just want to be the ones to decide who are the thought-criminals and what to do with them. Also, that is not what Gish galloping. I don't know what is happening here.
The "far left" is anarchy. I don't really see anarchists wanting to keep police around.
Far left has traditionally meant communism.
I do know my history. The Nazi party was a pan-German nationalist party. I'm not sure why this is controversial.
Germans, and Germany are obviously quite sensitive to the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Not just because of WW2, but also the experience of East Germany.
Didn't know the term "Gish Galloping". Thanks! I've experienced this so often in discussions with far right people.
Authoritarian? You're saying this because of immigration; this comes from a position that is basically open borders. It is an interesting double standard. The people that hold this position would not consider non-Western countries that don't want to have open borders or have dramatic demographic shifts in their population and culture to be "authoritarian." This whole notion of "rounding up the bad people" is just infantile leftist stuff. How do you have a sovereign country if you are not able to have a policy that prevents unfettered 'immigration' or unable to deport those that immigrated contrary to law?
The whole concept of a country as a related group of people from one ethnicity or historical origin is relatively recent.
Feudalism did not have this concept; a country was the land belonging to a king (or equivalent), mediated through a set of nobles. There was no concept of illegal or legal immigration; the population of a country were the people who worked for, or were owned by, the nobles ruling that country. There were land rights granted to peasants who had historically lived in that place, but these could and were often overruled by nobles.
European nobility had no such idea of ethnicity or national grouping; the English monarchy is a German family, and most of European nobility were related to each other much more closely than to the citizens of their country.
Early post-monarchy states didn't have this concept. The English Civil War and the French Revolution didn't create states that had a defined concept of the citizen as a member of any ethnic grouping. Again, there's no mention of immigration in any of the documents from this period. It just wasn't a concept they thought about.
The whole concept that a nation-state is a formalisation of a historical grouping of ethnically related people is a very recent one, only a couple of hundred years old.
So to answer your question: It is very easy to have a sovereign country without a policy that prevents unfettered immigration; you just don't care about your population being ethnically diverse. Your citizens are the people who live in your country, and have undergone whatever ceremony and formality you decide makes them citizens.
This is, after all, how America historically did this; if you arrived in America and pledged allegiance, you became a citizen of America.
Are you... familiar with the _history_ of the far right in Germany? Not scared of doing a little surveillance.
Because it’s just manipulative and abusive, self harming and self destructive narcissistic psychopathic people calling things that thwart their suicidal mindset as “far right”. If you don’t want to LoL yourself, you must be far-right. If you don’t feel safe in your own community because of foreigners that have no right to be there, then you must be a racist.
It’s an odd phenomenon called a mass formation in large populations, when groups of people get fixated or obsessed with a certain concept or even a thing that the group ourself becomes self-reinforcing; usually until a point of exhaustion is reached or self-destruction. It can also be effectively injected into a culture as it was in Germany’s case after the war through endless and limitless collective and hereditary blame abuse to the point that Germans generally do not have self-respect, and if they show even a slight bit of self-respect they are branded far right, as of that means anything being the subconscious conditioning people have been subjected to.
It’s kind of sad and unfortunate and humanity should never have allowed the collective torture, abuse, and punishment of Germans even to this day 80 years later. It’s a sick and depraved thing only the most devious and evil people would condone, let alone perpetrate.
> No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it.
We seem to have a general problem with people not understanding that democracies have regular elections and the other party is going to get back in at some point. So then whenever one party is in power, instead of thinking ahead by five minutes and realizing that adding new constraints on the government and adding rather than eroding checks and balances will help you the next time the other team gets in, everybody thinks of them as an impediment to doing whatever they want immediately.
And then like clockwork they get butthurt when they checks they eroded or failed to put into place aren't there after the next election, as if they had nothing to do with it.
Who is the "far right" in Germany? Is it just anyone you disagree with? And, if it is the AfD being "far right" ... ok :/
[flagged]
There is a lot of censorship in Germany. People do not care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany
https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/russia-today-verbot...
Nitpick:
1. Censorship in German constitutional law is only defined as the state pre-screening before publication. That's a very narrow area and rarely applies. Most people from an US legal tradition will consider censorship to include other things such as mandating removal of certain content after the fact, but that's different legal branches with different mechanisms (i.e. libel).
2. What Schulz is talking about in the second link definitely is state censorship (blocking a TV station), but it's not implemented by Germany but on the EU level. (Germany is still involved - complicated matter).
Finally we should appreciate that the US government's opinion on censorship seems to have pivoted quite a lot, so I would expect free speech maximalism to not remain a very popular position on the government level (even though many people may still support it, either naïvely or with robust arguments).
> Most people from an US legal tradition will consider censorship to include other things such as mandating removal of certain content after the fact
Such as removals because of copyright claims?
That's just Depublikation.
Censorship != forced breaking of E2EE. People can care differently about different things.
This might sound insane to every American, but German law especially protects politicians from insults, slander and libel. (See https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__188.html for the actual law)
Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians, which is why politicians are very active suing random supporters of their opponents, because that is an effective way to police speech, open specifically to politicians.
I do think a lot of people care, but censorship in Germany does a lot to protect the people who could change the law. That law obviously needs to be abolished, politicians are uniquely unworthy of protection when it comes to speech.
If you look at the concrete laws, they are less spectacular.
For example, the concept of privacy protecting against media coverage is actually weaker for politicians (when in official duty) than for ordinary citizens (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht).
And libel only applies to statements of facts. I.e. you can't (easily) be prosecuted for opinions, just for making harmful false claims.
>If you look at the concrete laws, they are less spectacular.
And if you look at how these laws are used by politicians they look quite spectacular.
>And libel only applies to statements of facts. I.e. you can't (easily) be prosecuted for opinions, just for making harmful false claims.
The Wikipedia article and how the law was applied article disagrees.
Do not forget that this applies to insults. E.g. calling a politician "dumb" is enough to get sued. These laws create a way for politicians specifically to prosecute people criticizing them. This isn't a hypothetical, it is how the law is actually used.
> This isn't a hypothetical, it is how the law is actually used.
You make it sound like it happens all the time and everyone is used to it. I know of once case (Pimmel-Andy), and that led to a shitstorm, including part of the police operation being declared unlawful after the fact.
https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/landgericht-hamburg-a...
Yes and insults can be factual or not.
“This person is corrupt!”
Is that an opinion or a harmful false claim?
A good friend of mine was recently sentenced to prison for publicly using this kind of phrase during a protest for climate justice. When Germany's equivalent of the Supreme Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, learned of this case, the court immediately ordered their release and declared the original verdict void: According to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, (in the specific situation at hand) this phrase is more a value judgment and less a factual claim.
Together with a fellow activist, who also served as informal legal counsel, they gave a talk on this case at the 38th Chaos Communication Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5RmTOGucZo
[flagged]
The CCC hasn't been only about computers since inception. They were clearly already political in the 80s, just have a look at this zine: https://ds.ccc.de/pdfs/ds024.pdf
Depends, when talking about Jens Spahn it's a Statement of fact.
>Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians,
As Lee Kuan Yew pointed out, the idea that you should be able to slander anyone in power is a nice underdog philosophy (particularly popular in the US, where the underdog is always right) but what it gets you is a post-truth environment in which reputation means nothing.
And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an honour based society, not an English or French liberal society. People in power aren't suspicious just because they have power, the crank is not correct just because he's the little guy. I think Lee Kuan Yew was largely correct if one looks at Anglosphere media and politics, where truth and reputation have entirely been replaced by conspiracy and tantrums. Far from the wisdom of the crowds being some truth finding mechanism you just enable the most charismatic nutjob.
>And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an honour based society
We aren't. We are a totally Americanized failed state governed by mentally ill losers who continue to destroy this country in every possible way imaginable.
The German society which was the basis for this law does not exist anymore. Politicians are all complete clueless losers who do not deserve an ounce of respect.
> I would not be surprised if the mass-sniffing comes in a few months when nobody is looking.
That's the problem with these proposed laws.
We (privacy advocates) have to constantly fight and win over and over again. The nations that want this mass spying only have to win once.
We need a way to permanently stop these proposals once defeated the first time so that they cannot just continue to try over and over again until it passes.
No you don't, that's not how laws work, if you want society to look the way you want you need to actively work for it, you can't delegate that process to a law. It's not how participation in a free society works
Permanently stopping those proposals wouldn't necessarily eliminate illegal, back-door mass government surveillance, nor would it eliminate private sector mass surveillance (think social media) which then gets accessed by the government (whether legally or not).
Fighting corruption only works when enough people fight it at enough levels, and continue to fight it. There is no getting around the fact that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
> We (privacy advocates) have to constantly fight and win over and over again.
We do have a way to reinforce our position, though!
We can design and consume technology that makes this hard.
We can stop working for companies that build centralized platforms for messaging.
We can teach our neighbors how important rights to privacy and speech are in language that they understand.
There can be enough friction that this becomes harder for politicians. Remember the Reddit Sopa and Pipa protests? - that was pretty epic! I don't think Reddit will help us in its current state, but we can absolutely mount those defenses on Wikipedia, Mastodon, Bluesky, and others.
And we should continue to move off of platforms that don't align with our freedoms. And build our platforms in a way that encourages "normies" to join.
Yes to all of the above! I just want to whine a bit that every time I try to educate anybody about this, I am promised a tin foil hat in return (even from Software Engineers!).
tin foil hat doesn't work - you still hear incoming Frey effected radio transmissions
The tinfoil hat treatment is due to the fact that these days everything that fits the mould of a conspiracy theory is dismissed simply for fitting the mould of a conspiracy theory. In the same time as this cultural headspace was being cultivated in the US:
A billionaire pedophile ran a covert sex ring with a suspected who's who of a client list who was almost barely prosecuted for "reasons™"
Social media companies caught red-handed psychologically manipulating users for various ends
Damn near everyone helping to destroy actual free speech and privacy willingly because they've been talked into it (ironic)
Governments that engage in mass surveillance so egregious if you had tried it 40 years ago there would have been an uprising. Aided by the tech community I might add.
Industries that abuse data and algorithms to manipulate pricing or commit outright fraud.
A pharma corp addicting countless americans to opioids with almost no real consequence, killing hundreds of thousands and ruining millions of families.
Several industries have poisoned the planet and its inhabitants in various long term ways for profit.
And yet if you suggest something is a conspiracy it is dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. Speaking of conspiracies that doesn't sound like an accident... The trick to conspiracy theories is critical thinking and not uncritical dismissal.
If I have any words of consolation: when the "conspiracy theory" turns out to be more practice than theory you get to say I told you so.
Edit: typo
This is just lifestylist nonsense to make yourself feel better than everyone else. If you design technology to make this hard, they will hit you with a stick, and find everyone who uses your technology and hit them with a stick. If you still do it, they will hit you all with the sticks until you are dead, and also hit your family and friends with sticks. If you don't work for them, they'll find a bro who will. Teaching your neighbors just makes them another potential victim, and they will report you or curse you as they die with you. Moving off platforms when there are no alternatives just means you won't be able to bank, or file your taxes. And if you fail to file your taxes, they will hit you with a stick.
The cage is real, it's not a state of mind. It's not something that can be recycled out of. You'll know when you're really doing something when you can give people a time and a place to show up; when that showing up isn't to stand in the street and socialize with each other, burn down a Starbucks, or spit in the face of a cop who makes less than you do; and when most of you end up dead or in prison.
I always reply like this, but some people think everybody else in the world is so weak and naïve, when they themselves aren't doing anything important and have not taken a fraction of the risks or suffered a fraction of the loss of the people they're asking to speak up. Speaking against power is an impotent magic spell. You can recognize journalists who speak against real power by their deaths.
Everybody is just aping the US black civil rights struggle, where watching the violence done in their name to nicely dressed, well-behaved people filled enough people with disgust that politicians wouldn't get a boost from continuing to support it. That was how a small minority population faced with irrational restrictions in a media-saturated society was able to barely overcome explicitly unfair laws (and go no further, we're still the underclass, we're still dying.)
The history of effective, revolutionary, positive protest by what are often majorities involved people getting out into the streets as a show of strength, not a show of weakness. It always involves converting and including portions of the army and the police forces. It involves building strong shadow governments. Not this pantomime where everybody pretends to be black, and the people who are the blackest, weakest, most undeserving of their treatment win because mommy parliament or daddy supreme court are moved enough to declare them the winner.
Username checks out.
I can't remember where I read it, but I read that Signal's popularity was high (highest?) in Germany. Assuming I'm not misremembering or that the situation hasn't changed, it seems that Germans care enough about the issue to stake out a position.
They'll do nothing now, people don't want it, people complain, it's a bad thing politically. They'll wait for a year, people will forget, a new proposal for "Clean Chat" will appear, with effectively the same measures, they'll try to pass it quietly, maybe no one will notice, maybe there will be a terrorist attack or something similar by then, and more people will want it, and if it fails again, rinse and repeat a year after.
They only need to succeed once, we (the ones opposing the law) have to succeed every time.
Never trust the CDU. They were the ones pushing for the illegal data retention (Vorratsdatenspeicherung) and von der Leyen from the CDU is big on censorship and mass surveillance. They are just against it now because the country has bigger problems and the CDU has the worst approval ratings in history.
> Never trust the CDU. > Never trust the SPD.
I'm borderline not joking that there should be warning labels like those on cigarettes on the ballot when voting.
At voting is a bit late probably. You don't just trust leaders, you watch, you criticize, you communicate and sometimes you act. Political or otherwise as a matter of fact
It's almost as if they're different people with varying agendas.
They probably missed a fax
Zensursula von der Leyen is from the CDU, specifically.
van der Leyen was "promoted" to the EU, because she became uncomfortable for Germany and the CDU.
Germany will not abandon chat control just like the data perseveration they're so keen on. Europe is preparing for war so they need ways to make opposition more difficult. They're just waiting for the opportune moment where the opposition to these acts won't be as organized or is distracted with something else.
What war, against who? I don't know what kind of narrative you are tying to push here but know that any attempt would immediately meet strong opposition (I've seen the graves of Verdun and I for one would do anything to actively undermine and sabotage any kind of active war effort)
[flagged]
You can't do this here. We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45326106 (Sept 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403432 (June 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41830571 (Oct 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41710557 (Oct 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40852424 (July 2024)
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
[flagged]
> NATO countries pushing for war with Russia is a far right talking point
Talking point or not, is there truth in this statement?
Couldn't be further from the truth. Just look at how NATO countries have tiptoed around supporting Ukraine. Every major step (artillery shells, tanks, rocket artillery, air defense systems, and fighter jets) took ages of largely pointless discussion before the decision was made. Not to mention the very weak response to Russian military intelligence terror cells that have been caught red-handed across Europe in recent years while they were preparing attacks like smuggling incendiary devices onto DHL cargo airplanes. If this isn't an unbelievably unconfrontational reaction to Russia's actions, then what is?
Absolutely fair point, the response has been weak.
But here's the thing. The official action is slow, but the media stories about the threat are turned up to eleven, 24/7.
For a year & a half the story about the Nord Stream bombing was "Russia did it". End of discussion. Then it turns out it was probably some Ukrainian group, and everyone just shrugs and moves on. The original media-instilled fear doesn't disappear, though.
And that fear is what they use to sell us things like Chat Control.
So... when you mention "Russian military intelligence terror cells caught red-handed," my bar for skepticism is raised. I'm not saying it's impossible (on the contrary, militaries have been doing hybrid warfare for ALL of known human history), I'm just always failing to find the convictions that should follow someone being caught red-handed.
No. The idea that NATO wants war with Russia is pathetic.
Why the name calling?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Can we do better than have Europe fall apart in a Hacker News comment thread? :)
There are plenty of places to post this kind of vacuous, nihilistic, unsourced conspiracism. Please, not here.
Yeah, it's getting quite obvious that HN prefers to remain within the bounds of Wikipedia, NYT/WaPo narratives. Good luck with that, I'll just refrain from commenting on these topics. It's useless anyways.
Netzpolitik.org says it's not decided yet: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfr...
Jens Spahn, the speaker in the video OP shared, is not a member of the government but a leading member of the parliament and of one of the ruling parties. A tiny but important difference.
> but a leading member of the parliament
I think ‘a leading member’ is underselling it a little. He is the “Fraktionsvorsitzender”, which is comparable to the majority leader in the US Senate.
> which is comparable to the majority leader in the US Senate.
Not really. First of all, Jens Spahn doesn't lead a majority, he merely leads his party's parliamentary group, which has 208 of 630 seats. Second, he has already proven this year that he doesn't have the members of his own parliamentary group under control, so his stance on a matter should not be taken for more than it is.
My American brain: "The legislature is a branch of the government!"
Not OP but my guess: they were thinking administration in this case.
True, I guess I was thinking of the meaning of "government" in German for a second. Either way, though, if you consider "government" to include all three branches (executive, legislative, judicative), then there is really no way for the "the" government to take a stance on any issue, so "German government comes out against Chat Control" would be a rather nonsensical headline.
The original post linked says: "ruling party…". The term government was added by the poster I guess.
The EU tries something like this every few years. If you don't want this to happen, you have to win every time, while they only have to win once.
It's an unsustainable situation.
Every thread on this I have to post the same thing, which I hope will make people inform themselves, because we need our attention to be directed at the correct people.
> The EU tries something like this every few years.
This is NOT the EU trying it (I'm not even sure you know what you mean when you say "The EU"). This is certain groups of politicians from certain EU member states raising it again and again.
Please keep yourselves informed, don't spread an incorrect message, because this is an important issue to fight and needs accurate information.
This IS eu trying it since late 2021. The original proposal was adopted by the lead european commissioner Ylva Johansson in May 2022 and the commission has been trying to find support for it in the council ever since.
‘Who Benefits?’ Inside the EU’s Fight over Scanning for Child Sex Content (https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...)
Undermining Democracy: The European Commission’s Controversial Push for Digital Surveillance (https://dannymekic.com/202310/undermining-democracy-the-euro...)
1. maladministration: Ombudsman regrets Commission approach to access to documents request concerning EU legislation on combatting child sexual abuse (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/189565)
2. maladministration: Decision on how the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) dealt with the moves of two former staff members to positions related to combatting online child sexual abuse (case 2091/2023/AML) (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/200017)
Please keep yourselves informed, don't spread an incorrect message, because this is an important issue to fight and needs accurate information.
Citing articles is tricky because people have agendas. I cannot take any of them at face value because we both know that the writing will skew to push the narrative they want.
There is a long history to CSAM, long before your 2021 date. If we want to keep it fairly recent, here is a straight from the source link for you (no journalist or blogger added their skew). This is 2019 where The Council (elected ministers of member states) are deciding for push this forward. This is how the EC (commission) usually get their mandate.
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12862-2019-...
Research also tells us that various NGOs and Europol have been pressing the commission to act on this (side stepping national governments), but ultimately The Commission goes through the Council to get their mandate.
And keeping it more recent, this is being pushed (again unfortunately) through elected ministers of member states onto the Commission.
I'm not saying that the commission are not involved, but your message is trying to make this complicated scenario down into "evil unelected beurocrats" coming up with schemes to spy on us. It is narrow minded and directs people the wrong way.
Just like breathing, sleeping, and eating, you will always have to oppose tyranny. People who seek control will always try to get more. As long as ordinary people sustain strong opposition in word and deed it is sustainable, just like breathing.
Yep. And that's exactly why the EU has the structure it does.
Unfortunately the only country that ever left proceeded to shoot itself in both knees, light itself on fire and jump in a pool of gasoline. For NO reason.
There were reasons, they just weren't good ones
I have no idea how we came to a situation where something that was designed as a trade union can now repeatedly try to restrict my freedoms.
And we only have to win once to reverse it.
It's not going to get reversed once they're able to analyze all comms automatically for wrong think and stop 'extremist groups' because something 'Nazi'. The Stati letter steamers could only dream of such a system.
Online control is like a squatter waiting for years in the bushes on your yard and it only takes one time that you forget to lock your door and he sneaks in and claims he lives in your home, and uses all possible legal loopholes to prevent any imminent relocation.
A pedigree of chatcontrols has already been turned down several times in the past but there's nothing stopping it from being raised from the dead a couple of years later over and over until it finally passes. And then it's very much impossible to unpass.
What’s your point? That you should just give up and invite the squatter in? Serve him a cup of tea while you’re at it, and give him the house?
That brand of defeatism has been spewed every step of the way every time. If everyone thought like you, the first version of Chat Control would have passed. But it didn’t. And even if it eventually does, later is better than sooner. Later is worth fighting for.
Look, it’s fine if you yourself want to personally give up, this is tiring. But please don’t rub your despondency on the people who are trying to fight for something which benefits you. You’re not helping. On the contrary, you’re making it worse for everyone, including yourself.
Every time you make that sort of comment, you’re helping those who want to oppress you. Either join the fight or move aside.
No, you should tie the squatter, drive him to the middle of wilderness, and leave him there. So he will no longer have such bad ideas.
What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?
>What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?
Minimize govt. Remove the govt ability to control many aspects of one's life.
Good effing luck with that. Government is an institution that grows until it controls every single aspect of its citizens’ lives. What to do when government grows cancerous?
Agreed, it won't happen in practice. It's common people who are in favor of more legislation without realizing that are shooting themselves in the foot.
> It's common people who are in favor of more legislation
I know. I've always called myself a progressive left individual, then found out the modern progressive left is all about solving every issue with more rules, more centralisation, more bureaucracy and more prohibition. It's maddening to see how many people feel their government isn't legislating enough and is still too liberal.
Case in point: Online Safety Act has been heavily pushed by Labour (despite starting as a Tory thing). Chat Control is being pushed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Promote a better constitution that protects people from laws like this?
That is a wish, not an actionable step.
We could instead say “promote a utopia where everyone is treated fairly and empathetically and everyone’s needs are met without destroying the planet or a need for government”. That’d “fix” the current problem and more, the issue is what exactly can we do to “promote” that change.
It's actionable if you have some imagination. Raise funds for a nonprofit. Start lobbying on both sides of the aisle. Enlist an advertising company to show the dystopian future if something like chat control comes into effect, poll for focus groups and target them. Find ways to undermine and expose the forces that are pushing for authoritarian legislation.
[dead]
In my eyes this is just a technicality.
"Mit der CDU/CSU wird es keine anlasslose Chatkontrolle geben, wie sie von einigen Staaten in der EU gefordert wird."
Anlass is cause/reason here, so keine anlasslose literally translated means: not without cause/reason.
What about "reasonable causes", and the infrastructure enabling those? Be it legal/bureaucratic/technical? IMO it's already in place, mostly, and got abused many times, already.
This is just "weasel wording", changing nothing for so called "lawful interception".
If you got flagged by some algorithm somewhere, or got reported by someone behind your back, there will be Anlass!
Automagically...
Because neither the algorithms, nor the organizations handling the flagging, enabling the reporting are transparent.
They are unaccountable (to the public/affected) black boxes by design, be it for economic, organizational, or political reasons.
Inevitably leading to kafkaesque absurdities like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
That's the main crux with the current EU proposition: that they want to surveil all chat, regardless of whether the citizen involved is suspected of a crime.
Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats?
The only way to make court-mandated surveillance possible is to ensure that nobody's chat is encrypted to begin with, such that after a court order has come in, the data can be easily read. So to outlaw end-to-end encryption entirely is what this proposal is really about: break privacy guarantees for everybody to enable surveillance in a few outlier cases.
Of course, once encryption has been broken, three-letter agencies the world over will be reading your chats whether they have a warrant or not.
There is no way to have private communication for good people only. Either you have freedom for all, or freedom for none.
Had to double check the original account because I was worried about falling for an AI-generated video (account is legit). Weird times.
Article in German: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfr...
This rollercoaster is wearing me out. I hope this finally settles it!
I wouldn’t expect the general topic to become “finally settled” within our lifetime.
Freedom will not ever be finally settled in this life. Laws can be changed, constitutions amended, and of course the law is only as good as willingness to enforce it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as nice as it would be if that wasn't so.
At issue here is... what exactly "freedom" is
Speech is restricted the world over for things (fraud, threats, libel/slander, secrets, and more), and we're almost universally in favour of that.
It's a balancing act, and the point where we set the balance is difficult, and constantly changing (should we allow speech that encourages the persecution of other people, sometimes called "hate speech" or should people be allowed to advocate for the murder/rape/extermination of other human beings because of the way they look)
I'm not sure that's relevant to Chat Control. What's at stake here is not a definition of 'acceptable communication' in public, but the possibility of all private communication being scanned.
That's not to say that private communication can't already be illegal; mere 'conspiracy' is a crime in many places. Yet the level of surveillance that would be enabled by legislation like Chat Control is greater than any other in history. Even notorious agencies like the Stasi had to pick and choose their targets based on prior suspicion, simply because of the logistics involved in traditional surveillance.
We don't fully know what effects this kind of unceasing, universal monitoring would have on society, and what little historical precedent exists doesn't bode well. Restrictions on public speech however are pretty well understood; we've had censorship in various forms pretty much everywhere in the world at one point or another. We can look to history for lessons about what happens, and can properly discuss (even if not agree!) about when censorship is good or bad for society.
My comment is 100% relevant to the comment I was replying to. (Sometimes I do wish people who down vote were forced to comment why they were making such erroneous decisions)
And again with the passive aggressive "downvote because you have no ability to explain your disagreement"
Edit: To anyone reading and thinking of joining in to any of the discussions, the message is clear - Facebook or Reddit level of inanity is all you will find here.
I don't think that this is really relevant to my point. My point is not that the proposed EU laws are good or bad (frankly, I don't know anything about them and I'm not in the EU so it's not my business), but that this topic can't be definitely settled for all time. No matter what resolution is reached in the EU today, in 5 years' time someone will be fighting to change it. That's just how it goes.
How is the reasoning for the constant change not relevant
I expect it to become settled, just not in the way we want it.
Sure, there is the rollercoaster, ups and downs, small wins and losses going on all the time. But look at the general trends - these freedoms that we enjoyed are by and large being chipped away, it's all trending down, worldwide. It's two steps back, one step forward. Maybe CC doesn't get put in place this particular time, but they will ram it through eventually, at some point the right angle will be found to make the right people vote for it. Then the battleground will move onto something even more egregious, and so on. I'm not seeing why there would be a sudden reversal of this trend in the coming decades.
You're right: even when one proposal gets stopped, it rarely kills the idea
[dead]
From a non-EU perspective, it seems like the EU tries to push something akin to this every couple of years. So I guess it’s settled for at least a few years…?
Unless there's a law ensuring our freedoms.
Chat control very likely violates at least german law, if not EU law too already. As experts as well as the ministry of justice of the previous government in germany have pointed out time and time again.
Yet still that was never enough for a clear and definitive "no".
It is very likely that the people in favor of this would still try to push it through, or let that happen. They know that the legal battle afterwards to determine its unlawfulness would take years.
And during that time it could already be put it place. And once the legal battle is over (and likely won) severe damage is done and they could still adapt the law or just offer companies to continue doing this "voluntarily". And personally I wouldn't count on Apple, Google, or Facebook to roll this back quickly in that case once they've put it into place.
Laws can be changed, can be reinterpreted, there are no absolutes. What matters is who is in power, and how powers are kept in check. There is no finality to any of that. It’s a constant process of keeping things up, or failing to keep things up.
This is actually one of my own fears for efficient organization at state level and above: - any new technology, any new opportunity either has checks and balances or gets exploited by smart optimizers with no regards for the commons or human flourishing - checks and balances are as you say a constant drain on public attention and resources: you need smart people doing the checking (finite resource), and receptive eyeballs (finite also) - it is thus an optimization problem. attack_surface - check_capacity = societal_explots I worry that the check_capacity term is constrained, but that the attack_surface keeps aexpanding with new technologies. At some point, we started playing whack a mole, frantically jumping from one check to another, and we're holding the fray stochastically. but at some point it's going to become extremely adversarial.
Well, where's the megaproject to raise the public's IQ by 50 so that basic game-theoretic checkings become child's play?
I agree. There's an old saying: those who want to become president (leader of a country) should in no way be allowed to do so.
It's difficult to entrench things. In the UK they have often said "one Parliament can't bind another Parliament", and in the U.S. it's also sometimes said "one Congress can't bind another Congress".
The most obvious mechanism is a constitutional amendment, but in the U.S. the only amendment to be drafted and adopted in modern times is the 26th amendment (1971), 54 years ago. (The 27th amendment had a weird status where it was belatedly adopted with a 200-year delay.) It's hard to imagine many constitutional amendments actually being passed now because it's been challenging to find consensus on many things within U.S. politics lately.
I don't know that the EU at a supranational level has any mechanism at all to ban future EU directives. Maybe they could decide to remove something from the list of areas of competence of the EU? But Chat Control is under the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" and I can't imagine the EU deciding that that should be abandoned as an area of Union competence.
Edit: The international human rights treaties, at least in regulating law enforcement, have tended not to follow the idea that some kind of regulation or law enforcement power is completely off-limits, but just that they need procedural safeguards -- especially for surveillance and investigatory powers. In this case, Chat Control opponents (including me) would like it to be completely off-limits, but the human rights instruments arguments might more naturally go into "did they create enough surrounding rules and mechanisms about how it's used and how it's regulated?" rather than "can we just say governments just can't make this rule?".
Ask the U.S. lately just how binding those laws are.
Edward Snowden approves of this reminder :)
Given that freedom can mean different things even to the same society at different times and in different circumstances, such a law would essentially have to be sentient.
I mean, the right to privacy is already enshrined in the EU's human rights. The courts would likely strike Chat Control down if it were to pass. But I wish there was a way to prevent our politicians from even trying this shit.
Other things are enshrined in the EU human rights as well, many of them ultimately contradicting each other if you follow them to their logical conclusion.
It's the task of parliaments, governments, and courts to reevaluate and resolve all these contradictions over and over again. It's tedious and takes a lot of resources, but that's the price for democracy.
> I mean, the right to privacy is already enshrined in the EU's human rights.
The constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (i.e. North Korea) famously guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right for the people. That hasn't stopped the government from trampling all over freedom of expression, though. The EU is of course nowhere near North Korea in terms of what is considered acceptable, but don't ever trust that the words in the constitution will be enough to keep the government from doing something.
Finally settled? Forget it. The autocrats will try, try again.
In fact, if ChatControl does fail, they have already planned to include this in ProtectEU - a larger package coming soon...
Just imagine some other people will carry the burden and mentally distance yourself from it to relax from it wearing you out. You can take up the burden again later once you've recovered and others are worn out
It goes in waves, the forces behind it will continue and keep pushing until they can get it through, its a setback though.
Would be nice if this actually marked a turning point
It's working. It will not be settled.
"anlasslose Chatkontrolle" => Chat Control without cause.
Ok, maybe these are not weasel words in this case. The CDU probably wants to present itself as a friend of the people using a popular issue that they don't really care about. My suspicion is that this is exactly why the ChatControl issue is brought up yearly. It distracts people from wars, the economy etc., there is a big discussion and finally the government graciously comes down on the side of the people. Each and every year.
> It distracts people from wars, the economy etc
Were this true, some politicians would do it for that reason. It would need to get a lot of attention to be an effective distraction, and it does not. The mainstream press barely covers the issue. Many people who would be directly harmed by it don't even know what's being considered.
Yeah, this isn't being covered at all. At least, up to its significance. Most people are computer illiterate too, so it is unlikely they would understand or care either.
It's no wonder we see the countries that oppose this as well. Makes one think. Sweden's case is peculiar given their military opposed it. I wonder what's going on there.
I mean, there is already "Quellen-TKÜ"¹ for the "with cause" situation… however bonkers that one might be on a modern secure Apple or Android device…
¹ Quelle = source, TKÜ = Telekommunikationsüberwachung = telecommunication surveillance. aka installing trojans on your devices.
Citizens' ignorance is a larger danger than government action today, because politicians are sensitive to citizens' (=voters') behaviors.
Most people think they have nothing to hide and because "I'm not a terrorist they can watch me".
They really did not learn from their parent's generation (Gestapo, Stasi).
I am so happy to see this.
The German social perspective on privacy has been strongly for the individual over the state for a long time. Chat Control goes too far, and Germany should be a loud voice in the heavy moderation of state surveillance powers.
There is a last minute petition from Chatkontrolle stoppen which you can sign here: https://weact.campact.de/petitions/chatkontrolle-stoppen?sou...
Edit: 234K signatures at the time of this posting.
I didn't realise Nitter was working again [1]. It's a shame that they made is so hostile to interface with Twitter/X.
[1] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter
Any software mandated by the government should be required to be open source to diminish the incentives for big spyware firms lobbying for their product.
Good job Germany. This would've absolutely killed any respect I've had for the EU.
Anyone who researched this topic knows one thing about cp: it's not made by predators, it's made by children. Overwhelmingly.
It's a lame excuse.
They are using the A word exactly like they used the self-A word for self-pleasure a few decades earlier.
Raise your hand who's never used your phone to create some A word material as a child.
This is a rare bit of good news on the privacy front
Well that kills it.
Stay vigilant. Our German conservatives will repeat the process to restrict our human rights over and over until it slips through the cracks.
It's funny how politicians want laws against issues for which they usually are the guilty party.
Not only conservatives. Social democrats now positioned themselves against this, but they only do when convenient. They very much support increased surveillance attempts.
But if you look up past decisions, you will quickly notice that they have very similar ambitions here.
At some point they were against ISP saving connection info, only to switch in the last moment and then fully support and even pushing for it.
Aside from privacy violations, this did not have any positive effect on crime at all. It also showed that the German constitution is more or less a paper tiger.
Unfortunately, that's not a "German conservatives" thing, but very much a "German politicians" thing.
this needs locked down legally. i feel like it will just come up again in another year.
i was about to rage about this xcancel being some kind of woke tantrum, but actually the idea is not bad: https://xcancel.com/about
[dead]
the internet is already dying and social media largely sucks. the whole ass thing is going to be 100% ai driven ads, scams, astroturfing, propaganda, trolls and other fuckery sooner rather than later. just let chat control kill it, fuck it. accelerate to a cyberpunk future of local mesh networks.
What makes you think local mesh networks would remain legal?
It won't but luckily no government is powerful enough to govern math and therefore cryptography. Mathematics is more of a liberator than the second amendment in this respect.
Physical hardware can be controlled, yes. Decentralization and obfuscation similar to TOR is probably needed here.
If running a mesh network is illegal, does it matter that the traffic is just math? Without a network, there's no data transmission of that math. The government controls the airwaves. It doesn't matter if you're broadcasting Top40 or encrypted messages, if they say no to your transmitting, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your transmitting, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your forgetting to scan the case of water on the bottom of your cart, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your hacked cable box, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your speeding, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your weed, you're going nowhere.
> if they say no to your growing a mushroom and mailing it to your friend, you're going nowhere.
There's a whole spectrum of how illegal something is to consider. People break the law every day for a range of reasons from accident, to ignorance, to convenience, to want, to need, etc.
In the hypothetical world that you've set out, where surveillance is so extreme and overreaching as to help finish off the entirety of the internet for good, there's no way it would stop at the internet. The goal isn't controlling this set of standards and protocols that defines just the internet, the goal is controlling communication and the internet is the #1 way of communicating between people at the moment.
If people all started talking through letter mail, you'd get Letter Control, they wouldn't just forget about it because it's not the internet. If the people somehow become smart and coordinated enough to move to some cryptographically-secure method of communication, your government will probably outlaw the equipment and actions associated with using it in the first place instead of trying to decrypt all communications.
The goal is control of information, and the way of doing that is to force everyone to use unsecured communication with no feasible alternatives. I wouldn't expect kid glove treatment with that, unlike speeding or minor shoplifting.
> to force everyone to use unsecured communication
Treat social media as any other unsecured channel. You can do e2e on Facebook, you'll just have to do it yourself. I'm only half joking, I'm sure somebody has done this already, they just keep quiet about it.
Lot of probably's and maybes moving at the speed of government in your comment, look how many decades this has been in the works.
Circumventing the Great Firewall in China is against the rules, comes with some risk for vpn operators and users, yet we know it happens regularly.
Buying and selling drugs online is illegal, yet there's always a Silk Road or Empire Market with enough buyers and sellers to make the risk worth it. We already have "letter control" for drugs, but it doesn't stop me from buying a QP of weed and a federal employee delivering it conveniently to my house.
Good luck outlawing the parts and software, maybe they'll get to them when they finally gather up all the fentanyl.
Even if chat control doesn't happen, the social internet is fucked. Just look at Quora for a preview.
running an actively transmitting network is an easy thing for them to come and shut down. you doing any of the other things can easily be done without them knowing about it. you can be flippant about it all you want, but you don't look intelligent by doing so
oh no a guy on the internet called me stupid, such value will be lost if the EU takes this from us
Cryptography is privacy. Privacy can taken away by law.
It is the same as free speech. You can say what you want, but you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing in many countries.
Ah yes, fortunately governments have never in history successfully declared certain large integers illegal and prosecuted people for sharing them.
Shooting someone is also "just physics", yet many governments have been known to frown upon it (depending on the context).
You'll be okay as long as you print them on a t-shirt
Yep, good thing nobody has ever been jailed for wearing a t-shirt with the wrong slogan.
Even a blank sheet of paper I think was enough to get someone in jail.
It is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_paper_protest
More than anything, this is a good lesson in information theory. A blank sheet of paper isn't devoid of information just because it doesn't contain ink - rather, it is the context of the current situation that defines the information being conveyed. This is true in all forms of communication.
This reminds me of a story I read once about when Victor Hugo had just published Les Miserables. Just after publication, he went to his vacation home due to the controversy he was sure was going to follow the publication of the book. Wanting to know how the reception was going, he mailed his publisher a letter simply containing a question mark. The publisher responded with only an exclamation mark, and Hugo immediately understood - he had written an eternal classic.
(BTW, I read this in the book The User Illusion - a fantastic read)
you missed the reference. as a history lesson, the deCSS code was written on a t-shirt and was deemed acceptable. having the deCSS compiled as an executable was deemed not acceptable.
I got the reference. Seems like it worked out quite nicely for the government/court though, given that deCSS isn't much use printed on a t-shirt, compared to in a binary on a computer?
you can't share the compiled binary, but you can share a shirt. if you have the shirt, you can compile on your own. the t-shirt became the sharing network
That’s the thing about speech: It’s very hard for governments to physically prevent it, but attaching consequences to making use of that capability usually works just as well.
The government failed to stop the spread of the DeCSS code and subsequent tools that were developed using that code. That’s kind of the point.
¿Por qué no los dos?
you mean like Bluesky?
OK, really hot take here:
-ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking
-Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look
-So, something has got to give. Either 'chat' services need to become 'providers of telecoms services' and therefore implement lawful interception laws, or the malware industry will continue to flourish, or something even more stupid will happen
Pick your poison.
> -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look
Why on earth would mass intercept be necessary or even help in that?
If you got scammed by someone, then you can contact the police and hand over your message history. Why would the cops be interested in someone else's message history for this?
> Why on earth would mass intercept be necessary
Lawful interception is not "mass intercept."
It's the ability to surveil traffic from/to a clearly identified party, upon a judicial order for specific reason, for a limited time.
ChatControl, on the other hand, is mass interception. I'm against it. Most people in the EU are against it. But to prevent things like ChatControl coming up over and over again, a basic tool to combat Internet crime is required.
The problem we have is that was OK when someone had to actually listen in or you had to have a tape recorder connected up to every line you want to tap, or physically open individual letters.
Now we have found “lawful intercept” can easily just become mass surveillance, and not just by the people who are meant to use it but other parties too. We saw this with CALEA which was used by China (and who knows who else) for espionage and spying for years before anyone realised.
You make a system for the “good guys” and it always turns out adversary, criminal groups etc. will gain access, even if the “good guys” don’t start acting like bad guys themselves.
Technology made mass surveillance easy, so every lawful intercept becomes mass surveillance as well as vulnerable to scammers, criminals and foreign intelligence.
And we don’t have any way of making lawful intercept possible without that unfortunately.
From what I know this basic tool already exists. In the US, the government can just ask any old company for their data and they have to give it up, just like they would their mail or their physical locations. I'm assuming the rest of the West has similar tools, warrants of some kind.
The problem is nobody uses them to combat crime on the internet. They use them for stupid shit usually or stuff that involves lots and lots of money.
We're jumping the gun here. We already have a fire bomb, and we're not using it, but we're going ahead to developing the nuke. Makes no sense.
We're talking about end-to-end encrypted data here. It doesn't matter if LE have the company's data because it's just a scrambled mess. They don't have the keys to decrypt it. They only exist on the users' devices.
Chat Control seeks to execute on each and every device before/after encryption so it has access to the data pre/post encryption.
Sigh. We already have a mechanism to get the data off the devices.
If the servers don't have it, what do you do? You go to the end points, you issue a warrant, and there's your unencrypted data.
What if they don't wanna do that? I don't know, that's out of scope.
People refuse warrants all the time. You know what we DON'T do? Say, "fuck it" and no longer require warrants.
Again, let's look at good old mail. I can encrypt mail. I can write in ciphers.
Okay, now FedEx gets a warrant. They give me the mail. I can't read it. Uh oh. What do I do? I go to the sender and recipient, and I issue warrants. Problem solved.
That's how we do things, that's how weve always done things, and that's the only reasonable way to do things. We don't say "hey post office, open up every letter and read it. And if it sounds suspicious, tell us". We don't do that.
Okay, so everyone understands that and there's no confusion. When we go online, suddenly there's confusion. Is it confusion, or is the confusion a viel for authoritarian?
> So, something has got to give.
Something does have to give: the constant demands for interception capabilities on end-to-end encrypted protocols. Those demands must be thoroughly destroyed every time they rear their head again.
It's interesting that this initiative seems to be mostly driven by influential actors in the "online safety" space that want their flawed scanning tech embedded into every device. Thorn is the most public-facing one, but if you dig into advocacy groups you'll find there's a dozen or so more, and they competed for being the technical solution to the UK online safety act too. But if it involves CSAM it's an even more perfect monopoly - only a very select group of people can train these models because the training data is literally illegal to possess.
If you needed any indication for how these pseudo-charities (usually it's a charity front and a commercial "technology partner") are not interested in the public good, SafeToNet, a company that up until last year was trying to sell a CSAM livestream detection system to tech companies to "help become compliant" ("SafeToWatch") now sells a locked down Android phone to overprotective parents that puts an overlay on screen whenever naked skin can be seen (of any kind). It's based on a phone that retails for 150 pounds - but costs almost 500 with this app preinstalled into your system partition. That's exceptionally steep for a company that up until last year was all about moral imperatives to build this tech.
I haven't seen anything that suggests chat control would do anything to e2e. I am genuinely curious. It seems to be an often parroted point but... ?
It's just local image hashing and matching? Or is this only one implementation idea?
Chat Control is in some ways a response to E2E, by saying "let's backdoor the endpoints, then".
I am having a legitimately hard time wrapping my head around not being able to prosecute bank fraud because signal exists. Was it impossible before when criminals would talk in person instead over a recorded telephone?
There is a famous case of US Mafia meeting in rooms, or out on streets to discuss their "business activities" face to face to prevent authorities from surveilling the phone calls.
The reason we know is because authorities were able to place listening devices into the rooms that they were in, or surveil them from other buildings.
This is analogous to getting a warrant to someone’s phone. (Chat control is like putting a microphone into every room in case the government wants to listen after the fact.)
I’m still unconvinced that this make’s law enforcement’s job so hard that something has to give.
No? But lawful intercept laws were never about "criminals [talking] in person".
There's a different set of laws for that...
And we all know those laws are never abused and are absolutely only used to target criminals.
No, there is definitely abuse of lawful interception.
But, in a jurisdiction with a functioning rule of law, these abuses can be spotted and remedied.
Doing the same for mass surveillance (such as ChatControl) or state-sponsored malware is much harder.
I'm advocating against ChatControl and malware, and proposing existing lawful interception frameworks as an alternative. But, apparently it's not my day :)
ChatControl is just lawful interception under a different name, but worse.
Why would the malware industry benefit from digital message privacy?
If you're the victim, just hand over the relevant chats yourself. Otherwise, just follow the money. And if the attackers are sitting in a country whose banks you can't get to cooperate, intercepting chat messages from within that country won't do you any good either.
Also, if someone has malicious intent and is part of a criminal network, the people within that network would hardly feel burdened by all digital messages on all popular apps being listened in on by the government. These people will just use their own private applications. Making one is like 30min of work or starting at $50 on fiverr.
”Follow the money”. Yes, let’s decide that no bank is to have anything to do with crypto from next year. And not do business with other banks that accepts crypto. That would help stop fraud much more effective than Chat Control.
For the vast majority of crypto currencies tracing the transactions is trivial. And even currencies like XMR are hardly as anonymous as people think.
The challenging regulations around technically anonymous crypto currencies require you to actively make trackable arrangements with your financial service providers. VERY few people will ever do this, and therefore if anything suspicious were to occur, all you've achieved is putting yourself on the suspect list preemptively.
> Why would the malware industry benefit from digital message privacy?
Because if lawful interception of in-transit messages is not possible or permitted, hacking either the client or the server becomes the only option.
You may enjoy reading https://therecord.media/encrochat-police-arrest-6500-suspect.... Or just downvoting me. Or both.
Sure, if you want to read the messages, but the whole point is that that's rarely necessary and the price isn't worth the minimal gain.
Of the serious criminals, the only ones you'll be catching are those with low technical knowledge (everyone else will just be using their own applications) and the Venn diagram of those with little tech knowledge and those whose digital privacy practices could deceive law enforcement resembles AA cups against a pane of glass.
Regarding Encrochat, it is no surprise that an (unintentional?) watering hole gathered up a bunch of tech-illiterate, the fallacy is that those people wouldn't have been caught if they weren't allowed to flock to a single platform for some time.
Would some people have not been caught until much later or even not at all? Sure, but if LE would do its job (and not ignoring, or even covering up, well known problem areas and organizations for years to decades), only those of low priority.
Is that little gain worth creating a tool to allow Iran or similar countries to check every families' messages if they suspect some family member might be gay?
Hard nope.
> Or just downvoting me.
Don't worry, I rarely do that and that's not just because I can't...
[dead]
How do you propose it's implemented though?
The two sides in this debate seem to be talking at cross purposes, which is why it goes round and round.
A: "We need to do this, however it's done, it was possible before so it must be possible now"
B: "You can't do this because of the implementation details (i.e. you can't break encryption without breaking it for everyone)"
ad infinitum.
Regardless of my own views on this, it seems to me that A needs to make a concrete proposal
Lawful intercept laws exist, and they've been sort-of functional for ages.
Apps like Signal don't entirely fall within the scope of these, which is the cause of the current manic attempts to grab more powers.
My point is that these powers grabs should be resisted, and that new services should be brought into the fold of existing laws.
The prevailing opinion here seems to be that, instead, state hacking should be endorsed. Which, well...
The prevailing opinion here seems to be that we’d really like for there to not be an omnipresent panopticon because protect the children or terrorists or, apparently, malware. If your imagination is particularly lacking on how this might be weaponized just remember that antifa is now designated as an terrorist organization in US, so you better not be a suspected member of it — as in, you best not have sent a buddy a message on signal about how those tiki torch carrying nazi larpers aren’t exactly great guys, or off to a black site you go for supporting terrorism.
If you want to prosecute people send physical goons, which are of limited quantity, rather than limitless, cheaper and better by the day pervasive surveillance of everybody and everything.
> an omnipresent panopticon
OK, sorry to keep repeating myself here, but... I strongly oppose any kind of "panopticon" like ChatControl.
What I would like to see, is, say, Signal complying with lawful interception orders in the same way that any EU telecoms provider currently does.
So, provide cleartext contents of communications to/from a cleary identified party, for a limited time, by judicial order, for a clearly specified reason.
> pervasive surveillance of everybody and everything
This is exactly what lawful intercept laws are supposed to prevent. And yeah, of course, abuse, but under a functioning rule of law there are at least ways to remedy that, unlike with mass surveillance and/or malware...
> I strongly oppose any kind of "panopticon" like ChatControl. What I would like to see, is, say, Signal [...] provide cleartext contents of communications to/from a cleary identified party
Those statements simply aren't compatible.
Right now, Signal is designed by cryptography experts to provide the best privacy we know how to build: messages are only readable by you or the intended recipient. "Lawful intercept" necessarily means some additional third party is given the ability to read messages.
It doesn't matter what kind of legal framework you have around that, because you can't just build a cryptosystem where the key is "a warrant issued under due process." There has to be a system, somewhere, that has access to plaintext messages and can give law enforcement and courts access. The judges, officers, technicians, suppliers, and software involved in building and using this system are all potential vectors by which this access can be compromised or misused -- whether via software or hardware attacks, social engineering, or abuse of power.
Maybe your country has "functioning rule of law", and every single government official and all the vendors they hire are pure as snow, but what about all the rest of us living in imperfect countries? What about when a less-than-totally-law-abiding regime comes into power?
You're proposing that we secure our private conversations with TSA luggage locks.
> You're proposing that we secure our private conversations with TSA luggage locks
No -- that's an incredibly reductive summary, and the attitude you display here is, if left unchecked, exactly what will allow something equally ridiculous like ChatControl to pass eventually.
There has been plenty of previous debate when innovations like postal mail, telegraph traffic and phone calls were introduced. This debate has resulted in laws, jurisprudence, and corresponding operating procedures for law enforcement.
You may believe there are no legitimate reasons to intercept private communications, but the actual laws of the country you live in right now say otherwise, I guarantee you. You may not like that, and/or not believe in the rule of law anymore anyway, but I can't help you with that.
What I can hopefully convince you of, is that there needs to be some way to bring modern technology in line with existing laws, while avoiding "9/11"-style breakdowns of civil rights.
We can draw analogy between any two things. An encrypted chat is not a letter in the mail or a call on the telephone. It is an entirely new thing. Backdooring such chats is not "bringing technology in line with existing laws" it is, very clearly, passing new laws, and creating new invasions of privacy. It must be justified anew. The justification for wiretapping was not that there was no way to fight crime without it. Otherwise, when the criminals became wise to it, and began to hold their conversations offline, there would have been a new law, requiring that all rooms be fitted with microphones that the police could tap into as necessary. No such law was passed. Instead, the justification for wiretapping was simply that, once police had identified some transmission as relating to the committing of a crime, they could obtain a warrant, and then tap into the communication. The physical capacity without any effort by uninvolved individuals was the entire justification. That capacity does not exist with encrypted chats. The analogy is therefore much closer to the "mandated microphones" described above. Everyone is being required to take action to reduce their own privacy, regardless of whether they are subject to a warrant.
What is most striking about our "mandated microphone" analogy is the utter futility of it. Criminals have no issue breaking the law, and hence have no issue outfitting a room with no microphones in which to carry out their dealings. The same is true of any law targeting encrypted chats.
For a real-world example of the problem you're describing, China's Salt Typhoon attacks compromised lawful intercept infrastructure in the USA to engage in espionage. A mandatory backdoor in Signal would be at risk from similar attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon
I would rather online banking be impossible, or only available to those that take training and sign waivers, than have all my communications surveiled.
OK, you be you, But please note that I did not list "online banking becoming impossible" as a likely outcome. Merely malware continuing to be state-sponsored, or certain communications to be surveilled. Not all of yours, unless you draw an especially vinidicative judge (and yes, I'm assuming a functioning rule of law here -- if that's gone, what's left?)
> OK, you be you
I don't know what you mean by this.
> But please note that I did not list "online banking becoming impossible" as a likely outcome.
No, but it should be a likely and maybe even desired outcome, especially if a justification for surveillance is the prevention of online banking fraud among other crimes.
> Merely malware continuing to be state-sponsored, or certain communications to be surveilled.
Norms and mores change over time, so the only conclusion is that "certain communications" will become "all communications" at some point in the future. I'd love to be proven wrong.
> Norms and mores change over time
Yeah, but laws tend to be more constant, and lawful interception laws are, 100% guaranteed, a thing, right now, in the country where you live.
They apply to telegrams, postal mail, telephone conversations, and a whole bunch of other things nobody really does anymore. They don't really apply to the things people do tend to do these days.
ChatControl is an incompetent attempt to remediate the lapses in law enforcement that this has caused. I strongly oppose it. But I also strongly oppose the idea that the Internet should be off limits for any kind of law enforcement, unless it is through dubious mechanisms like state-sponsored malware.
Your "slippery slope" argument is much more compelling in the absense of extended lawful interception than in the situation where Signal messages would somehow be equated to postcards or SMS messages...
And yet lawful intercept laws cannot force you to decrypt the OTP-encrypted physical letter you sent to your friend. (Except in authoritarian shitholes like the UK.) Same principles would seem to apply here.
A hot take: removing protections guaranteed by constitution should require modification of the constitution. There is already a "temporary" European regulation [1] that is in violation of the German constitution [2]. CSAR would be a further erosion of the legal foundation. Americans were happy when their federal laws that restrict marijuana use were simply ignored by executive fiat without proper processes, well, they aren't so happy now to see that other laws can be freely ignored too.
If people speak up and say "take away our rights" at a referendum, let that be their decision, not a political backroom deal.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1232/oj
[2] Article 10 at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...
> A hot take: removing protections guaranteed by constitution
Lawful intercept laws exist in most, if not all, EU countries.
It's just that super-national overlay services like Signal don't entirely fall within the framework of those.
So, there is now a choice: expand interception powers indefinitely (a.k.a. ChatControl, which, to make things crystal-clear, I'm 100% against), or bring new services into the fold of existing legislation.
No existing legislation requires proactive interception of mail, physical or electronic. Bringing new services into the fold of existing legislation would mean forbidding any proactive scanning by civilians and forbidding such scanning by authorities without a warrant or court order.
> proactive interception of mail, physical or electronic
Lawful interception is not proactive: it requires a judicial order to collect plaintext communications from/to specifically identified individuals (resident in the country demanding the interception), for a limited time and for a specific purpose.
ChatControl, which I strongly argue AGAINST would sort-of be what you describe. But: I. Am. Arguing. AGAINST. That.
A piece of open source software running on Alice's computer exchanges keys with a piece of open source software running on Bob's computer. Later Alice and Bob exchange messages encrypted with those keys through Charlie's server.
Eve, a police officer has evidence that Alice and Bob are messaging each other about crimes and obtains a warrant to require Charlie to intercept their communication. Charlie has no ability to do so because it is encrypted with keys known only by Alice and Bob.
If you want a different result, someone has to proactively change part of this process. Which part should change?
One option is to mandate that any encrypted messaging software also give a key to the government or the government's designee, but someone using open source software can modify it so that it doesn't do that, which would be hard or impossible to detect without a forensic search of their device.
Another option is to mandate that a service provider like Charlie's only deliver messages after verifying that it can decrypt them. This, too is hard to enforce because users can layer additional encryption on top of the existing protocol. Signal's predecessor TextSecure did that over SMS.
Both of those options introduce a serious security vulnerability if the mechanism for accessing the mandatory escrowed keys were ever compromised. Would you like to suggest another mechanism?
About the only thing I can think of is to mandate the use of (flawed) AI to identify messages that seem nonsensical and refuse to pass them, and then to play a game of Chinese-style DPI whack-a-mole in an attempt to suppress open alternatives.
If you have the ability to run custom software—even if it’s a bash script—you can develop secure alternatives. And even if you somehow restrict open source messaging, I can just use good old pen-and-paper OTP to encrypt the plaintext before typing it in, or copy/paste some other text pre-encrypted in another program. But even then, all this will do is kick off a steganographic arms race. AI generated text where the first letter of each word is the cyphertext may be nearly impossible to identify, especially at scale.
If anything like this were to pass, my first task would be making a gamified, user-friendly frontend for this kind of thing.
> modification of the constitution
Don’t give them any ideas!
[dead]
Nothing has to give. Police did their work fine for centuries, they can continue doing it without mass surveillance.
But that's not a fair statement. Police did their work for centuries but it was nowhere near "fine" by modern standards and today there's a hundred ways more to commit crime
Lawful intercept equipment is often targeted by criminals and nation states, the entire concept is extremely dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_global_telecommunications... https://unshakled.org/salt-typhoon-the-unintended-consequenc... https://group2000.com/articles/a-wake-up-call-for-securing-l...
I’ll take the malware thanks
while this is a link to the malware site x.com, it is shown in a protective trustworthy hull, called xcancel.com
Without confidential and private spaces, how in the world can relational trust be cultivated?
And how in the world can we have safety if relational trust is suffocated before it can even take root?
Please use your imagination! Those aren't the only options if we embrace trust as essential rather than looking at any need for it as a liability.
why do you think they want relation trust. unless you mean trusting that if you go against the man, the man will come for you. maybe it would be better for s/trust/fear/
: _ (
Malware has existed nearly since the dawn of computing. Making the world even less secure under the guise of combating w/e today's latest bogeyman is is not gonna solve that. And having secure private communications is not gonna make it worse.
That anyone thinks this blatantly obvious attack on free speech is actually going to be used only for law enforcement is wild to me.
Im sorry but I know my countries history, there is no good in "lawful interception"
" "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look"
Do you want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud and crime so this does not happen, or what is the point here?
> You want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud
No, that's not how lawful intercept laws work.
I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity.
ChatControl is not that, and it's one of the reasons it's a nonstarter.
"I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity."
They already have that in most (?) jurisdictions by now.
With a warrant, they can install a virus on the device that will then do targeted surveillance.
ChatControl is bad, because it is blanket surveillance of everyone without warrant.
> With a warrant, they can install a virus on the device that will then do targeted surveillance
Yeah, and that sponsors an entire malware industry!
I don't really know how I can make my position any clearer, but...
-Malware: bad!
-ChatControl (encryption backdoors): bad!
-Inability to do any kind of law enforcement involving "the Internet": double-plus bad!
-Enforcement of existing lawful interception laws in the face of new technology: maybe look at that?
"I don't really know how I can make my position any clearer, but..."
You could state in plain words what do you propose as an alternative.
I read what you wrote, but have no idea what you propose.
> I [...] have no idea what you propose
It's literally the last item in my list?
But to further clarify: I would like existing lawful interception laws to be extended to services like Signal.
Not in the sense that any EU country should be able to break Signal crypto (as ChatControl proposes, and which I think is an utterly ill-advised idea), but that competent law enforcement agencies should be able to demand unencrypted Signal communications from/to an identified EU party, for a limited time and purpose, upon a (reviewable) judicial order.
Most, if not all, EU countries currently have similar laws applying to telegrams, snail mail, email, telephony and whatnot. If you don't like those either, that's fine, but that's the status quo, and I would like to see that extended to services like Signal, as opposed to incompetently dumb measures like ChatControl...
Ok, so you want to break Encryption by law demand. Because this is what this means. Or how exactly would it work, technically? Signal does not know the private key of the 2 parties. Signal would have to inject a infected update into the client .. which is also malware. I rather have just those on target devices with a warrant, instead of breaking all encryption.
Or would you go extreme and outlaw decentraliced encrypted communication alltogether?
The law enforcement of which countries, under which sets of laws?
Should Thailand be granted access to enforce their lease majeste laws, for example? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9_in_Th...
Who gets to decide what gets made available to who?
> law enforcement of which countries, under which sets of laws?
We're taking about ChatControl here, so law enforcement of EU countries, under their respective laws, into which EU law should have been incorporated
> Should Thailand be granted access to enforce their lease majeste laws
Same answer as "should Thailand be granted arrest rights to enforce <whatever>": they submit a legal assistance request to the country where the alleged crime occurred.
In the case of a lawful interception request for "lease[sic] majeste" reasons, I'm pretty sure this would be immediately rejected.
But, if not, the EU subject of such interception would have lots and lots of avenues to get redress.
Again, and I'm getting sort of tired from repeating myself: "lawful interception" does not mean "indiscriminate surveillance at the whim of whomever" -- it is a well-defined concept that has been used to determine which telegrams and mail pieces to open and which telephone calls to record for ages now. Your country absolutely does it, as we speak, no matter where you live. It's just that modern technology has far outpaced the scope of this legislation, and things like ChatControl are (incompetent) responses to that.
ChatControl is not a good idea, and has very little chance of becoming reality. But to stop dumb proposals like this from coming up over and over again, something has got to give.
And when some other countries pass laws demanding access to the same mechanism that the EU gets?
I’ll go a step further: if EU sovereigns claim the right to “lawfully intercept” their citizens' private communications, why shouldn’t every state enjoy the same privilege? Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Uganda will be exemplary custodians of such technology. You have nothing to fear, citizen: their democratic constitutions and impeccable legal codes will protect you.
Your comment is incoherent and displays a total misunderstanding of the technology. There is no way to make lawful intercept work with end-to-end encryption: it is mathematically impossible. And don't waste our time with stupid suggestions about key escrow or the like. We know that those keys will inevitably be leaked or misused for political purposes.
Fail to see that it would even work. If the scam has happened how would lawful interception afterwards help? The criminal can just use burner accounts and the chat log exist on the scammed persons device.
Malware, easily
A simple way to end the discussion:
No matter what the state says, or what legislatures pass what laws, we're going to continue to live out our right to general purpose computing, including sending only what we choose to send over the wire, and encrypting content as we see fit.
Now let's talk about something else.
That works until the government and media successfully push the narrative to the public that anyone using encryption is supporting child molesters and terrorists.
The government itself uses encryption.
In fact the proposed chat control law has an exception for government agencies
That doesn't counter the argument. The people arguing against encryption would just liken it to the government being able to use military equipment that you, as an individual, can't have. "Free communication is a dangerous tool, only the government can be entrusted with the power it provides" and so on.
This may work on boomers but for younger people 90% of the use of a phone is for messaging and obviously you don't want anyone listening in to your private conversations especially for sexting.
People are not going to stop sending each other their boobs or penii, and while that remains the case, encrypted messaging will thrive.
Media propaganda is insane. I saw on the news today: "Jew haters allowed to protest in Berlin." And people believe this nonsense.
I like the sentiment but it sounds very similar to Soverign Citizen nonsense. You can't just plug your ears and say that a law doesn't apply to you because you didn't consent to it.
Yes you can, it's called civil disobedience. Sovcits are stupid because they break the law but don't know it.
Civil disobedience involves breaking the law with full knowledge that it's illegal, to protest injustice.
The reasoning isn't about consent or social contracts, but about the evolutionary trajectory of humankind.
By way of example: in the United States, the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees freedom of "the press" - it is referenced not by the right to print what one wants, but specifically in reference to the technology of the time, the printing press.
It's obvious that our evolutionary trajectory is one in which widely distributed general purpose computing is normal.
Making laws that contradict this is just childish, and at some point the adults in the room need to be willing to ignore them.