By calling out you doing that, thank you for mentioning.
@BluishHumility also has his unique own opinion somewhere in between of mine and yours, but has he ever derailed topic or intentionally antagonized anyone?
Nope.
Because what i’m talking about it has nothing to do with opinion at all, you can’t possibly miss the point here, i’m speaking very direct.
You just can’t agree to disagree and say . Hmm… that might work even if you don’t like it or want it to happen and leave it at that. I believe it could be done. I also support the intent of what they want to accomplish. You only see evil! I see good. I see possibility. I see change. It’s not always what one wants but it is inevitable and change is constant! That’s life!
Sorry but, it has everything to do with it.
In a civil and moderate discussion there is the initiator posting a thesis.
others may confirm or creating antithesis.
But the initial poster has the right to defend his thesis.
Others agreed with the thesis some with the antithesis.
In case there will be a synthesis but in this case there will be no.
So repeating the same thing over and over? thats offending and should be stopped.
@keybreak tried to ignore but that was not stopping you from posting again and again.
Remember that point in this topic when you has tolerated everyone else that disagrees with you so much that you’ve started calling multiple people stupid because you didn’t like how people answered to your provocative statement over and over?
I couldn’t care less then.
I’ve not intervened ONCE until this topic has started to be nearly removed when you’ve continued to do same thing even after asking multiple times to cut the crap.
So cry me a river about having an opinion.
Yes, pretty much what @joekamprad have said above.
Flagging posts is still the best way to call moderation instead of starting to handle the offender in the thread.
This makes it possible to handle it in a decent way directly with the involved persons…
In this case it was not helping i can agree.
But i do not agree that Moderators have to handle lounge discussions in the same way as help threads.
The lounge is allowed here, but we do not get payed to do that i will not pay the same attention to problems on the lounge, or spend my free time to read all the stuff.
The main core of the forum is helping on OS issues and the lounge is second.
This is by no means an open political discussion forum.
But we are grown ups (mainly).
Bad situation because @ricklinux is a moderator, and the biggest ISO tester we have here.
He will understand that this here is not about the status.
I haven’t called anyone stupid. I just disagree with what the narrative is pushing. That it’s it’s breaking encryption. I have explained my reason why and how i think it can be done and also why i support it.
But none you can just accept that. So keep going on and on and on with the negative conversation about how bad it is and all the rest. This is not how I want to see the forum on daily basis of negative doom scrolling about any topic. That is how i see it. Nothing positive and all about what’s negative because you don’t like it or you don’t agree with it. It’s only a conversation if it’s like minded individuals who agree with it. So that’s all i have to say.
No offense man, but no one else seems to agree with you. LoL.
I sure don’t know everything.
But I definitely understand what end to end encryption means.
Who’s no one…a few people on the forum. You people aren’t the deciding view of all.
Sure… 
Out of RAM i guess.
P.S. But that’s not my point anyway, i was just pointing specific moment of time when it gone completely out of control and you should have stopped and be somewhat more rational.
I got lots of ram…
I just don’t feel like unloading it here otherwise i become something i don’t want to lower myself to be. 
Edit: I’ll just leave quietly now!
Thank you!! 
Exactly the same again?
From a logical standpoint one could say that it is okay (opinion) to scan messages before encrypting them.
But technically end-to-end encryption means that my message is written by me as a person encrypted and only the receiver can open the message. This is the ONLY way to make sure the secret of the message is save.
If all messages are scanned before encrypting .. someone can break the system and get all the messages in clear tex,t be it a frustrated FBI agent or some hackers or other intelligences.
There is no security anymore if this is possible, only left would be a secure transfer protocol.
You could say yes but only if there is evidence.. or they do only read the messages if they find suspecting things.. but this is out of your control, only authority deciding what they do with the switch.
This is not really about the view of it, the issue is purely technically.
I believe that they could design the platform that could scan the messages before they are encrypted to be sent. That’s all I’m saying. It’s possible. They would be flagged and backed up only if something is found using what ever protocol they set up. Then it could be encrypted and sent. I’m just saying I agree with the intent of what they are trying to accomplish in the laws being drafted.
Edit: Not everything is evil or has ill intent!
The theme itself reminds me about “Vorratsdatenspeicherung”
The so-called data retention obliges providers of publicly accessible telecommunications and Internet services to store traffic data (i.e. information that documents who spoke to whom, when and for how long) for a legally stipulated period of time and - if necessary - to provide this to law enforcement authorities and intelligence services or to authorities entrusted with security measures.
Data retention, which is always controversial, is currently suspended in Germany
( thats translated from official German Webside of the BfDI )
But they discuss about finding new ways to reimplmenet this all over europe…
yea but.. technically this is simply insecure because it implements a man in the middle by design ..
No one say it is not possible. Would be also possible to have a Backdoor or simply creating two keys to decrypt the message.. in any way it renders the idea of encryption useless.
Privacy, same as if i meet with some people in my home to talk about a market breaking new invention, i do not want that all my talking are recoreded and scanned .. thas my private place and human right.
It does simple do not bring any new things to the discussion table.
You could open a new thread to discuss the other side of this but there is no synthsis possible here.
I mean you really repeat the same thing over and over again..
I’m just saying I agree with the intent of what they are trying to accomplish in the laws being drafted.
We undertsand the fact that this is your position/opinion technically you do not even say that you disagree or agree.
Scanned the message before encryption is not end to end.
If I’m end 1 typing a text to you, and I’m sending it to you and you receive and read it on end 2, and the encryption happens between us from my thumb to your eyes, anything else in between deviating that process is no longer encrypted. End to end.
Allow me to use 
as an explanation model…What they want to do is ALMOST this…
I’m just wondering if I was an idiot or not for buying a Pixel 7 pro and installing GrapheneOS on it when Goolag will just install spyware on it via firmware updates so it can see what I do anyway. Seems to me that I gave Goolag €800 for the illusion of privacy.