Although it’s a bit off-topic to discussion, i fully agree with Martin Niemöller, both morally and pragmatically it’s the only position that holds any water historically to avoid societal tragedies which leads to death, genocides and wars.
I’ve written that about 2 years ago, as you can see all of my points, unfortunately, but very predictably proven right since then, hopefully that will make people think next time, but i wouldn’t hold my breath…
We live in full on 
I just can’t fathom how this got this far. It’s like how Facebook was censoring COVID and people warning of how bad the vaccines were. Except now they can scan our phones and not even allow us to talk about our own safety to each other because it doesn’t fit into what someone else says is ok to talk about. At least we could talk to and warn each other outside of the wrong doing of social media. Face to face will be the only option anymore (for now).
Censoring free speech historically has really brought about the good in the world.
I think I need a break. It’s beyond shocking how far we’ve fallen where this could the be a possibility.
No debate is allowed, we say what is truth and what is a lie, we own the information, we own you.
I really don’t have a problem with Facebook or any other platform (including this forum) setting rules regarding what sort of speech they will or will not allow on their own platform. If you don’t like it, set up your own. When the state does it, it’s a different matter entirely.
Obviously there will always be practical and moral limits to “free speech” - most countries criminalise child pornography, harassment and hate speech to varying degrees. I am generally ok with laws prohibiting harmful speech provided:
the laws are limited to dealing with a specific and well defined form of harmful speech;
the purpose of each law is well defined and understood by the general public as necessary to prevent a greater harm; and
the laws are passed following a transparent, deliberative and democratic process.
What I find troubling about the current trend is in lawmaking addressing “problematic speech” is that the objective is often to force platforms to censor speech that is often not otherwise illegal. Although user of the platform often has not committed any offence under the law, and will likely never be investigated and prosecuted, the platform is obliged to censor his speech. This is not at all transparent and leaves platform users in the dark regarding what speech is allow or disallowed.
Absolutely - in theory that’s exactly how private companies and freedom of association should work 
The only problem that we have now is with all big tech like Twatter (well at least before Elon, now we don’t know it for sure yet, but i’m fairly certain it will be also), Facebook, YouTube is that we have definitive proof states / feds / NGOs does direct requests and demands for censorship, from multiple leaks of their own documentation, whistleblowers and well all the other obvious things i’ve mentioned above…so unfortunately that’s not the case.
But anyway, this specific topic i’m sure is much more about what they are not de-facto controlling 24/7 right now - which is end-to-end encryption and (as a logical only way to do that) people’s computers / devices.
Yes it is very clear that these big tech-controlled social media platforms often self-censored on the understanding that nation states would not regulate them (or apply light-touch regulation) if they did so. In this way, governments could often avoided to be seen to censor speech.
Exactly, and now they just want to legalize their de-facto practices to avoid any consequences
Kinda like mafia…oh, wait! 
That was what I said. Yes. Like talking to each other.
Unless you mean that sms and my actual physical phone is someone else’s platform, in which case. . . That’s different since my phone I own now. If I’m not allowed to own the hardware I purchased then they can give me a phone and pay all my bills (Google, not the government because that is my money already).
You do not own your phone - you hold a revocable license to use OUR phone for as long as we judge you to be the right kind of customer for our brand.
Ahem. Yes I absolutely agree with you.
Boy I am glad I have kids. When I am old I want to have people like my kids in legislative and executive.
I wish I could afford to have the choice to have kids for that to be possible lol. It’s gotten so bad in the states, we can’t even afford kids anymore.
For those of you who speak german and do not know what this “online safety bill” is all about, here is a nice summary from netzpolitik.org:
from that article it looks like chat control part is on ice.
To all:
Go read it by translating ! it is very informative.
And only as a reminder please keep posts on topic very easy to slide away.
Indeed, good article!
Well clause is still there in actual law though, unfortunately, so it’s not on ice in that sense…
They just verbally say it’s “not feasible” yet, but their bla-bla doesn’t matter much, intent is pretty clear.
Personal for me it is that simple.
You can’t put everyone under general suspicion.
Encryption and the security that my private space is protected from eavesdropping is a very important good and a fundamental right.
And yea not 100% on the topic about encryption… but not really something considered on the law topic…
There are other ways to track down criminals and protect childeren.
Put more officers in charge, school them.
Make it easy to report abuse to authorities.
And invest in the children themself put the theme into schools, teach schoolkids to protect themself, and to be able to move safely on the Internet.
Today kids join the internet as it would be a giant entertainment and gaming paradiese, and indeed the place where you can get everything you may dream of.
They do not get any lesson about how to control the technology the use to join, they have no clue, teachers have no clue, parents have no clue.
Invest in Parents, school them to protect local network at home to protect their kids from stuff they believe is not good and wrong.
But not to change the topic… its about the encryption part thats fine, only wanted to mention that the idea to protect children is not only a cover for total surveillance 
…But it is indeed opening the path to be able to do that… special because certain parts of the law are simply vague… it is a real live problem, we need to solve soon! You may not have kids , and i see other Parents and their kids… with no technical knowledge about the basics of the internet or even local network security in any way…
Absolutely, kids need their parents loving them and educating them about real life dangers and handling technology, as well as helping their fellow man, not nanny state mass surveillance and policing.
I really think partly there can be something they can do in schools.
Schools should teach the kids about how modern technology is working, every kid should learn programming in school, and they should get basic knowledge about network internet and security.
Still emphasis should definitely be on parents.
But you’re right, for instance many schools in India done it right!
They’re using Linux all the way, just that fact alone is a huuuuuge step forward.
indeed schools in india are more modern compared to german schools 
The Computer Room in the primary school of my kids was a Junkyard full of computer scrap from the 2000s.
Not able to run OpenOffice smoothly… what was the only programm installed there…