Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | earthnail's commentslogin

I don’t fully understand that bit about the EU turning evil. Care to elaborate?

Italy has already a Mussolini (who invented fascism) admiring government. Biggest opposition in france is pretty right wing. The german right wing opposition is pretty strong, ... etc.

Was your point that europe is immune to fascism and imperialism somehow?


But where’s the problem? This is opt in. KDE already has a kiosk mode for kids. Add a content filter aka adblocker for porn, done.

I don’t understand the outrage here. Many parents who are technically illiterate would like to be able to leave their 10yo alone with a computer without having to worry.

Rn the only option for that is nintendo/playstation/xbox. Smartphones aren’t.


Do you maintain any software? I have a few features I need you to add. No, you don't get any choice. Where's the problem?

to be fair I didn't read the details of that law. it's just that its Marschrichtung is pretty clear. total surveillance for flimsy reasons because porn etc. eventually it will be mandatory for everybody. that's what it is about.

But it’s on device, opt in. This is the way to go. No central government control.

I really don’t want the British version with a central internet authority instead.


DEs like KDE already have a kiosk mode. Just add an adblocker to it, for content that’s not child friendly. Done.

Zero risk to Linux here.


Read the comments from FSFE - they do not think its simple at all: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-Google-Co-Countries-g...

Something like kiosk mode does not cover it. It will have to be locked down to the point of uselessness. From the article:

"Only apps that have an approved youth protection program or a comparable suitable tool themselves will be accessible regardless of the pre-set age group."


I read the article. I just don’t share the criticism.

“Only apps from safe places can be installed.”

Yeah, d’oh. Otherwise, massive loophole.

Yes, it’s a Nintendo-ify button for a PC. It’s opt in. And very convenient for parents.

And if my kid wants to install something, it can come and ask me. Like I had to go and ask my dad before installing sth (before I got my own Linux machine with 14).


It’s just saying “include the equivalent of an adblocker” and allow parents to enable it.

Frankly seems easier to solve to me than adblocking, and that’s already a solved problem.


I’m gonna go on a limb here and say that I like this draft.

It’s an opt-in measure for parents with a one-click solution. Think ad blocker but for adult content.

Parents have to actively enable it. It’s on the device itself, not in the internet backbone. No censorship happening; government doesn’t even know whether parents use it.

It’s a good solution.


Step 1. Force companies to develop the censorship/surveillant technology by passing a law to make it available. Claim its to 'save the children' and/or 'fight terrorism', whichever threat is currently the most scary.

Step 2. Make the use of the technology optional, and fairly non-intrusive to ease acceptance and normalization.

Step 3. Make the technology mandatory for certain groups/areas like all schools or certain businesses. Or for people who work for them. Also incremental changes are applied which makes the system a bit more restrictive, and bit more surveillant.

Step 4. Make the technology mandatory for everyone (except politicians and certain private persons like CEOs of big corps)

Step 5. Continue incremental changes until the system completely transfers all real power and control of the system from the individual to the corporation/state.


With that way of arguing you can’t have any laws or regulation at all.

Sure you can. You can pass laws that require companies respect a 'do not track' setting in browsers and don't collect data or make you jump through 'accept cookies' hoops. You can make right to repair laws. You can pass laws that require interoperability like making phones use a standard cable (they did this and I think its great). You can pass laws making companies like MS at least make available a no-tracking, no subscription, no ads, no telemetry, no bloatware, no AI, no bullshit version of windows OS for regular individuals at reasonable cost. They can do stuff that like that.

Yeah, this is the right direction for moderation features in general assuming it's implemented offline on-device and works without contacting a remote server. It eliminates excuses to implement age verification online.

And it's correct in principle: each parent should be able to decide what their child sees, but not what anyone else's child sees. Parenting a child is the responsibility of that child's parents, but it is not the responsibility of governments or other people.

Though I do have some gripes with it being a mandate rather than a recommendation, it is a much better proposal than age verification or censoring the entire Internet.


We have mandates for all kinds of things, like movie ratings etc. I think it’s appropriate here. It just makes it easy.

I don’t understand the pushback from tech companies either; all OSes already have a kiosk mode (incl the major Linux DEs). Should be very low effort to implement.


The concern is that OSes which don't implement the feature will be outlawed.

Movie ratings don't outlaw movies and actually provides a good framework: instead of mandating that OSes implement this, publish a client-side filter spec that OS devs can choose to implement. And if they implement it, their OS gets a label like "PG-capable". Then make it illegal for minors to possess a non-PG-capable device.


Movie ratings are not mandatory, at least not in free countries. MPAA ratings like “R” and “PG” are a voluntary classification system and films are free to opt out, though many theater chains may be less likely to show your film. But small theaters and streaming platforms don’t usually care.

Authoritarian states like China and the UK do require classification/certification of films before release. Imagine requiring a painter to have their paintings reviewed by the state before exhibition!


Generally agree, except for point three.

- adding more rules creates more freedom. Imagine the US without a constitution. It’d be madness. In a lawless country, people would be less free to do things they actually want to do because they’re so occupied with just surviving.


Rules are necessary, but ideally you'd strive for the minimum set that produces the desired outcome w/ the least side-effects.

Totally agree. But parent‘s point was formulated as such that rules are generally bad, and I wanted to point out that some rules are necessary, and sometimes you may even need to add some (and obv sometimes also remove some).

Also, to add to the “ideology”: it is bad to rely on other countries for fossil or uranium fuels.

Frying the planet is bad. That said i don't see the reliance argument for uranium. There's a variety of existing sources on the planet and some we stopped mining. It's proportionally a super small financial element of the energy production process unlike with fossil fuels. So in the case of let's say Putin's Russia you can avoid using their or let's say Kazakhstan's fuel and if you don't but don't take it's gas directly or via intermediaries like armenia then Russia still ends up in the financial shitter because their income from Rosatom/uranium one/... doesn't even compare.

It's almost inviting anti renewables arguments based on things like aluminium mostly being produced in china and russia or based on where the vast majority of panels are produced, etc.


The Germans invented that too. That’s why the label Made In Germany exists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Germany


The countries that comprise the EU had been among the biggest warmongers for centuries. The EU is the most successful peace project the continent has ever seen. And the reason for that is that every country refrained from trying to be a superpower on the continent.

The European mentality has real, tangible upsides for its continent. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work well in a larger world where other actors don’t share the same experience and values.

Just wanted to put that into perspective.


The results are not reproducable, as evidenced by parent poster.

isn't that kind of the point of non-determinism?

No. Good nondeterministic models reproducibly generate equally desirable output - not identical output, but interchangeable.

oh I see, thank you for clarifying

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: