• 3 Posts
  • 118 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 10th, 2024

help-circle



  • “Wir aber sagen, dass sich in einer gleichberechtigten Gesellschaft niemand freiwillig für die Prostitution entscheidet. Denn am Ende geht es hier um männliche Gewalt an Frauen und um Machtmissbrauch.”

    Ich finde diese Gleichsetzung von Sex und männlicher Gewalt an Frauen sehr befremdlich. Haben wir nicht spätestens in den 60ern gelernt, dass Frauen genauso Spaß an Sex haben können wie Männer? Kann es nicht vielleicht eher an der extremen Stigmatisierung von Sexarbeit liegen, dass so wenige Menschen so einen Beruf ergreifen wollen?

    Vielleicht ist meine Einschätzung sehr naiv, aber ich finde, ein Verbot sollte immer die Ultima Ratio in der Gesetzgebung sein. Und gerade in einer Gesellschaft, in der immer mehr junge Männer unfreiwillig gar keinen Sex haben, sollte man meiner Meinung nach umso dankbarer dafür sein, dass es Frauen gibt, bei denen jene ihre Triebe abkanalisieren können, sodass vielleicht die ein oder andere Entwicklung zum Incel vermieden werden kann.

    Ich finde auch die vermeintlichen Erfolgsstatistiken des nordischen Modells immer etwas fragwürdig. Da Schweden Teil des Schengen-Raums ist, ist beispielsweise nie wirklich klar, ob sich der Menschenhandel tatsächlich reduziert hat oder ob er jetzt nur verstärkt in anderen EU-Ländern stattfindet. Das wäre dann also nur eine positive Auswirkung, wenn man Aus den Augen, aus dem Sinn für ein gutes Motto hält.

    Am Ende würde ich einfach viel lieber in einer Gesellschaft leben, in der die Inanspruchnahme von Sexarbeit genauso normal ist wie der Besuch beim Friseur, als in einer, in der sexuell frustrierte junge Männer einen signifikanten Anteil der Wählerschaft stellen und in der Sexarbeit noch extremer stigmatisiert wird, als es eh schon der Fall ist.


  • I have already read that article, and while I think that Patrick does a great job in general, this particular post contains overly dramatic and, in parts, misleading arguments. For example:

    The text aims to make the temporary “Chat Control 1.0” regulation permanent. This allows providers like Meta or Google to scan all private chats, indiscriminately and without a court order.".

    This is a bit strange. Chats without E2E encryption, especially the ones on Google or Meta platforms, were never private. I think it would be better to raise awareness of that fact and encourage E2E messaging instead of complaining about law enforcement having access to those chats.

    His argument regarding age verification is also very weak:

    […] This means every citizen will effectively have to upload an ID or undergo a face scan to open an email or messenger account. […] This creates a de facto ban on anonymous communication […]

    This is misleading at best. The implementation details of the age verification are not specified in this proposal. There are absolutely ways of verifying someone’s age anonymously (Privacy Pass comes to mind). It’s totally possible that it’ll be a far worse system, but that’s just not as set in stone as Patrick suggests.

    It’s definitely necessary to keep an eye on the further development of this legislature. But Patrick’s Reality Check unfortunately stretches the meaning of the word Reality a bit too much.


  • I have to disagree with the statement that there is no voluntary law. For example, GDPR certifications (Art. 42) have been a thing for years, are encouraged by the EU, but have remained completely voluntary for organizations.

    I totally agree with you that it’s important to stay vigilant and keep an eye on the further development of this specific regulation, especially as it still has a long way to go before actually becoming law. But I think seeing the compromise as some sort of trickery is purely speculative right now and doesn’t really do justice to the activists inside and outside EU organizations who have spent the last few years successfully preventing a mandatory chat control. A lot of the comments here seem very doom-and-gloomy, sometimes almost resigned, as if nothing has been accomplished by protesting these initial proposals. And I think, while there are definitely further battles ahead, it’s also a good idea to celebrate and remind ourselves of the accomplishments we’ve made here.



  • As this version of the law is completely voluntary, I don‘t think it will change anything. Secure chats won‘t implement it, because it‘s practically impossible, and insecure chats won‘t implement it, because there‘s absolutely no profit in it.

    It‘s still completely unnecessary to have a law like this, as it won‘t help with anything. But at least it doesn‘t force any messaging applications to either break their encryption or leave the EU.

    Also, as this is proposal is finally put into law, there‘s one less battle to be fought by privacy activists (for now).

    So all in all: The worst has been successfully averted, I think we can celebrate that. But the next privacy invading proposal will come soon enough.




  • This article leaves out that the same proposal would completely undermine the GDPR, massively reducing data protection and selling out EU citizen’s data to big tech.

    I‘d love to have a browser based cookie solution. They should have implemented it like that in the first place. But not at the cost of my privacy and the ownership over my data.

    For now this is just a proposal by the commission, so it has a long way to go before becoming law. But it‘s really exhausting having to fight those ridiculous ideas time and time again.






  • My gut feeling really isn‘t good on that. The very slow pace of improvement Cities Skylines 2 had, and the multitude of issues it still has, seem like strong indicators for deeper technical issues to me. Fixing those will be a lot harder for a development studio, if it doesn‘t even have the original developers onboard.

    It‘s really sad to see, because Skylines 2 could be a lot of fun if it wasn‘t for the glitches, the bugs and the performance issues. I‘m unfortunately not optimistic that changing the developer will improve things.


  • To be fair, everyone was offered a refund for that game. So technically they probably haven‘t paid for it anymore.

    I still totally agree that Sony shouldn‘t go after private Concord servers. This game is very interesting, because it was an unbelievable failure despite having pretty solid gameplay. And preserving that on private servers provides a great way for other developers to learn, and maybe prevent, the tons of other issues leading to the game‘s failure.


  • If you’re comfortable with helping the Proton developers fix the issue, I‘d recommend searching Proton‘s Github issues for the game that won‘t run.

    If your problem hasn‘t already been reported, create a proton log (run the game with the launch option PROTON_LOG=1 %command% once and find the log in your home directory). If an issue for the game doesn‘t exist already, you can open up a new one. Otherwise, append your log to the existing issue in a comment and describe what‘s happening exactly.

    The devs over there are usually really helpful and nice. Many of my reports have been fixed within hours or days in bleeding-edge, although it can of course take longer if the issue is more complicated.