• Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    They will keep proposing solutions until the problem is solved. Notice how everytime its voted down they try a different idea? Thats how its supposed to work.

    • falseWhite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 day ago

      This isn’t a problem that needs to be solved.

      Do you really think criminals will just continue using chat apps knowing they are being constantly scanned?

      Of course not! They will find different ways to communicate. Criminals won’t just disappear. This DOESN’T solve crime AT ALL.

      This is such a fucking stupid political argument and people are falling for it. “Oh yes, if we introduce mass surveillance, there won’t be any more terrorists or pedophiles”

      It’s pure mass surveillance that doesn’t solve the problem and has zero benefit for the society.

        • nyctre@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s not us who’s voting on these issues. It’s pretty obvious you don’t understand how the process works. Why do you keep discussing it?

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 day ago

      Excpet the “problem” they’re trying to solve is to enable them to sueveil anyone.

      Encyption for them, not for you.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      The problem they want to “solve” is the ability to surveil everyone, which is impossible as long as netcat and gpg exist

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is the same solution to the problem. By only proposing the same solution over and over it’s pretty clear they just want full access to messaging. If it was actually about the children or security or whatever they would be attempting more privacy friendly alternatives

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Lucky for me, it’s my role or job to pitch them, and I do not need to pitch them to you. You are more than welcome to read the EFF’s writeup on alternatives yourself.

          • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Could you send the link to the writeup you’re referencing?? I can’t find it. There’s a whole bunch of EFF pages about Chat Control, but I can’t find one specifically about alternatives.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Wow very helpful. Thanks for advocating for your cause so effectively. Clearly your rhetoric will win the day.

            • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              23 hours ago

              You’re clearly trying to bait me into some argument which is why I have no interest in finding resources to show you. I’m not biting. I get some references, you try to tell me it’s bunk or it won’t work, I’m just not feeling it today. I don’t feel like being trolled or pulled into your anger circle. So, won’t respond anymore. Have a pleasant day!

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                23 hours ago

                I can clarify.

                First I was asking for an example of a better solution, because I’m not aware of one and it would be nice to learn about one.

                The next reply was me being sarcastic because instead of just giving a quick explanation of an idea, you dismissed me and told me to essentially “google it”. Since you aren’t treating me in good faith, I replied in kind.

                Maybe when you are feeling better you can give this another shot. Have a better day.