Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47599809

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47490049

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example, Locke barely touches upon judiciary. The modern notion of separation of powers came (I believe) from Montesquieu.

I will say that Hobbes gives a far more comprehensive argument than Locke does. And some of Locke's details, including his anthropology of the origin of commonwealths, is demonstrably false.

Either way, glad to see Leviathan here!

Maybe people should put some pressure on these outlets to do so.

Why not? Shouldn't the public be allowed to learn who all the DOGE employees were? Federal employees are public record, are they not?

It will not save any children. It will destroy privacy, destroy free speech, and give lots of money to whatever corporation wins the bid for supplying the tech.

And of course, when that corporation gets hacked and all the personally identifiable information is put on the dark web, nobody will be held accountable.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47115899

Points: 72

# Comments: 73

Why not produce a second kind of phone that is for kids. Maybe have it linked to their parents accounts on a hardware level. The kidphone is physically restricted somehow to only installing certain apps, so that parents can ensure they are safe.

This approach would put the power back into hands of parents, keep the kids safe, and also prevent all this intrusive age verification stuff from happening.

Also it is a lot easier to police. You could physically look at the phone the child is using to make sure it is a kidphone. If not, then they are committing a crime, similar to a child smoking a cigarette.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46897826

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46202569

Points: 6

# Comments: 0

To address the other point, I think we're missing a question of scope. Is the EU a legitimate governing body for negotiating trade deals and employment regulations between countries? Absolutely. I question however whether in recent years EU has begun to either scope-drift or expand their scope beyond what might be considered reasonable.

I think this is a natural tendency within human nature, especially when a governing body is given some power. Over time new opportunities arise which allow the body to gain more power, and then they reinterpret founding documents to include some of the new powers they want. I think it is pretty clear this is happening with the EU. Look at the rise of nationalist parties in Germany and France, etc.

I don't think my framing was sensationalist at all. Chat Control is using the threat of child porn to make people forget the reasons why the ECHR cares so deeply about privacy. I'm not sure why Denmark is pushing it so hard, but governments have long feared and hated encryption.

The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?