I think France is generally perceived here to have more progressive social policies regarding labor, education, healthcare and the environment. The limited media coverage I've seen about French elections seemed to paint Macron as the candidate more representative of those values.
Macron is not a fan of theses social policies, he is right leaning.
His governement reduced labor protections, butchered educations, worsened public healthcare, and do nothing for the environment.
Economically right-leaning but culturally left-leaning, he's let in tens of thousands of migrants, does not expel them (cf. the "OQTF" stories pretty much every day), and on top of that, uses taxpayers money to fund them throughout the country.
You are mixing up stuff to fit your scenario.
OQTF stories are up to police incompetence, not lax imposed by the governement.
Culturally left-leaning if very bold given the recent pension reform debacle, bypassing any democratic recourse.
Also very bold statement given the police repression of mosts of the protests.
There is nothing Macron that is left leaning, relative to France politic spectrum.
>> Interesting. Right-leaning governement (if not "far-right" according to some), but has no control over illegal migrants routinely roaming around committing crimes. I thought a key marker of "the right" was being (too) strict on order and ruthless implementation of the law.
Im not arguing the point. It's a sad state of affairs. But Le Pen was painted here as a female version of Trump. So that's why Macron was perceived as representative of French progressiveness.
The vote (for president) still came down to, "Guy who thinks protecting the workers is the end of the world" or "Lady who seems way too comfortable with actual nazi parties", so americans just had a lot of empathy.
Macron, as so many French leaders before him, is in fact obsessed by transforming France into the US.
Sarkozy, his most alike predecessor, used to wear a t-shirt that said "NYPD" while jogging, as he was president of France; and later renamed his party "Les Républicains" as an hommage to US Republicans (!!?!)
This was 9 years ago, so right before Trump happened. At the time, 53% of party members thought it was "too American" but they accepted the change nonetheless.
Macron pushes through "liberal" reforms (liberal in Europe means the opposite as in the US: liberals here are free-market proponents) because he thinks it will make France great again, I guess.
I want to meet the person who reported a bug with this running on the original Xbox. Warms my heart someone out there still uses it and has already tried this.
If anyone is thinking they are bigger than they are it's these mods. Some of my favourite hobbies have been absolutely tainted by people who become mods of a community who put their societal/political/sexual beliefs with equal weight with the actual topic of the sub reddit. Say anything that mildly offends the mods personal beliefs? Banned. Or at the very least, find yourself limited in the role you can play in the community. Unfortunately, these mods seem to have the most free time to hijack the shared common interest in the sub-reddit topic to push their own version of community standards. I'm just speaking to my limited experience of my own personal interests but that's all I can say about it.
I've seen this argument a lot on here and I don't really get it. I go to specific hobby subreddits to talk about specific hobby subreddit things, not to see other people make irrelevant comments or something that might mildly offend someone else. As far as I am concerned mods are well in their rights to shut that kind of stuff down.
This sort of sentiment usually comes from someone that can't help but argue about politics in an area for, say, houseplants. Sorry, but I don't want to discuss Grundrisse in a hobby subreddit. I don't want nazis yelling at me about jewish conspiracies in an analogue synth subreddit.
"Waaah I can't say edgy things everywhere I want" is such a weak complaint against community-led moderation.
What I meant by "in line with" is an association with an extreme political ideology. I understand the confusion. Again, partially my fault But the point was a person who has a complaint on the current status quo shouldn't associate them with someone trying to say or stand for something extreme.
One moderator (who has since been removed) would regularly remove anything critical of gnome or systemd, and would hand out bans to anyone they considered to be "bullying" either of those groups. I think their standard for bullying were pretty low, it was more that they wouldn't tolerate any criticism at all, but your mileage may vary.
You have my comment backwards. Partially my own fault I'm sure. But what I'm referring to is the mods bringing their own beliefs into the community and making it part of the topic, not the other way around.
Stop pushing the narrative that the mods are the source of the protest. They're just acting on the behalf of the members of their subreddit who are upset at the direction of the company.
I'm sure the truth is a little more cloudy than that. Mods are the ones who can cut off a community (not plain users), no matter what the users think they should do. I bet most users don't give two thoughts either way. Mods in some of the communities I participate did the 48 hour thing, and now have the community set to read-only indefinitely. I don't remember there being voting for former - and certainly not the latter.
Precisely. It is cloudier. I was making the point that in my limited experience, the mods haven't represented the community of the topic. They represent a subset of the community of the topic which the mods have allowed certain opinions to prosper and others to perish based on non-topic related issues. And what you said actually aligns with that. Mods may have crippled communities without ensuring there was a consensus of opinions on the matter first.
Agreed. I am one of the oldest active Reddit users and I 100% agree. I have voted in many subreddits' polls for this. I mod a handful of small subs myself and have done the same. My needs are not the same as some of those large subs, so I am not continuing the blackout, but I fully support those that are. I intend to keep using old.reddit.com and never installing their mobile app instead of my 3rd party client.
Fully supporting the blackout would mean continuing the blackout on your own subs, would it not? Just say you're "partially" supporting the blackout - like in ways that don't directly effect your direct, current use of the platform. I don't care either way, just be honest with yourself.
Hah. Fair enough. TBH I'm just kinda lazy and don't want to go and reconfigure all that crap again after doing it and then undoing it earlier this week. Those large subs have more resources at their disposable and a critical mass for disruption.
My couple thousand subscribers simply are not that effective in getting Reddit to listen, I feel like. Definitely if moderating those subs becomes actually burdensome in the future, I will reconsider.
I'm going to assume you genuinely aren't self-aware, so please don't be offended by this attempt to help.
You lead with this:
> If anyone is thinking they are bigger than they are it's these mods.
This is a textbook generalization, a "blanket statement". The next few sentences attempt to reinforce this generalization. A one-sentence disclaimer at the end doesn't change that.
If you want to talk about your experience with <some members of large group X> then do that. But please don't project that across <all members of large group X>.
Agreed. The problem is when citizens come forward to push for this, the manufacturer's lobbyist come in say it's too dangerous. Both from a trade secrets and a user injury perspective (battery packs explode dontcha know). And the manufacturers have more money to spend on lobbyist and political campaigns than the citizens. Like anything, it would take average citizens organizing in significant numbers to change anything. And not enough people care enough to actually sacrifice their time and money to make such a stand.
Feel free to downvote this because it is a very simple observation and not based on deep academic study. I really hate wages have been so stagnant and have not kept up with inflation. I feel like I've been treading water the last 10 years of my adult life despite making above minimum wage. But I also can't help but notice a lot of people used to say "$15 dollars per hour is going to equal $15 dollar hamburgers" and now where I live $15 dollars per hour has become a pretty common starting wage and now everything is more than usual inflated.
So to my understanding what they are proposing is allowing you to be hacked by the government if you are a victim of hacking by another actor. I can see the value of this being able to access log files and other data that could assist in investigating the original hackers. I suppose they wouldn't want to always tip off the victim of hacking because the victim might change something that could scare aware the original hackers or delete useful metadata before the investigation could be carried out. But it essentially could become a free pass for the state to hack anybody. Because 1.) Anyone with a public facing server knows there are bot hacking attempts made against them 24/7 or 2.) Just hire a 3rd party to hack someone then you have immediate cause to get access to their data. This article didn't seem to have a definite answers what kind of protections would be put in place in these events. It sounded like they previously did try to word the law to only pertain to the original investigation but one can only wonder.
> Just hire a 3rd party to hack someone then you have immediate cause to get access to their data.
This is absolutely what this is about.
Prosecuting cybercrime is a nightmare, especially if it crosses international borders. NL has historically had a bad CSA hosting reputation, though I get the impression LEO hands have been tied.
This legalizes fruit of the poisoned tree. Or at least, blurs the line until the fruit rolls into scope of plain-sight doctrine. Hire some Israelis to pop a machine and you won't have to deal with mapping Tor/VPN connections across all of the world's jurisdictions until it comes back to your own neighborhood.
The way it's phrased, they're positioned to take down entire networks of pedophiles. Compromise a host, then compromise anything connecting to it, etc.
It's ugly but makes a lot of sense, and there really isn't a better solution short of limiting networks to national borders. Anybody who leads a long enough wild goose chase across the world is more untouchable than Pedo Sandiego. This cuts through the shenanigans.
And unfortunately will be abused in time, but it solves the problems of today.
I have exactly zero faith that this will solve anything. It will allow them to round up some people, make a big fuzz about it in the press, and then the people they're chasing will simply adapt which is what always happens. Then, all that's left will be diminished rights for innocent people.
Yes. This simply makes it legal for the Dutch government to hack their citizens. It doesn't matter what the intentions or purported rules are, if they are self-regulating then there are no limits. The publicly stated intentions and rules only give some naive people peace of mind.
Coming from the State that did not yet resolved one of the worst scandals ever...And from the Prime Minister that deleted official government data for years...
Don't overreact, they just kidnapped a few thousand kids from their families and placed them with foster parents due to some bureaucratic hick-ups. No biggy.
That is not even the worst...The government resigned because of the scandal. The article below is a "sad face" of the prime minister at the time. I leave it as exercise for the curious reader a comparison with the current prime minister...
its funny how when its "government" that does atrocities in the name of "government" and "democracy", its simply a "scandal", but if you or I stormed in and kidnapped the children of members of parliament, it would be a "viscious attack on democracy".
I wonder, at what point does a government become and enemy of the people, and defending oneself is legitimate? is it when the storm troopers comes to take your children based on false premises? if no, what is is then?
im sure a "scandalized government" will say that its "never", but really, when as criminals ever agreed that going against them is okay?
I get it. But I think there should be some limits. Otherwise they can do just about anything and walk away. Taking away children on a basis of pure speculation I think is plain and clear crime from which they should not be absolved.
I think intelligent people refusing to acknowledged that science is not a field void of people with imperfect ethics, bias, financial gain incentive or a need to justify their position has immunized me from blindly trusting science. Many years ago a research professor at a highly regarded university basically described to me how funding worked at their university. Essentially the most important criteria was if their research had some promise of results aligning with who was giving the university funding. The second was how well you could navigate the politics of the university and the research funds director. This person expressed deep dissatisfaction that they had promising research in the cancer field that they could not get the lab director to fund because of the first two points.
In addition to when they don't work. What about when the company stops supporting them or just goes under? The industry never seemed to build long term trust whenever I looked into it.
