[johnisgood]

Within this context, how? I do not think it can be used to argue against laws in general. Plus we have a lot of experiences now about it setting a precedent and them coming for your beloved websites. It is not even debatable today.

[cassepipe]

Laws tend to set precedents (that may be used to justify other laws)

[johnisgood]

Yeah, so should we have something like Chat Control and more, similar regulation(s)? It really is not so far off from banning platforms. I remember when people were trash-talking China for doing this, and now "we" are doing the same thing we initially opposed. I suppose people may only start opposing it when it starts to affect them.

[cassepipe]

I am also wary of things like government owned encryption backdoors and ChatControl, mostly because I feel like like society should be resilient to authoritarian takeovers (and they always seem to happen much faster than we would expect, we'll see if see the US gets another fair election in 2028)

I am just not swayed by the slippery slope argument because as someone else said, it can be used for anything.

[johnisgood]

Do we actually have a disagreement? I genuinely have no idea.

I do not care about Twitch and I consider Facebook outright harmful, but I do not think they should be banned. I have not fully read the article, but I bet it is "think of the children", a really old justification for "I want more control", a classic power grab.

[lm28469]

"we" do what china did because they're beating us at our own games. It's "free market" until BYD shows up, it's "no regulations" until tiktok shows up

Allowing everything from everyone doesn't automagically make "us" the good guys

[johnisgood]

> Allowing everything from everyone doesn't automagically make "us" the good guys

I never implied this, that would be silly on many fronts.

Are you in favor of Chat Control or not? Why?