Boiling the frog 👍

I have: here’s the relevant paragraph from the directive:

Amendment 186 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Disseminating pornographic content online without putting in place robust and effective age verification tools to effectively prevent children from accessing pornographic content online shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.

Pinky promise is explicitely not allowed.

And you’re doing the exact thing: blaming the specific implementation 🙂 It’s so sad that that still tricks people. Is this your first time learning how a EU directive works?

No, it’s saying that exact thing: online users of porn must be deanonymised on penalty of prison. To stop child abuse because that’s related somehow?

It’s just that the countries themselves must choose the particulates: who will do the deanonymisation, in what way, what will enforcement look like, etc.

That’s what they mean with “the final shape of the law hasn’t been determined yet”.

Every EU directive works that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)

A directive is a legal act of the European Union[1] that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals

In this case: the de-anonymisation must happen. Up to the respective countries to do the dirty work.

When people, rightfully, get angry the local politician will say “we had to because EU”. And the EU will say “well we didn’t say it had to be in that way, it’s your local politician that did that.”

That’s simply how any EU directive works: EU decides what must happen, and it’s up to the individual countries to put it into their respective laws.

That way people get angry at their federal government instead. Who can point their finger higher up. Who can then point to the countries specific implementation in their turn. It’s a neat trick. Nobody’s responsible for anything.

the law works against its intentions

When has that ever stopped a puritan?

That’s the same EU that mandates online de-anonymisation, punishable with up to a year in prison, as a last minute amendment to an unrelated CSAM-directive.

Some press releases: (1), (2), (3)

That’s a false dichotomy. Freedom of speech should not solely be for those you a priori agree with. That’s how autocrats motivate their supression: it’s always for the greater good, of which they’re the arbiter.

I once ate a hamburger from burger king made by employee that said the n-word when he was 17! I’m a literal nazi!

It’s not a death penalty if you don’t have a trial - Russia

but in the 20th century realist historical paintings fell from critical favour

I noticed this too. It’s my favourite style but it kinda disappeared during interbellum.

Always wondered if the invention of photography has something to do with it. But it’s probably hard to attribute zeitgeist to a single thing.

Dude’s got both mommy and daddy issues

Noice

You ate an entire boar?

That’s impressive and should be outlawed!

There’s only be left shoes. Right foot perpetually slightly uncomfortable.

Maybe there’s energy intensive processes that they could do up there instead. Something like Haber Bosch. Then bring the products down.

Sadly there’s so much good music from the 2000s on there that I can’t find elsewhere. Small bands that never really broke through.

Inaccesible because of autocratic morons.

Roblox is a way of life

Black hole belgium

I believe that things should be fair

I get what you mean. It’s the feeling that after all is said and done, you’ve won, justice is restored. For day-to-day grievances the courts, especially one that also does rehabilitation, work fine.

Then there’s pain which no reparations will ever heal. Where both you and your “opponent” have lost.

To me it’s impressive when people in that situation realise that the best you can do is try your best to prevent that same pain from re-occuring in the future and to others.

And empirically, dialogue and cooperation, not (solely) punishment, has shown to be good at that.

I would imagine it feels good, a kind of revenge.

But history has shown that the revenge just perpetuates the violence.

Hence why examples such as the Polish reconstruction, or the marshal plan benefiting italy and germany as well, are so impressive to me.