Re:Mullvad VPN: "This is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt."
by ImPostingOnHN on Monday December 22, 2025 @02:51PM
(#46358151)
> Can it? In the same way? It feels like your argument comes down to handwaving. Circumstantial law is hardly a novel thing.
I think that was their point: your argument seems handwavey, because anything can be bad "in certain circumstances".
Hold the door for someone? Seems nice. But you could be insulting them by doing so. Or letting a virus in by having the door open too long. Or wasting energy and contributing to climate change by letting the conditioned air out. Indeed, under certain circumstances, it's bad.
Re:Mullvad VPN: "This is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt."
by AlecSchueler on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @01:35PM
(#46378002)
Sure, many things can be "bad" if you are happy to go with increasingly absurd reasoning, but I Think that's quite an unfair misrepresentation of both what I said above and of the arguments that were raised in parliament before this law was introduced. Insulting someone by holding a door open might be "bad" but could you really argue for legislating against it? Bringing in the word bad moves the goalposts quite a bit in order to frame the original position as equally limp and absurd.
Can it? In the same way? It feels like your argument comes down to handwaving. Circumstantial law is hardly a novel thing.