- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.world
Chat Control didnt pass - they didnt even vote because they were afraid the result would be embarassing.
And we got told so many times, that EU now wants Chat Control. But it was a big fat lie.
EU is a democracy with different opinions, and when a small group of facists tries to read your chats, it does not represent the EU opinion.
But the whole media got you thinking so. Proving even on Lemmy, you and me are extremly prone to propaganda.
I quoted the article here with the news:
In a major breakthrough for the digital rights movement, the German government has refused to back the EU’s controversial Chat Control regulation yesterday after facing massive public pressure.
The government did not take a position on the proposal.
This blocks the required majority in the EU Council, derailing the plan to pass the surveillance law next week.
You must log in or register to comment.
Jesus Christ, you think this will be the last attempt?
Maybe I don’t understand, but the fact there is a vote for it (or even just talk about it) is enough for me to warrant everyones immediate action.
I’m glad the media got this to our attention asap, because we were able to react quickly (and stop this… hopefully its stopped and wont continue or come back).
Edit: commented then read others, think ppl agree with this and they say it better than I have.
P.s. i really don’t like this post and hopefully it doesn’t change anyones mind about action on this type of stuff in the future… we need action and to keep fightijg to keep our freedoms.
“let your motto be ‘eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.’”
Freedom dies in the silence of the many at the hands of the few. We must always be adamant with opposition, because it’s hard to undo what has been done. The easiest way to put the genie back in the bottle is never letting it out in the first place.
This is a terrible map, lumping neutral and opposed together? I am against chat control but ffs we don’t need more misleading media with the internet already dying under waves of automated misinformation
Agreed
If that graphic is accurate, the media didn’t “get” anyone. Seems some countries are actually gun-ho with the elimination of privacy, and its a movement that doesn’t die with one failed vote.
Y’all are getting too fucking comfortable. Authoritarianism is always around the corner, even when things feel safe.
The biggest problem with democracy is it demands a level of vigilance most people are not capable of. Because it is expressly unnatural. Human nature is to gravitate to power and authority
Let’s not protest terrible ideas to not embarrass facists (who may or may not be part of your/our government) or what’s supposed to be the message here?
The message here is: “don’t believe when people start screaming that the EU is a fascist organisation that wants to subjugate the population”.
Because there was A LOT of that online when Chat Control reared its head.
Have you read the sources you posted?
Negotiations will now begin between the Parliament, the Council of the EU, which represents national governments, and the European Commission to determine the final shape of the law.
Nobody is mandating anything - yet.
Sure, it might end up like that, but - to date - the Commission has been rather sensible when it comes to such things. They also have the example of UK that shows that the law works against its intentions by driving people towards unregulated and more dangerous websites.
We’ll see how it goes.
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?
EU decides what must happen, and it’s up to the individual countries to put it into their respective laws.
Wow, it’s so weird that the article you linked lied, then!
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.”
Are you reading your own sources…?
A directive is a legal act of the European Union that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals
Considering (another quote from your own sources):
Negotiations will now begin between the Parliament, the Council of the EU, which represents national governments, and the European Commission to determine the final shape of the law
They might as well look at the UK, and go “OK, lets have the user click that they pinky promise they’re 18”.
The difference between a fascist government and a democratic government can be distressingly thin, something we should all be aware of by now.
In this case, the EU has just proven it is currently on the right side of that divide. When extremely unpopular and authoritarian ideas were considered, the public felt able to voice their disapproval and the government felt they had to listen. That is a crucial step. Good for you all.
Sadly it likely will continue to require major work to keep the public on guard against future attempts like this one, but that’s life.
“Because there was push back and the EU decided to not go forward with a vote and be embarrassed, that means they never really wanted it at all” is one of the dumbest takes I’ve heard in a minute.
Not going to downvote this because the source article is useful, but OP’s take is ludicrous. Have we really reached the point where ALL media is propaganda?
It might be time to unplug society and plug it back in again.
Have we really reached the point where ALL media is propaganda?
Always has been.
Proving even on Lemmy, you and me are extremly prone to propaganda.
What? LOL Who do you think is pushing said “propaganda” to make people fear Chat Control unnecessarily?
And we got told so many times, that EU now wants Chat Control. But it was a big fat lie.
It was demonstrably not a lie. There were so many regions in support of it that it was dangerously close to passing.
I’m thinking this post is the propaganda. Really really lazy propaganda.
Don’t worry, it’ll be back again in a few months with a new coat of paint.
There were so many regions in support of it that it was dangerously close to passing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but - it wasn’t “close to passing”, it was “close to being passed on as a proposal for a law”, requiring then a formal vote, no?
So, even if Germany retained its support and the motion went forward, it could still get smashed during the vote.
I’m thinking this post is the propaganda. Really really lazy propaganda.
I think you’re misreading it and badly.
I read it as: “don’t believe those who panicked that the EU is a fascist dictatorship that wants to subjugate the population, because it’s still a democracy where the people have the power, as proven by Chat Control being thrown in the bin yet again”.
it wasn’t “close to passing”, it was “close to being passed on as a proposal for a law”, requiring then a formal vote, no?
It’s the same thing. Why would a country show support for the legislation and then vote against it later?
I read it as: "don’t believe those who panicke
This is such a charitable reading that it’s probably fair to assume this is OPs alt account.
It’s the same thing.
It absolutely is not. I don’t know, maybe you’re more familiar with the US federal system (pre-Trump, because that’s a different can of worms)? If so: imagine if the president (in this case having no ability to issue executive orders, mind you) says “we should do X”. That’s all well and good, but the X must still go through the Senate and Congress, where it might fail.
Why would a country show support for the legislation and then vote against it later?
Well, because “a country” is not a singular hive-mind, is it? The government says “yes”, but their own Parliament might say “no”.
Governments have no say in what goes on in the EU Commission or Parliament. I mean, sure, most of the time the MEPs coming out of the government-aligned parties will have similar votes, but the EU elections aren’t in-step with most countries’ elections, so it’s never a 1:1 translation. And even then, many MEPs will just vote on their own.
This is such a charitable reading that it’s probably fair to assume this is OPs alt account.
Holy fuck, watch out when opening the fridge, mate, OP might jump out of it!
It was demonstrably not a lie. There were so many regions in support of it that it was dangerously close to passing.
It really wasn’t. It couldn’t have been close to passing without a vote even taking place. The vote was scheduled for October 14th. However, since countries representing more than 35% of the EU population have declared their opposition to this proposal, it has been canceled.
A lot of countries have indeed declared support, though this is completely separate from the vote. There, it’d require a qualified majority (55% of member states in favor, or countries representing 65% of the EU population in favor). Looking at MEPs’ public statements, it’s unlikely that the vote would have passed.
Nonetheless, it remains troubling that they keep trying to force this proposal through. We have to push back every single time, but they only need it to pass once. Who knows what the future may hold.
It couldn’t have been close to passing without a vote even taking place.
Huh? Do countries voicing their approval or disapproval not count as a “vote”?
countries representing more than 35% of the EU population have declared their opposition
That’s not even half…
A lot of countries have indeed declared support, though this is completely separate from the vote.
That’s because, as you mentioned earlier, the vote never happened.
There, it’d require a qualified majority (55% of member states in favor, or countries representing 65% of the EU population in favor)
Which, according to your own numbers, they already had.
Huh? Do countries voicing their approval or disapproval not count as a “vote”?
No. The stances of countries are the [leaked] stances of their respective governments. Which may or may not reflect the views of the country’s MEPs. You can read more here: Fight Chat Control
That’s not even half…
True, and that’s indeed very concerning. However, it should be noted that this is not how many countries are against this proposal, but how many countries oppose it enough to reject it before voting. Many countries currently ‘undecided’ are likely to vote against the proposal in the end (if a vote took place). Likewise, some of them could vote in favor.
Which, according to your own numbers, they already had.
Not at all. I mentioned that, with Germany changing their stance to against, we had over 35% of the EU population against. Which means in favor and undecided both had less than 65% together. Right now I can’t count the populations, but there’s 12 countries in favor, 9 against and 6 undecided. This by no means gives the countries in favor a qualified majority. Unless all in favor and at least half of undecided (3 countries) fully voted in favor. Which is fairly unlikely.
Additionally, as I mentioned above, these numbers are for the member states’ governments, not their MEPs. Usually MEPs are more pro-people, but of course, it depends on the country and its current government.
What kind of shit take is this?
Media made people aware of ongoing bullshit, people reacted and put pressure on their governments and somehow “media got to us”?
If anything it didn’t pass because of media attention.
What kind of shit take is this?
The lemmy.ml kind, check OP’s profile
Yeah, keeping the public in the dark so people against it aren’t there to voice their opinion is how these like this get passed. Media attention to inform the public was a good thing.
The kind of shit is called “ignoring dynamics and transient processes”.
That’s what I thought, OP if nobody believed the news and there was no pressure chat control might of passed
Yeah… no.
Germany switched to opposed partially because people knew about it and contacted their representatives.
They contacted their representatives because they heard about it… through the media.
I contacted my representatives in Spain and they gave two fucks about it, they still positioned as “in favour”.
I contacted
myrepresentativesThese people clearly don’t represent you.
yeah im in Ireland, anything positoned to be about about protecting kids from sexual predators will pass here.
all taxes should from now on be paid to you, to protect kids.
I believe it should be all over the media to ensure that it never passes. Democracy dies in darkness. Name and shame those who supported it.
Isn’t this how liberal democracies are supposed to work? How exactly did “the media” get the better of “us”?
Good thing happens.
wAkE Up ShEePlE
Good thing happens.
AnOtHeR oRpHaN eScApEd ThE oRpHaN cRuShInG mAcHiNe!!!
I guess op was pessimistic as was i and that’s the narrative that was/kind of pushed: It is going to come in one way or another. Instead of: It is not going to win and if it is we are not going to accept it.
Yeah, buy… It really is a horrible idea. Any media outcry is warranted. Not like right-wingers spouting nonsense of eating cats and dogs…
Media covinced people that it was coming and it didn’t - my understanding of the argument.
That seems like a statement. I’m still lost on how this answers the question
They answered the second question. The problem is that OP was not actually posing anything coherent.
They’re alleging some made up media conspiracy that makes no sense and undermines the impact of the media on the outcome.
OP was not actually posing anything coherent
Yeah, agreed.
I’m not hugely on board with the comment answering the second question though. For me, it’s a bit too similar to saying that meteorologists lied to us because they said there was a 60% chance of rain and it didn’t happen. In the context of this question its a lot more complicated than that though
Troll post. Not falling for it. Bye.
Oh no lemmy is a reactionary craphole that despises nuanced discussion? Well atleast it’s a place to call people facists.
Good news. But I’m downvoting that post. OP’s living in reverse crying-wolf land, it seems.
First, Chat Control got further than previous attempts, with a bigger scope than ever. Being worried about that is not the result of propaganda.
Second, a lot of countries where on board, including Germany. Stuff changed after lot of feedback. You can be cynical all you want arguing that “people’s voice don’t matter” and saying there’s no causality there, but people made themselves heard, and thing moved. There’s no telling what would have happened if they didn’t.
The proposal being ultimately shot down (this time!) does not mean, at ALL, that it wasn’t a very dangerous one.
This post reminds me of a bunch of the “y2k scare was a hoax and a waste of money!” stuff from back in the day. With a bunch of people not realizing how much shit was fixed and what massive success it all was.
Second, a lot of countries where on board, including Germany
That means nothing. The governments (which the stances of were being counted) have not that much to say on how the MEPs will vote.
For example, if the Polish government was in favour of this, half of their MEPs would’ve still been against.
You can be cynical all you want arguing that “people’s voice don’t matter” and saying there’s no causality there, but people made themselves heard, and thing moved
I think he’s arguing the exact opposite, mate. He literally said that:
EU is a democracy with different opinions, and when a small group of facists tries to read your chats, it does not represent the EU opinion
There was a lot of panic about the EU being an oppressive “over-government”, trying to subjugate the population like the UK government is doing. That propaganda never made sense to me, but it felt very much like something the pro-russian mob would be spewing because it sows division and chaos, decreasing people’s appreciation of the EU, stoking exit views.
