Alaknar comments on EU Chat Control didnt pass - proving the media got to alot of you

EU Chat Control didnt pass - proving the media got to alot of you (www.patrick-breyer.de)

submitted 1 year ago by themurphy@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

106 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] iii@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

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)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] iii@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] iii@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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".

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] iii@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments