โฒ 1077 โผ Nearly Half of Europeans Want X Banned if it Continues to Break the Law (peoplevsbig.tech) submitted 8 months ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world 117 comments fedilink hide all child comments ๐ 4
[โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (5 children) And there is our main argument against ChatControl. permalink fedilink source hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (4 children) What is? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (3 children) ChatControl is pushed with the excuse of CSAM. If that was a true concern of the proponents, we would have a push towards stronger and faster enforcement of the DMA and in particular of X. Instead, nothing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) I see. I have some doubts about the motivation of these people, too. But regulators are going after X. Consider that the chatcontrol equivalent would be going after services that don't spy enough on their users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) ChatControl would be going after all messages of all users by default. And CSAM is the excuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago What I'm getting at is that these laws demand that companies should do the spying. Surveillance is expensive, so foisting on these foreign companies is politically the easiest solution. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (4 children) What is? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (3 children) ChatControl is pushed with the excuse of CSAM. If that was a true concern of the proponents, we would have a push towards stronger and faster enforcement of the DMA and in particular of X. Instead, nothing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) I see. I have some doubts about the motivation of these people, too. But regulators are going after X. Consider that the chatcontrol equivalent would be going after services that don't spy enough on their users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) ChatControl would be going after all messages of all users by default. And CSAM is the excuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago What I'm getting at is that these laws demand that companies should do the spying. Surveillance is expensive, so foisting on these foreign companies is politically the easiest solution. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (3 children) ChatControl is pushed with the excuse of CSAM. If that was a true concern of the proponents, we would have a push towards stronger and faster enforcement of the DMA and in particular of X. Instead, nothing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) I see. I have some doubts about the motivation of these people, too. But regulators are going after X. Consider that the chatcontrol equivalent would be going after services that don't spy enough on their users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) ChatControl would be going after all messages of all users by default. And CSAM is the excuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago What I'm getting at is that these laws demand that companies should do the spying. Surveillance is expensive, so foisting on these foreign companies is politically the easiest solution. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (2 children) I see. I have some doubts about the motivation of these people, too. But regulators are going after X. Consider that the chatcontrol equivalent would be going after services that don't spy enough on their users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) ChatControl would be going after all messages of all users by default. And CSAM is the excuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago What I'm getting at is that these laws demand that companies should do the spying. Surveillance is expensive, so foisting on these foreign companies is politically the easiest solution. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] biofaust@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) ChatControl would be going after all messages of all users by default. And CSAM is the excuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago What I'm getting at is that these laws demand that companies should do the spying. Surveillance is expensive, so foisting on these foreign companies is politically the easiest solution. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago What I'm getting at is that these laws demand that companies should do the spying. Surveillance is expensive, so foisting on these foreign companies is politically the easiest solution. permalink fedilink source parent