Skip to main content


Chat control: what is in our politicians head?


This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Alfredolin

Fuck, how do I do a multiline spoiler? 😂
::: spoiler ugh
I managed somehow.
:::
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Alfredolin

So this actually happened? Fuck me, thats bad news. I only just found out it was happening and it's already done
in reply to anytimesoon

Deciding on the Procedure means Deciding on the Substance

If the urgency is approved on Tuesday, the decisive vote on the substance is scheduled to take place as early as Thursday – the final sitting day before the summer recess. Experience shows that significantly fewer MEPs are present on this day. However, since 361 votes are required for amendments or a rejection, the reinstatement of the expired “Chat Control 1.0” regulation would become virtually inevitable.

in reply to Babalugats

Experience shows that significantly fewer MEPs are present on this day.


And why the fuck are we accepting that in the first place? Get your asses to work!

in reply to Alfredolin

I think its pretty simple; with climate change and pollution comes environmental collapse and starvation. Clean water, food and other ressources will become even harder to obtain. Desperate people will be more likely to turn to exremism and civil unrest will increase. Our politicians know this and are trying to get into a position where they can stay in power and not be eaten. Obviously with hindsight it would probably have been better for everyone involved if we had taken the necessary steps to protect our climate and ecosystems a few centuries ago, but that doesnt get you elected and doesnt matter to you if you are going to rule just for the next 5 years or so.
in reply to viertesauge

Oh and the funniest thing about this is that the real bad actors can just circumvent this by adding a second layer or encryption to their messages that the authorities cannot access.
in reply to Alfredolin

Every payment sent, every penny received, every communication, every deal that they try to strike should all be publicised as they seem to forget which direction the transparency should be.
in reply to Babalugats

Also put up a camera ANYWHERE they go. No disabling. Let them face their own consequences.

Private texts? Donations? Stocks? Ok, all of that is confiscated and published.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Alfredolin

Democracy is farcical if the so-called will of the people [parliament] is subverted by the actions of a minority using 'procedure' tricks.

This is another of the many of examples that show authority is corrupt.

in reply to MonkderVierte

The thing is, most if them won't get money. Pretty sure they just have no idea what it's about.
in reply to Alfredolin

Use an P2P chat and show the middle finger to the chat control. Official chats, like WhatsCrap and similar are anyway controled since ever.
in reply to Alfredolin

we should be thinking about what the rich elites are thinking instead. and nazis like alex karp and peter thiel are openly telling us they want technofascism.

politicians are simply just paid to do their jobs of catering to said elites. they are only really meaningful for the theater of it.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Alfredolin

this is some next level lobbying, to even push this so hard and while some of the opposition wont even be there, this is incredible, but i dont get it, even if you pass this through where is the infrastructure to handle all of this??
all in all this is just disgusting level of lobbying
in reply to Ngenuity

Remember that this is just about the extension in time of the already existing chat control V1.0. We have to continue fighting because there is a lot of potential for this to get worse.
in reply to jherazob

Please, at least send an email to them: fightchatcontrol.eu/
in reply to Alfredolin

I did, not for the first time, but it did not work. It passed, despite a majority voting against it (314:276), because it was not an "absolute majority" (361 votes). What a farce.
in reply to jherazob

Keep that list near you, because the subject is gonna come back...
in reply to Alfredolin

The problem ia that you're assuming their decisions are in good faith. They're very much not. Chat control = control. Destroying privacy only benefits the local gov.
in reply to artyom

I'm not assuming their decisions are in good faith. I'm assuming they represent/belong to a party with guidelines and are voting publicly.

And it shows. The left and the greens have voted with consistency against. Just to many no-shows to make a difference, however there were no-shows from both sides.

But, the slight left, soc-dems, or however they are called, and center, has, with very little exceptions (which I salute), exclusively voted for it. And this is not according to my understanding of the guidelines but I suppose this is subject to interpretations.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)