- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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.
What a retarded blog post.
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.
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.
Troll post. Not falling for it. Bye.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
This is exactly the dumb shit take from y2k.
I Still hear people go on about how “it was supposed to be this big thing and then nothing happened! Smart people are so dumb!”
Yeah nothing happened because a lot of smart people worked very hard to fix the goddamn problem, you fucking shitwaffle.
Here? “You dum dums got so worked up thinking it would pass and then it didn’t, so the freak out was for nothing!” yeah it didn’t pass because a lot of Europeans got very upset about their governments trying to spy on them harder than ever.
I’m not European, so I can’t say how people talked about it openly on the metro with random strangers, but online? People were vocal and pissed. A PROPER government (lol can we have some of that functioning democracy please) listens to its people. This was them listening to the people.
The people’s reaction was appropriate, and necessary. And shouldn’t be lessened just because “lol you guys got so propaganda’d and it was obviously never gonna happen and I knew cause I’m so smart” is quite the take on things.
It reminds me of when climate hoaxers claim the hole in the ozone layer shrinking proves those campaigning to fix it were just fearmongering.
I work on software security (not it/infosec) and deal with this constantly. Bad stuff didn’t happen so we can scale back security, right? No, shit for brains, either the bad stuff didn’t happen because we prevented it, or the bad stuff just hasn’t happened yet because the vulnerability wasn’t discovered, or worse still, the bad stuff DID happen and we haven’t been informed yet. Either way, please do not make my job harder.
Yeah, I can totally empathise. I used to work in QA for a couple different software companies, including around CVEs and security bug bounty programs. One company scaled back their QA department to near nothing, the other eliminated QA altogether, instead relying on devs to QA their own stuff or automation. It’s not going well for either of them.
it’s not going to for either of them
it never does lol
vaccines also. nobody is getting sick so vaccines must be unneccessary
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
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.
There’s no media about the EU in USA. Nobody gives a crap. The “news” is all just fascist propaganda about how genocide is good and windmills cause tornados.
Wait, have people been setting their windmills to the tornado mode? I always thought it odd to have that setting.
Why in the world would this be talking about the USA?
Maybe like everyone else that poster was confused what the actual fuck OP was on about
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.
This is what the EU democracy opinion was as of July 2024 BTW, before the “media got to you”:
That image is the thumbnail for OP’s link LOL
What a bizarre take. The EU council is backing down - they do want chat control but each time they propose it they meet resistance and back down. Then they come back again and try again.
To suggest the public reaction is overblown and media manipulation is bizarre. This is the 3rd or 4th time the EU has attempted to get this through. Just because they chickened out of a vote doesn’t mean the politicians don’t want this.
In a democracy votes happen. In the EU they keep resurrecting this terrible idea hoping to get it through but then backing away if they don’t think they can win. They know if there was an actual vote it likely would put an end to his.
Also the EU council is the antithesis of a democracy. It is not directly elected - instead it’s a club of the heads of states of all the countries in the EU. It just represents who happens to be in charge of each country, and gives equal weights to all those countries regardless of their population size. The EU has a Parliament but it’s a fig leaf of democracy as so much power is held in bodies like the Council and the Commission (which is 1 post per state and horse traded not elected).
So please don’t make this out as a sign that EU democracy works. If EI democracy was working properly they would have listened the first time, and they’d have moved to a directly elected system for the executive Council and commission years ago.
The EU gets too much of a free pass for “not being America” but it’s got huge problems that need fixing to make it an actual democracy.
I don’t know. I live in Russia. One can say things like “aggressor state” and such, but if democracy worked here, we’d probably have no nukes by now, and I don’t think this would have worked well, aggression or not.
While the last few years show more and more persuasively that it’s unwise to let go of your weapons, any democracy in Russia in a long period between now and 1999 would have resulted in a radical contraction of the military and everything associated with it. Because it was very easy to believe that the world is different now and daddy USA is the global power for good that will keep peace. And that “rules-based order” really exists. And what not.
Propaganda is a thing. The EU is maybe not democratic, but making it such one should first make brakes.
At least the EU includes France which has nukes. In case world suddenly becomes even crazier.
What exactly would not have worked without nukes?
Having an option of saying no when threatened with one.
Oh yea I suppose Russia would have had to say “no” to invading Ukraine. Terrible thought /s
Your sarcasm is out of place here really, and yes, Ukraine gave up its nukes and got this outcome. Ukraine had nukes after the union’s breakup.
We naturally can’t compare Russia without nukes to Russia with nukes, having only one version of history, but it’s pretty clear that having nukes is beneficial, from comparing countries treated by western media similarly between which have nukes and which don’t have nukes.
Say, there is North Korea with nukes, which, despite all its despotism, still survives, even somewhat modernizes and doesn’t even have hunger as it did in some other periods of its history. It’s a functional nation.
And there’s Syria, where rebranded ISIS took power, is openly massacring Alawites and Druze and basically everyone not Sunni Arab whom they can get (Kurds they can’t, Kurds have their own military organization still existing), and the western media is praising them and behaving as if it’s regrettable, but necessary that genocide took place. Say, Bashar al-Assad didn’t do genocide. He really had an unpleasant regime, basically abusing all dissenters and selling drugs as the basis of his rule, and he even all by himself put off payroll the units most useful in preserving his power in the civil war. And he is to blame that this happened and the Syrian state fell apart like some rotten fruit, for pieces to be picked up by jihadis. Except all those civilian Alawites are not to blame, and if you read something in western media about it, it’s almost as if they were. Because what’s a little genocide between friends, right. It’s not a functional nation.
And then there’s Iran, which got invaded by Saddam Hussein with western cheering almost immediately after its revolution (against western-approved “Shah”, whose father, by the way, was a half-literate cavalry officer who took power in a coup, it wasn’t any kind of respectable legitimate government), and then they decided that they need nukes. And if they really had nukes, they might have had more peace. It’s a very corrupt nation ruled by religious nutheads, but compared to fucking Saudi Arabia it’s almost progressive.
I mean, these are all not even important. It’s a pretty commonly accepted thing that the Cold War was “cold” because of nukes. We got half a century of peace in most of the world thanks to nukes.
Most people are kinda sane, only a few are insane. Sane aggressors fear nukes on their victim’s side, and don’t use nukes first because they want to win something, not burn themselves and the victim. A revolution in strategic armaments discouraging most aggressors and encouraging only a few helps peace.
All hail nukes.
