EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

Post by munksbeer » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 8:34 AM UTC

vsl wrote: post #224

munksbeer wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this. Excuse me? That is quite an assertion. You're saying the EU Commission, the civil servants appointed by the EU Council, are somehow controlling the EU Council to push this agenda? I don't believe that is true.…

Yes, in EU the Commission proposes legislation: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning... > In the article, it talks explicitly about this being driven by the heads of state. Did you miss that the article talks explicitly about it being in the second reading already?

Post by rightbyte » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:04 AM UTC

vrganj wrote: post #193

sunaookami wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see an article about how the EU tries to force a law after it got struck down by forcing it through with a legal trick and all you can think of is how any comment that critizes this is propaganda? Get a grip

Its not "the EU" that tries to force the law, it's the Council. You know what the Council consists of? The heads of national governments. You know who they're having to force it through against ? The EU parliament, an actual EU-level institution. The more accurate read would thus be "national governments are trying to force this against the will of the EU". The fact that you come away with the exact opposite read is…

Post by inigyou » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:17 AM UTC

riedel wrote: post #122

neobrain wrote: post #49

For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here. Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, b…

I think the problem is really that law enforcement have got used to outsourcing this kind of policing to private operated platforms (at least here in Germany). I was actually at the local police station because I notified them via an online mechanism about sth that looked very CSAM to me in a random forum tracking some gossip/Internet meme (actually I did not really look further than a title because that can be alrea…

Post by inigyou » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:20 AM UTC

impossiblefork wrote: post #226

Rexxar wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU doesn't tries to force a law. Some politicians does. EU is just a group of institutions.

It's strongly connected to the structure of the EU though, and the weak control that voters have over appointments to the commission, and every level of indirection is one at which the appointer can be influenced. If EU institutions are used to push this sort of thing, we must treat that as what they are for . Systems do not get a pass because someone external is 'using them', but must be treated holistically.

Post by inigyou » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:23 AM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #210

vrganj wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the US president (Electoral College), the UK PM (Parliament) etc etc, yet you never hear complaints here from the same types. Their opposition is ideological, democracy is just an excuse because their true views would be too unsavory to say out loud.

In the US the President explicitly does not represent the people. It is the President of the States and only the States vote for President. Until the 20th century people weren't even involved in selecting who their State voted for. Many people are confused by the fact that only States can vote for President. The most a person's vote can do is provide input into their State's votes for President.