EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

Post by loup-vaillant » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 10:31 PM UTC

g-b-r wrote: post #77

bigbadfeline wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about going out in front of your city hall with a poster saying no-chat-control? Unorganized, individual acts cannot change anything in the EU. > You risk nothing, do you? Given the legislative maze the EU has become, you can't be sure of that, but you surely gain nothing. The conditions in Europe are quite specific, and in that environment, pan-EU legislation (except the customs union) should be optional for…

Individual acts can actually have more resonance, if carried out with conviction and commitment (and if the cause is just). See Greta Thunberg; she might not have managed to save the planet yet, but she sure got the attention of the world (of course, however big a problem chat control is, climate change is a much bigger issue)

Post by SiempreViernes » Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 11:38 PM UTC

spwa4 wrote: post #108

SiempreViernes wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely incorrect, the Parliament, the Council, and the Commission always come up with their own version of a proposed regulation (the Commission because they get to create new proposals, the other two because they have to react to comission proposal). Then all three parties sit down and negotiate a final text that becomes law.

Ah yes, going into details and then leaving out the crucial part. You're technically right about "regulations", which is a technical legal term with a surprise indirect meaning. The surprise is that "directives" also exist. Of course the situation is that the EU parliament HAS come up with a version of the Chat Control law. It can be summarized very succinctly: "NO" (obviously I mean that nothing passed parliament, I…

Post by sunaookami » Fri, Nov 28, 2025, 5:26 AM UTC

izacus wrote: post #132

sunaookami wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All of this is disinformation and propaganda. I suggest actually looking at how the EU operates instead of accusing others of "spreading disinformation and propaganda" which is a typical response when someone critizies EU institutions. >There is parliamentary oversight A rubber stamp is oversight I guess. Laws like the DMA and DSA give the commission way too much power without being kept in check. >it's literally th…

Your blatant lying and propaganda does not belong to this site (or anywhere). Why are you posting this?

Post by hdgvhicv » Fri, Nov 28, 2025, 8:51 AM UTC

LunaSea wrote: post #114

saubeidl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how that is in any way related to the other several instances of "ever closer union" wording that France signed up to.

This is about the vote on the EU Constitution in the early 2000s during which both French and Dutch people voted against. Later the EU decided to pass it without a referendum to side step this "democracy issue". Something you would have know about if you actually understood the topic. So no, "even closer union" is not something that most europeans want, especially not in the current climate of corruption and fuckups…

Post by permo-w » Fri, Nov 28, 2025, 11:08 AM UTC

mckirk wrote: post #59

tux3 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this is a delay to get a foot in the door. After some time, the scanning will be made no longer voluntary. One has to take rights away slowly, otherwise the frog jumps before you can boil it.

While I fully agree with your sentiment, I'd like to take the opportunity to share a favorite fun-fact of mine: the frogs in the not-jumping-out experiment had their brains removed beforehand. Which might make the analogy more apt, actually, considering how much under siege our attention is these days.