511–520 of 947 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Jacques Baud (Swiss) and Xavier Moreau (French) citizens, got sanctioned by the EU[1] on the basis of "acting as mouthpieces for pro-Russian propaganda and spreading conspiracy theories". Sanctioning means asset freezes, debanking and travel bans, virtually a slow and painful sentence to homelessness and death since you won't be able to travel, have a bank account, a job, own or rent anything under sanctions. I don't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would big tech be in favor of having to scan message content? It puts more regulatory requirements in place on their activities. Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? If big tech _wanted_ to they could already backdoor their encryption and scan the message content, they don't need regulation to do that. The only thing that chan…
> Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it.
I don't want to hear about the EU's "strong digital privacy" laws and protections ever again.
Are there any civilians left in the EU, or is it all bureaucrats and bankers?
Stupid parliamentary trick: Hold the vote on the day before the summer break - ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries. Then use a sort of "reverse" parliamentary trick: the default is that this legislation is accepted. They needed an absolute majority - not of voting members, but of all members - to reject it. Result: 314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions, 113 absent The EU is wel…
> Then use a sort of "reverse" parliamentary trick: the default is that this legislation is accepted. They needed an absolute majority - not of voting members, but of all members - to reject it. No pun intended, but how is this legal? I mean, if you don’t have a quorum, then shouldn’t you just wait for an Autumn session? It feels like having a democratic parliament with backdoors like this kinda undermines the whole…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only was Chat Control 1.0 already rejected twice by the European Parliament but: - This vote took place on last day of the session when many MEPs had already left for Summer vacation - 112 MEPs of 719 didn't vote. - The vote was called only two days before as an "Rule 170 - Urgent procedure" - 73 MEPs missed the vote making it "urgent". Normally it takes months of procedure to come up for a final vote.
That's why you have a constitution with rights that are not up for vote. Even relying on people to vote no is not enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we agree that it's not unreasonable for me to feel confident I am unlikely to get arrested in the US over a social media post than in the UK, which is the whole point I was making all along.
For you , yes. But not for some other folks in the US. If you want to invoke statistics, I'm sure 99% of UK citizens are confident they won't get arrested over a social media post either. They probably worry about it a lot less than you would if you moved there.
https://web.archive.org/web/20251231145954/https://www.theti...
https://freespeechunion.org/archive/daily-mail-investigation...
Also, see E-petition 728715, which had 190,000 signatures from concerned citizens. Your 99% statistic is clearly going against the data.
Stupid parliamentary trick: Hold the vote on the day before the summer break - ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries. Then use a sort of "reverse" parliamentary trick: the default is that this legislation is accepted. They needed an absolute majority - not of voting members, but of all members - to reject it. Result: 314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions, 113 absent The EU is wel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any time now even the most pro-european EU defender will realise that what was once a trade union has slowly transformed itself into an undemocratic, bureaucratic monster.
A surprisingly large amount of people are quite alright with that as long as they perceive that those undemocratic processes are producing the end results they desire. It's not unique to the EU, though they do play this game very well, or even to this time period. Once the powers have been granted, the public has only limited ability to revoke the power, with many of them easily swayed that it's good for this power t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only was Chat Control 1.0 already rejected twice by the European Parliament but: - This vote took place on last day of the session when many MEPs had already left for Summer vacation - 112 MEPs of 719 didn't vote. - The vote was called only two days before as an "Rule 170 - Urgent procedure" - 73 MEPs missed the vote making it "urgent". Normally it takes months of procedure to come up for a final vote.
I think that means those MEPs are not doing their jobs. They are the representatives of their people, but somehow they left for vacation before the last day of the session. They failed in the most important part of their duty.