4 ms·
If you read >The EU (as often) is being used here as a scapegoat for anti-democratic policies desired by national governments. as >The EU (as often) is being us
by bux93 2y ago
If you read
>The EU (as often) is being used here as a scapegoat for anti-democratic policies desired by national governments.
as
>The EU (as often) is being used here as a scapegoat for anti-democratic policies desired by democratically elected national governments.
This is a perfectly fine statement. The policy is argued to be anti-democratic because of its substance, not because of how democratic the process is by which it is adopted.
A measure with broad popular support can be anti-democratic, a measure only supported by a small portion of the population can be pro-democratic. It's orthogonal and if anything there is an inverse correlation.
- constantcrying 2y agoThe issue of chat control is also orthogonal to it's "democracy". It is neither democratic nor anti-democratic. It obviously in no way invalidates people's rights to determine their government, labeling arbitrary issues as "anti-democratic" just because you don't like them is very unhelpful.
- bux93 2y agoNonsense. Chat control is prior constraint of speech. You can't argue that automated content filters are not censorship. You can agree with the ends (or what content is filtered, and even the governance), but the means themselves are thoroughly anti-democratic. And rife for abuse.
- growse 2y agoIf this issue got put to a straight referendum, and won >80% of the vote, would it then be democratic?
- bux93 2y agoSee my earlier comment. This is simple stuff. Are you guys being disingenuous?
- bratwurst3000 2y agoThe problem is they see democracy as only the power of the people and not the power of the people in humanitarian context. So if 80% want to kill 20% that’s ok with them but wouldn’t be ok with people with a humanitarian democracy view.
- vidarh 2y agoWithout expressing my stance on this policy itself: Many measures can be reasonably called "democratic" or "anti-democratic" because they have the potential to affect the ability of the populace to express dissent, and organise political opposition, or because it is seen of creating the tools for the government to create a chilling effect in that respect. As such, it is not at all "obvious" that everyone will agree that it does not affect peoples democratic rights, whether you think so or not.
- KajMagnus 2y ago> It obviously in no way invalidates people's rights to determine their government But it can do that, if / when it starts getting misused. There was this "SS not all criminals" political party, AfD in Germany, that got lots of votes during the EU elections. AfD + Chat Control is not any good