4 ms·

I've been wondering how Chat Control's proponents settled on such a comically villainous name for their project. They didn't even bother being Orwellian. Skelet

I've been wondering how Chat Control's proponents settled on such a comically villainous name for their project. They didn't even bother being Orwellian. Skeletor could have have come up with "Chat Control"

nickslaughter02 1y ago
The name was coined by a former MEP Patrick Breyer, one of the most important opponent of the law. EU's other proposal for mandating backdoors into devices is however from a group officially called "EU Going Dark" tho (you thought Chat Control was the only thing coming?). https://netzpolitik.org/2024/going-dark-eu-states-push-for-access-to-encrypted-data-and-increased-surveillance/ https://netzpolitik.org/2024/going-dark-eu-states-push-for-a...
- quotemstr 1y ago
  That makes more sense
layer8 1y ago
It’s the critics who named it Chat Control. The official name is Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse (Child Sexual Abuse Regulation, or CSAR). Let’s hope there will be enough Brutuses.
- ktallett 1y ago
  The next official name will be to prevent and combat terrorism, then the next proposal after that will be to prevent and combat child sexual abuse again, then the one after that will be to prevent and combat terrorism, then the one after that will be to prevent and combat child sexual abuse again..... and well you get the gist of that.
- kwar13 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
varispeed 1y ago
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design. It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent. The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will. You can argue legality if you like, but the substance matches the textbook definition. These people should be arrested.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  The actual proposal is named (the predictably bland) "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse". It's critics who like to call it "Chat Control", and I don't think we want to be arresting them over that.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    That's nothing new. See: “Law on the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” (1933, Nazi Germany) - bland wording, but it was the law that purged Jews and political opponents from public life. But it is actually on brand - terrorist organisations use do-gooding labels in order to draw support while pushing coercion.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      quotemstr's thought was proponents call it "Chat Control" and that meant even all proponents were being blatant they feel it's a ridiculously villinious law. That's very different than thinking proponents call it something bland but really understanding the content says another that opponents give it a bad name for.

nickslaughter02 1y ago

The name was coined by a former MEP Patrick Breyer, one of the most important opponent of the law. EU's other proposal for mandating backdoors into devices is however from a group officially called "EU Going Dark" tho (you thought Chat Control was the only thing coming?). https://netzpolitik.org/2024/going-dark-eu-states-push-for-access-to-encrypted-data-and-increased-surveillance/ https://netzpolitik.org/2024/going-dark-eu-states-push-for-a...

quotemstr 1y ago
That makes more sense

layer8 1y ago

It’s the critics who named it Chat Control. The official name is Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse (Child Sexual Abuse Regulation, or CSAR). Let’s hope there will be enough Brutuses.

ktallett 1y ago
The next official name will be to prevent and combat terrorism, then the next proposal after that will be to prevent and combat child sexual abuse again, then the one after that will be to prevent and combat terrorism, then the one after that will be to prevent and combat child sexual abuse again..... and well you get the gist of that.
kwar13 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

varispeed 1y ago

If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design. It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent. The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will. You can argue legality if you like, but the substance matches the textbook definition. These people should be arrested.

zamadatix 1y ago
The actual proposal is named (the predictably bland) "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse". It's critics who like to call it "Chat Control", and I don't think we want to be arresting them over that.
- varispeed 1y ago
  That's nothing new. See: “Law on the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” (1933, Nazi Germany) - bland wording, but it was the law that purged Jews and political opponents from public life. But it is actually on brand - terrorist organisations use do-gooding labels in order to draw support while pushing coercion.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    quotemstr's thought was proponents call it "Chat Control" and that meant even all proponents were being blatant they feel it's a ridiculously villinious law. That's very different than thinking proponents call it something bland but really understanding the content says another that opponents give it a bad name for.