6 ms·

Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? I guess it's just clickbait, but I haven't previously found Politico to be this extreme. And the a

Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? I guess it's just clickbait, but I haven't previously found Politico to be this extreme. And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts: > The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the bill and send it... And most of the other headlines on their current front page are quite boring and descriptive.

croes 1y ago
>trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading online. I wouldn’t call that neutral.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  Why? That's what the bill's intentions are. If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't change the stated intention. If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that doesn't change what the article should state unless there is evidence They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal instead of writing "that will stop child..." It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying information from both sides. The article even details that there is an opposition to the bill.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    > Why? That's what the bill's intentions are. It's always the stated intention, because it's hard to argue against "think of the children". From commentary on similar legislation in the UK: https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2... > The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.” I have every expectation that Chat Control is either similar or is a blatant cash-grab by people interested in peddling technical "solutions", or both. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45508537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45508537
  - croes 1y ago
    Because the bill obviously can‘t do that even if they would scan every message. They are doctoring at the symptoms than the real issue. But that would mean more personnel and more money needed and less side effects like mass surveillance
  - nofriend 1y ago
    They could say "notionally aimed at". The accusation of detractors would certainly include that that isn't the real goal, so to repeat it uncritically is a bit odd.
baobun 1y ago
"spam" is a grave mischaracterization, at that. It's a tool assisting citizens to voice their concerns to their elected representatives. I also feel uneasy about Politico putting the lights on the creator this way and stopping short of doxxing them when they clearly wish to have their identity unknown and could face threats from having their personals broadcasted. It's also telling that the two opponents to the bill named in the article are Musk and WhatsApp - hardly the most sympathetic picks for the Politico audience.
- fph 1y ago
  My main problem with Fight Chat Control is that it asks people to send messages to the wrong audience. The site asks me to contact members of the European /parliament/, while the proposal is being discussed by the EU /commission/, a completely different body.
  - belorn 1y ago
    The commissioners are not elected by the citizens of their respective countries. Instead, they are selected via a parliamentary vetting process, and approved by the European Parliament. The commission has no direct responsibility towards the citizens in EU. It is also the European Parliament that scrutinized and votes on the laws created by the commission. The commission job is only to write proposal for laws. This is a bit like complaining that people have objections about a politician speech and send emails to the politician rather than the employed person who wrote it. Should citizens direct their messages and complaints to speech writes?
    - fph 1y ago
      This does not seem a fitting metaphor: you complain only after the politician has read that speech. But this whole campaign is about a speech that has not been written yet, i.e., a proposal that has not been finalized. You are writing to a MEP about a certain draft that is still being worked on, and that they might have to vote on in the future. What do you expect them to answer, other than "thanks, I can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind if and when I have to vote on it"? Why not wait and write to them when they actually have to vote on this proposal?
iamnothere 1y ago
I agree, I feel like it gives the article a negative bias against the developer. Perhaps the editor wants to generate pressure against them or discourage further opposition? At least it’s not a complete hit piece, if you ignore the title then it’s mostly balanced.
piva00 1y ago
Politico.eu is owned by Axel Springer, the same Axel Springer SE which received US$ 7m from the CIA back in the early 2000s [0]. It's the closest to a Fox News-esque entity in Western Europe, I believe. They also own BILD, a tabloid, and Die Welt, a newspaper that constantly publishes climate-skeptic articles, and also infamously published an op-ed by Musk supporting the AfD. [0] https://taz.de/cia-und-presse/!734289/ https://taz.de/cia-und-presse/!734289/
- WA 1y ago
  Oh that’s why Elon was quoted in the article as if anything Elon has to say on this matter is relevant at all.
swiftcoder 1y ago
> Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? ... And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts I would guess that the author is to involved with writing the headline. An awful lot of journalists have been up in arms the last decade over the editors writing new headlines that imply the opposite stance of the article itself...

croes 1y ago

>trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading online. I wouldn’t call that neutral.

Braxton1980 1y ago
Why? That's what the bill's intentions are. If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't change the stated intention. If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that doesn't change what the article should state unless there is evidence They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal instead of writing "that will stop child..." It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying information from both sides. The article even details that there is an opposition to the bill.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  > Why? That's what the bill's intentions are. It's always the stated intention, because it's hard to argue against "think of the children". From commentary on similar legislation in the UK: https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2... > The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.” I have every expectation that Chat Control is either similar or is a blatant cash-grab by people interested in peddling technical "solutions", or both. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45508537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45508537
- croes 1y ago
  Because the bill obviously can‘t do that even if they would scan every message. They are doctoring at the symptoms than the real issue. But that would mean more personnel and more money needed and less side effects like mass surveillance
- nofriend 1y ago
  They could say "notionally aimed at". The accusation of detractors would certainly include that that isn't the real goal, so to repeat it uncritically is a bit odd.

baobun 1y ago

"spam" is a grave mischaracterization, at that. It's a tool assisting citizens to voice their concerns to their elected representatives. I also feel uneasy about Politico putting the lights on the creator this way and stopping short of doxxing them when they clearly wish to have their identity unknown and could face threats from having their personals broadcasted. It's also telling that the two opponents to the bill named in the article are Musk and WhatsApp - hardly the most sympathetic picks for the Politico audience.

fph 1y ago
My main problem with Fight Chat Control is that it asks people to send messages to the wrong audience. The site asks me to contact members of the European /parliament/, while the proposal is being discussed by the EU /commission/, a completely different body.
- belorn 1y ago
  The commissioners are not elected by the citizens of their respective countries. Instead, they are selected via a parliamentary vetting process, and approved by the European Parliament. The commission has no direct responsibility towards the citizens in EU. It is also the European Parliament that scrutinized and votes on the laws created by the commission. The commission job is only to write proposal for laws. This is a bit like complaining that people have objections about a politician speech and send emails to the politician rather than the employed person who wrote it. Should citizens direct their messages and complaints to speech writes?
  - fph 1y ago
    This does not seem a fitting metaphor: you complain only after the politician has read that speech. But this whole campaign is about a speech that has not been written yet, i.e., a proposal that has not been finalized. You are writing to a MEP about a certain draft that is still being worked on, and that they might have to vote on in the future. What do you expect them to answer, other than "thanks, I can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind if and when I have to vote on it"? Why not wait and write to them when they actually have to vote on this proposal?

iamnothere 1y ago

I agree, I feel like it gives the article a negative bias against the developer. Perhaps the editor wants to generate pressure against them or discourage further opposition? At least it’s not a complete hit piece, if you ignore the title then it’s mostly balanced.

piva00 1y ago

Politico.eu is owned by Axel Springer, the same Axel Springer SE which received US$ 7m from the CIA back in the early 2000s [0]. It's the closest to a Fox News-esque entity in Western Europe, I believe. They also own BILD, a tabloid, and Die Welt, a newspaper that constantly publishes climate-skeptic articles, and also infamously published an op-ed by Musk supporting the AfD. [0] https://taz.de/cia-und-presse/!734289/ https://taz.de/cia-und-presse/!734289/

WA 1y ago
Oh that’s why Elon was quoted in the article as if anything Elon has to say on this matter is relevant at all.

swiftcoder 1y ago

> Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? ... And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts I would guess that the author is to involved with writing the headline. An awful lot of journalists have been up in arms the last decade over the editors writing new headlines that imply the opposite stance of the article itself...