3 ms·

So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for c

So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control. https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 Just pointing this out because yesterday there was the myth around that "chat control is pushed by the conservatives", obscuring the actual political dynamics in the EU about it.

iknowstuff 7mo ago
Greens based as always
nickslaughter02 7mo ago
> So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control. EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
marginalia_nu 7mo ago
There's also the DDR and Stasi as a counter example if anyone think mass surveillance is incompatible with socialism. Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a useful understanding.
- geon 7mo ago
  Yes. I would place it on the authority–liberty axis. While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.
  - wolvoleo 7mo ago
    Yes. I'm very socialist on an economic scale but very liberal on the social scale. It basically embodies what we call progressive these days. Conservatism has redefined itself too. Capitalist on the economic scale, authoritarian on the social one. When it comes to topics like lgbt, abortion, religion, family they don't want freedom. They want to have only the freedom to think like them. That's what we call authoritarianism. A bit remarkable because freedom was traditionally the hallmark of the right. I think you still see the original freedom variety more in states like Texas but not in the midwest. But I'm not really on the ball with American politics anymore so I may be wrong. I think this breaks the original left/right paradigms a bit but I view it more as a redefinition. But I think progressive and conservative are better terms to use these days.
    - geon 7mo ago
      This is to be expected in a 2-party system like the US. Since there can only ever be one axis, it must encode all possible issues. And with the strong polarization at the moment, sports team thinking takes over. If you identify with one of the 2 parties, you are expected to agree with the arbitrarily decided position on every single issue, no matter how contradictory.
skrebbel 7mo ago
EPP proposed it, but then it got amended (ie toned down) so much that they turned on their own proposal. This apparently happens quite a lot. So the way I understand it is they turned it down not because they thought it was bad, but because they didn't think it was bad enough.

iknowstuff 7mo ago

Greens based as always

nickslaughter02 7mo ago

> So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control. EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.

marginalia_nu 7mo ago

There's also the DDR and Stasi as a counter example if anyone think mass surveillance is incompatible with socialism. Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a useful understanding.

geon 7mo ago
Yes. I would place it on the authority–liberty axis. While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.
- wolvoleo 7mo ago
  Yes. I'm very socialist on an economic scale but very liberal on the social scale. It basically embodies what we call progressive these days. Conservatism has redefined itself too. Capitalist on the economic scale, authoritarian on the social one. When it comes to topics like lgbt, abortion, religion, family they don't want freedom. They want to have only the freedom to think like them. That's what we call authoritarianism. A bit remarkable because freedom was traditionally the hallmark of the right. I think you still see the original freedom variety more in states like Texas but not in the midwest. But I'm not really on the ball with American politics anymore so I may be wrong. I think this breaks the original left/right paradigms a bit but I view it more as a redefinition. But I think progressive and conservative are better terms to use these days.
  - geon 7mo ago
    This is to be expected in a 2-party system like the US. Since there can only ever be one axis, it must encode all possible issues. And with the strong polarization at the moment, sports team thinking takes over. If you identify with one of the 2 parties, you are expected to agree with the arbitrarily decided position on every single issue, no matter how contradictory.

skrebbel 7mo ago

EPP proposed it, but then it got amended (ie toned down) so much that they turned on their own proposal. This apparently happens quite a lot. So the way I understand it is they turned it down not because they thought it was bad, but because they didn't think it was bad enough.