5 ms·

The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal it

The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal itself. The screenshot in the tweet is about the amendment, which was less important than the fact than then the whole proposal was rejected. I think this article [0] discussed here [1] is much more informative, and I suggest merging the current comment thread there [1]. I am not sure of the logic of the amendment, as parties voted differently between proposals (eg left parties voted for the amendment and against the whole, and EPP voted against both, S&D voted in favour of both). In any case, one vote difference for the amendment is not really the point, the actual vote for the whole is what mattered, and this gained a more clear majority against chat control [2]. Not sure if this is higher because it is more "clickbait" (chat control 1.0) or what, but it is a single tweet with a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this. [0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parliament-stops-mass-surveillance-in-voting-thriller-paving-the-way-for-genuine-child-protection/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 [2] https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270

nickslaughter02 7mo ago
> EPP voted against both EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).
- freehorse 7mo ago
  So they voted against the total because it did not include indiscriminate scanning? I am not saying this is not the case, but it does not make sense to me. If indiscriminate scanning does not pass, why not vote for the total even without it, and amend it after it passes and gets normalised at a later point?
  - layer8 7mo ago
    It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
    - btilly 7mo ago
      Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
      - torstenvl 7mo ago
        > This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition of authoritarian that relates to chat control, the UK is two base-10 orders of magnitude more authoritarian than Hungary (7 base-2 orders of magnitude).
        btilly 7mo ago
        The issue isn't how much free speech online is being punished. It is how surveillance could be used to reinforce authoritarianism. The UK does a lot of prosecuting people for having said nasty things online that someone else didn't like. Hungary is far more inclined to surveil political opponents, put people in their network in jail without fair trial, surveil successful businesses whose bribes were insufficient, find excuses to punish those businesses.
  - gpderetta 7mo ago
    That's happens often in parliamentary proceedings: when the other party succeeds in unrecognizably amending the law, the party proposing it will vote against. Specifically for the European Parliament, this is also why, while it is true it doesn't have the power of legislative initiative, given the ability to amend at will any "law", in practice it doesn't make much of a difference.
    - philipwhiuk 7mo ago
      Which is sometimes why amendments are added, as wrecking motions.
altairprime 7mo ago
Email the mods and ask them to merge the discussions. They’ll almost certainly do so.
pembrook 7mo ago
> a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this There's been an influx of low-quality bluesky links being posted lately, HN either needs to be better enforcing existing rules or we need a new one banning editorialized social posts that then link out to primary articles (just post the actual article without the editorialized social post as intermediary!).

nickslaughter02 7mo ago

> EPP voted against both EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).

freehorse 7mo ago
So they voted against the total because it did not include indiscriminate scanning? I am not saying this is not the case, but it does not make sense to me. If indiscriminate scanning does not pass, why not vote for the total even without it, and amend it after it passes and gets normalised at a later point?
- layer8 7mo ago
  It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
  - btilly 7mo ago
    Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
    - torstenvl 7mo ago
      > This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition of authoritarian that relates to chat control, the UK is two base-10 orders of magnitude more authoritarian than Hungary (7 base-2 orders of magnitude).
      - btilly 7mo ago
        The issue isn't how much free speech online is being punished. It is how surveillance could be used to reinforce authoritarianism. The UK does a lot of prosecuting people for having said nasty things online that someone else didn't like. Hungary is far more inclined to surveil political opponents, put people in their network in jail without fair trial, surveil successful businesses whose bribes were insufficient, find excuses to punish those businesses.
- gpderetta 7mo ago
  That's happens often in parliamentary proceedings: when the other party succeeds in unrecognizably amending the law, the party proposing it will vote against. Specifically for the European Parliament, this is also why, while it is true it doesn't have the power of legislative initiative, given the ability to amend at will any "law", in practice it doesn't make much of a difference.
  - philipwhiuk 7mo ago
    Which is sometimes why amendments are added, as wrecking motions.

altairprime 7mo ago

Email the mods and ask them to merge the discussions. They’ll almost certainly do so.

pembrook 7mo ago

> a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this There's been an influx of low-quality bluesky links being posted lately, HN either needs to be better enforcing existing rules or we need a new one banning editorialized social posts that then link out to primary articles (just post the actual article without the editorialized social post as intermediary!).