3 ms·

The common fallacy people have regarding chat control (and should be clarified) is that it's not like internet is made of a few select providers, anyone can ope

by moniosi 3mo ago

The common fallacy people have regarding chat control (and should be clarified) is that it's not like internet is made of a few select providers, anyone can open an encrypted tcp connection from an ip to another, and the global traffic is too massive to be scrutinized, also the most widely available apps already comply to the single police request to access conversations from suspects. This means that this will create further privacy for criminals such as pedophiles and mass espionage for the common man. It's also curious to notice that at every proposal stage, politicians are always conveniently exempt from the regulation, which is hilarious coming after the Files.

topranks 3mo ago
Yeah but messaging apps are really only useful if there are lots of people on them to message. So in the real world a relatively small number of providers, WhatsApp, Signal etc, are in a position where all your friends are going to be on them. And those are the ones likely to be named and told they need to implement image scanning/review.
- megous 3mo ago
  Messaging protocols are useful even if everyone is not on the same app. In the past I was chatting with my google using friend via some third party jabber server where I had an account. It was useful and didn't require us to be "in the same app". We both were using both different apps and different server providers.
  - Hizonner 3mo ago
    But actual protocols are so last century. You might have to think ahead for fifteen minutes because the design has to be staaaa-a-ble. It's haa-a-ard! And you can't sell out to somebody who'll change it and have an exit event.
  - mort96 3mo ago
    > In the past Exactly. That time is mostly over.
    - HDBaseT 3mo ago
      It doesn't have to be though. There is countless benefits to decentralized and federated platforms, even for your average Joe. It's just that all the Google, Microsoft, and Meta platforms had shiny new features and we all switched. There is no real reason we can't go back, sure the network effect is hard to overcome but the technological problem is moderately simple to solve (we did it in the past!)
    - embedding-shape 3mo ago
      And coming back again: > As part of changing laws in Europe, Meta now offers the option for you to chat with others using third-party messaging apps that have integrated with WhatsApp and that you choose to turn on. - Whatsapp Help Center Currently support is a bit shit, given it's relatively new. Give it 3-5 years and I'm sure this will look very different.
      - wolvoleo 3mo ago
        Yes but it's the same EU that mandates this. If they can mandate interoperability they will just mandate their backdoor at the same time
- bcjdjsndon 3mo ago
  > So in the real world a relatively small number of providers. Why do we even need providers? Locally store the convos on each device and there's not a need for the server.
  - echoangle 3mo ago
    No normal user wants that. You would still need some infrastructure to link users with IPs, and if you lose your device, all your chats are gone.
    - bcjdjsndon 3mo ago
      > You would still need some infrastructure to link users with IPs I thought we cracked this with P2P streaming? I know torrents have trackers but can't we do some kind of multicast kind of thing, completely P2P?
palata 3mo ago
> it's not like internet is made of a few select providers In practice it is. Almost all messaging happens on a few apps. > also the most widely available apps already comply to the single police request to access conversations from suspects That is not true: Signal is widely available and doesn't do that. WhatsApp probably doesn't do it either. Don't get me wrong: I am against ChatControl as well. I believe that security comes at the cost of freedom, and it is a choice to be made on a case-per-case basis. Removing E2EE for everybody is not worth it, because criminals will always be able to use encryption one way or another. The problem is that politicians don't seem to understand it.
- wolvoleo 3mo ago
  They do understand it but what they want is not just criminals' data but all of us.
  - throwawayffffas 3mo ago
    They want to pick the easy fruit. The dumb criminals that would do that sort of thing over whatsapp.
    - soulofmischief 3mo ago
      Yes, but this easy fruit has a flavor of the week: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/ben-werdmuller-signal-zines-anti-ice-terrorism-2026/ https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/ben-werdmuller-signal-z... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun... > Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. Like, you can get 30 years in prison now for moving some boxes with zines in them, just because you are anti-fascist. Yes, this is American politics; but don't think that the benevolent overloads of the EU don't plan for this same outcome: Already in many European countries, I can go to prison for just saying, "Free Palestine". They want it so that people cannot even say that in private.
IceHegel 3mo ago
this is rational because pedophiles are not a threat to the state. if they were, the bill would look very different.
- throw-the-towel 3mo ago
  A modest proposal: have governments consist of underage girls.
like_any_other 3mo ago
> which is hilarious coming after the Files. Files?
- SomeUserName432 3mo ago
  Epstein

by moniosi 3mo ago

topranks 3mo ago

Yeah but messaging apps are really only useful if there are lots of people on them to message. So in the real world a relatively small number of providers, WhatsApp, Signal etc, are in a position where all your friends are going to be on them. And those are the ones likely to be named and told they need to implement image scanning/review.

megous 3mo ago
Messaging protocols are useful even if everyone is not on the same app. In the past I was chatting with my google using friend via some third party jabber server where I had an account. It was useful and didn't require us to be "in the same app". We both were using both different apps and different server providers.
- Hizonner 3mo ago
  But actual protocols are so last century. You might have to think ahead for fifteen minutes because the design has to be staaaa-a-ble. It's haa-a-ard! And you can't sell out to somebody who'll change it and have an exit event.
- mort96 3mo ago
  > In the past Exactly. That time is mostly over.
  - HDBaseT 3mo ago
    It doesn't have to be though. There is countless benefits to decentralized and federated platforms, even for your average Joe. It's just that all the Google, Microsoft, and Meta platforms had shiny new features and we all switched. There is no real reason we can't go back, sure the network effect is hard to overcome but the technological problem is moderately simple to solve (we did it in the past!)
  - embedding-shape 3mo ago
    And coming back again: > As part of changing laws in Europe, Meta now offers the option for you to chat with others using third-party messaging apps that have integrated with WhatsApp and that you choose to turn on. - Whatsapp Help Center Currently support is a bit shit, given it's relatively new. Give it 3-5 years and I'm sure this will look very different.
    - wolvoleo 3mo ago
      Yes but it's the same EU that mandates this. If they can mandate interoperability they will just mandate their backdoor at the same time
bcjdjsndon 3mo ago
> So in the real world a relatively small number of providers. Why do we even need providers? Locally store the convos on each device and there's not a need for the server.
- echoangle 3mo ago
  No normal user wants that. You would still need some infrastructure to link users with IPs, and if you lose your device, all your chats are gone.
  - bcjdjsndon 3mo ago
    > You would still need some infrastructure to link users with IPs I thought we cracked this with P2P streaming? I know torrents have trackers but can't we do some kind of multicast kind of thing, completely P2P?

palata 3mo ago

> it's not like internet is made of a few select providers In practice it is. Almost all messaging happens on a few apps. > also the most widely available apps already comply to the single police request to access conversations from suspects That is not true: Signal is widely available and doesn't do that. WhatsApp probably doesn't do it either. Don't get me wrong: I am against ChatControl as well. I believe that security comes at the cost of freedom, and it is a choice to be made on a case-per-case basis. Removing E2EE for everybody is not worth it, because criminals will always be able to use encryption one way or another. The problem is that politicians don't seem to understand it.

wolvoleo 3mo ago
They do understand it but what they want is not just criminals' data but all of us.
- throwawayffffas 3mo ago
  They want to pick the easy fruit. The dumb criminals that would do that sort of thing over whatsapp.
  - soulofmischief 3mo ago
    Yes, but this easy fruit has a flavor of the week: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/ben-werdmuller-signal-zines-anti-ice-terrorism-2026/ https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/ben-werdmuller-signal-z... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun... > Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. Like, you can get 30 years in prison now for moving some boxes with zines in them, just because you are anti-fascist. Yes, this is American politics; but don't think that the benevolent overloads of the EU don't plan for this same outcome: Already in many European countries, I can go to prison for just saying, "Free Palestine". They want it so that people cannot even say that in private.

IceHegel 3mo ago

this is rational because pedophiles are not a threat to the state. if they were, the bill would look very different.

throw-the-towel 3mo ago
A modest proposal: have governments consist of underage girls.

like_any_other 3mo ago

> which is hilarious coming after the Files. Files?

SomeUserName432 3mo ago
Epstein