3 ms·
I guess I'm not sure what's dubious here. The article says they're circumventing "democratic control bodies", but I don't know what that means (perhaps it's a m
by SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
I guess I'm not sure what's dubious here. The article says they're circumventing "democratic control bodies", but I don't know what that means (perhaps it's a more common phrase in German?), and it sounds like the European Parliament can still vote to reject Chat Control if they don't want it. The article strongly implies there's something dubious going on here, but to me what would be dubious is a procedure that prevents the parliament from voting on Chat Control.
- flumpcakes 4mo agoPerhaps the article is biased. The simple fact is that a law that existed since 2011 and expired in April is now back in effect. So we are back where we were on February. I don't remember moving from an anti-democratic hell scape to serene democratic beauty back in April so it's probably a nothing-burger. I often see news articles that trade on the fact the general populace aren't professional bureaucrats and so frame anything happening in unpopular ways.
- int_19h 4mo agoPerhaps your democracy has been in decline for some time now?
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo agoBut why should we think EU democracy is in decline in the first place? Is there some evidence that EU citizens oppose CSAM scanning and political institutions aren't responsive to that? I'm not an expert, but my understanding from polls and such is that CSAM scanning generally has popular support, and the only reason it's controversial is the passionate advocacy and lobbying of privacy groups. (Of course, that's not necessarily anti-democratic, if the privacy groups have important information about Chat Control they think the general public might not have realized.)