4 ms·

Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be abo

Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.

vrganj 4mo ago
Call it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.
- mdp2021 4mo ago
  The EU already has in place, apparently, a Digital Services Act that basically stops access to some part of the web. That the slope may bring to enlarged web inaccessibility - and an unlivable eu ("What do you mean you have no internet, no web access?! We take it for granted"). That some actors may ride it, is not their stain, but the eu's.
  - vrganj 4mo ago
    The DSA doesn't stop access to any part of the web. This is precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier.
    - mdp2021 4mo ago
      Kindly explain why some platforms have issued notice that access would be restricted pending age verification. To my inquiries, that is owing to the DSA. Was I fed wrong information? Where, in which part? And, about «precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier»: you think this infomess was caused by foreign agents, instead of internal european lack of clarity?
- sunaookami 4mo ago
  You see an article about how the EU tries to force a law after it got struck down by forcing it through with a legal trick and all you can think of is how any comment that critizes this is propaganda? Get a grip
  - Rexxar 4mo ago
    EU doesn't tries to force a law. Some politicians does. EU is just a group of institutions.
    - impossiblefork 4mo ago
      It's strongly connected to the structure of the EU though, and the weak control that voters have over appointments to the commission, and every level of indirection is one at which the appointer can be influenced. If EU institutions are used to push this sort of thing, we must treat that as what they are for. Systems do not get a pass because someone external is 'using them', but must be treated holistically.
      - inigyou 4mo ago
        EU institutions are the ones blocking it! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48797761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48797761
  - vrganj 4mo ago
    Its not "the EU" that tries to force the law, it's the Council. You know what the Council consists of? The heads of national governments. You know who they're having to force it through against? The EU parliament, an actual EU-level institution. The more accurate read would thus be "national governments are trying to force this against the will of the EU". The fact that you come away with the exact opposite read is a good demonstration of said propaganda's effectiveness.
    - rightbyte 4mo ago
      It is an interesting take on it. I think there is a lack of understanding on how politics work among many.
- throw-the-towel 4mo ago
  Even if it is foreign propaganda, the problems it exploits are real. Either you're solving the problems, or you're pushing people into the arms of said propaganda.
- pqtyw 4mo ago
  Are you implying Denmark and other governments supporting it are pushing Chat Control as some sort of false flag operation to undermine the EU?
  - rightbyte 4mo ago
    No that the critique of chat control is, I guess? It is quite disturbing that more and more ofent critique of policy or a political system like the EU is framed as some convinient boogey man's propaganda.
    - pqtyw 4mo ago
      Due to lack of transparency. The way the EU is structured makes it way easier for national governments to push policies under the radar and avoid any type of responsibility by deflecting any backlash to the EU (due to fundamental flaws in how it's functioning).
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
joe_mamba 4mo ago
>users that have a clear anti-EU bias If a government body wants to interfere in your privacy and take it away, isn't it normal to be against that government body pushing that policy? It's not a bias, it's just a normal common sense reaction to tyrannical behavior, and pushing against that government body is the only way to enact the positive change you want to see. Otherwise if you just bend over and take it all the time, just so randos on the internet don't accuse you of being "anti-EU", then nothing will change and you'll see more and more of your rights taken away. And even if it were "EU bias" it's my right as an EU citizen and taxpayer to have it if I want to. Alos BTW, what's with this defensive attitude of treating the EU like some sacred cow that's somehow beyond reproach HN? Are they paying you guys to AstroTurf or what?
- CrisMystik 4mo ago
  In that case you're against the people currently in government, not the body itself, i.e. some people against Chat Control ask for the dissolution of the EU, but would they ask for the dissolution of their national state if a similar law was passed in their national parliament? I think no
  - constantius 4mo ago
    I've never seen anyone ask for the dissolution of the EU in chat control threads, and I read every one of them. What I see people (Europeans) lamenting is how undemocratic the EU is. As much as I think von der Leyen should be imprisoned, the issue is not the people in the government, but the institution itself. The Commission and the Council are the ones pushing these things, every time. The people in government are bad, and there's no reason whatsoever to think that'll improve amy time soon: what prevents bad people from doing bad things is the regulatory apparatus of checks and balances, which the EU very much lacks (in parts, granted). Worse, it has introduced US style corruption (or "lobbying") into countries that historically lacked it. If Chat Control 2.0 passes, given the general direction this would be showing, I'd very much understand people wanting to exit from the EU and cut the amount of undemocratic bullshit they have to contend with. But to return to your point, when something people strongly reject happens in their country, they do, rightfully, advocate for the dissolution of that government. Much harder to do with unelected bureaucrats sheltering in another country.

vrganj 4mo ago

Call it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.

mdp2021 4mo ago
The EU already has in place, apparently, a Digital Services Act that basically stops access to some part of the web. That the slope may bring to enlarged web inaccessibility - and an unlivable eu ("What do you mean you have no internet, no web access?! We take it for granted"). That some actors may ride it, is not their stain, but the eu's.
- vrganj 4mo ago
  The DSA doesn't stop access to any part of the web. This is precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier.
  - mdp2021 4mo ago
    Kindly explain why some platforms have issued notice that access would be restricted pending age verification. To my inquiries, that is owing to the DSA. Was I fed wrong information? Where, in which part? And, about «precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier»: you think this infomess was caused by foreign agents, instead of internal european lack of clarity?
sunaookami 4mo ago
You see an article about how the EU tries to force a law after it got struck down by forcing it through with a legal trick and all you can think of is how any comment that critizes this is propaganda? Get a grip
- Rexxar 4mo ago
  EU doesn't tries to force a law. Some politicians does. EU is just a group of institutions.
  - impossiblefork 4mo ago
    It's strongly connected to the structure of the EU though, and the weak control that voters have over appointments to the commission, and every level of indirection is one at which the appointer can be influenced. If EU institutions are used to push this sort of thing, we must treat that as what they are for. Systems do not get a pass because someone external is 'using them', but must be treated holistically.
    - inigyou 4mo ago
      EU institutions are the ones blocking it! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48797761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48797761
- vrganj 4mo ago
  Its not "the EU" that tries to force the law, it's the Council. You know what the Council consists of? The heads of national governments. You know who they're having to force it through against? The EU parliament, an actual EU-level institution. The more accurate read would thus be "national governments are trying to force this against the will of the EU". The fact that you come away with the exact opposite read is a good demonstration of said propaganda's effectiveness.
  - rightbyte 4mo ago
    It is an interesting take on it. I think there is a lack of understanding on how politics work among many.
throw-the-towel 4mo ago
Even if it is foreign propaganda, the problems it exploits are real. Either you're solving the problems, or you're pushing people into the arms of said propaganda.
pqtyw 4mo ago
Are you implying Denmark and other governments supporting it are pushing Chat Control as some sort of false flag operation to undermine the EU?
- rightbyte 4mo ago
  No that the critique of chat control is, I guess? It is quite disturbing that more and more ofent critique of policy or a political system like the EU is framed as some convinient boogey man's propaganda.
  - pqtyw 4mo ago
    Due to lack of transparency. The way the EU is structured makes it way easier for national governments to push policies under the radar and avoid any type of responsibility by deflecting any backlash to the EU (due to fundamental flaws in how it's functioning).
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]

joe_mamba 4mo ago

>users that have a clear anti-EU bias If a government body wants to interfere in your privacy and take it away, isn't it normal to be against that government body pushing that policy? It's not a bias, it's just a normal common sense reaction to tyrannical behavior, and pushing against that government body is the only way to enact the positive change you want to see. Otherwise if you just bend over and take it all the time, just so randos on the internet don't accuse you of being "anti-EU", then nothing will change and you'll see more and more of your rights taken away. And even if it were "EU bias" it's my right as an EU citizen and taxpayer to have it if I want to. Alos BTW, what's with this defensive attitude of treating the EU like some sacred cow that's somehow beyond reproach HN? Are they paying you guys to AstroTurf or what?

CrisMystik 4mo ago
In that case you're against the people currently in government, not the body itself, i.e. some people against Chat Control ask for the dissolution of the EU, but would they ask for the dissolution of their national state if a similar law was passed in their national parliament? I think no
- constantius 4mo ago
  I've never seen anyone ask for the dissolution of the EU in chat control threads, and I read every one of them. What I see people (Europeans) lamenting is how undemocratic the EU is. As much as I think von der Leyen should be imprisoned, the issue is not the people in the government, but the institution itself. The Commission and the Council are the ones pushing these things, every time. The people in government are bad, and there's no reason whatsoever to think that'll improve amy time soon: what prevents bad people from doing bad things is the regulatory apparatus of checks and balances, which the EU very much lacks (in parts, granted). Worse, it has introduced US style corruption (or "lobbying") into countries that historically lacked it. If Chat Control 2.0 passes, given the general direction this would be showing, I'd very much understand people wanting to exit from the EU and cut the amount of undemocratic bullshit they have to contend with. But to return to your point, when something people strongly reject happens in their country, they do, rightfully, advocate for the dissolution of that government. Much harder to do with unelected bureaucrats sheltering in another country.