• sunbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Honestly so many nations are in the same page with this, I think it’s preparation for wartime.

    You need to not only he able to track down foreign agents, but also yeah strangle dissent and control the narrative.

    Not saying it’s good one way or the other, but everyone trying to do a similar (hated) thing at the same time is way too coincidental.

  • RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    1 day ago

    Chat control mandates a piece of software on your device that spies on what you do and sends that to the government and their partners.

    Chat control does not protect children.

    Chat control is a way for governments to stay in front of any dissent and organizing efforts from it’s citizens. This makes it safer and easier to take away rights and ultimately gives a path away from democracy.

    • suoko@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      23 hours ago

      This is what the article says:

      What’s been nicknamed by its critics, Chat Control, is the European Commission’s response to online child safety. As per the latest iteration of the text, all messaging platforms operating in the EU would be obliged to scan all URLs, pictures, and videos shared by their users in the lookout for child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

  • suoko@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    If all parents checked their children device just a bit… I’m struggling to block some yt channels now for example either via DNS or family link, but there’s no way. Help parents do these kind of things instead of letting govs go the privacy breach way to make us dumb citizens.

    • justsomeguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 day ago

      This has nothing to do with children. It’s a proposal by technologically inept people who argue that encryption needs to be removed but encryption is so basic that it isn’t really feasible to do so. You can make the access harder but that is only an issue for your average joe. Individuals with criminal energy who this is supposed to be about will continue to encrypt their communication while regular users will give up their privacy.

      • suoko@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        DNS should allow us to create a blacklist of sites, it would avoid to trash our phone CPU for some useless antivirus, family link (and I guess other MDM) is already enough. If not the DNS, then family link itself.

        • jaybone@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          But a YouTube “channel” is an application/service specific concept, not exposed in any way dns would be aware of.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Help parents do these kind of things

      No offense to parents of Lemmy and I am not generalising too much, but in my experience, many parents are lazy. I’m sure you’d have heard from your own parents or another the expression “didn’t they teach you that in school?” Parents pass on the responsibility to someone else who have their own social boundaries when it comes to teaching children.

      • suoko@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        That’s why I try to push ChromeOS and family link so much, it’s the only 100% good thing Google created for free, both for school and family mdm. And once they’re e 18 they’ll be free to roam with MS, apple, Linux or whatever they want