• Rikj000@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Would be handy if they included a pre-written pdf to oppose this proposition + emails or forms to easily submit your opposition to each of the countries.

    Instead it’s a general “contact your government”,
    which 99% of normal people do not know how to do, me included.

    • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      from the linked website:

      Ask you government to call on the European Commission to withdraw the chat control proposal. Point them to a joint letter that was recently sent by children’s rights and digital rights groups from across Europe. Click here to find the letter and more information.

      one paragraph below that:

      When reaching out to your government, the ministries of the interior (in the lead) of justice and of digitisation/telecommunications/economy are your best bet. You can additionally contact the permanent representation of your country with the EU.

      the bold parts are clickable URLs in the original text.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Is there was such a pdf, your government already received it. You writing in your own words is unique

    • Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Not necessarily the best idea. My representative went on national television accusing bots of spamming her email, even though every single one of those probably was a person using some template that was provided. Those forms go straight into trash unfortunately. Best to use them as a guideline and write your personal concerns instead.

      Alternatively, ChatGPT. No idea if it works, though.

  • 211@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    5 months ago

    They’ll keep bringing this up again and again and again until it passes, huh.

    Next Council deliberations and vote in October-December.

    • RampageDon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      That’s the thing. People have to keep voting forever to keep this from coming into effect, but they only need it to pass a vote once for it to be enacted for basically ever.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The real goal is to get the population to regret demanding things like gdpr.

      Similar to the plastic industry’s covert legislative push to ban plastic straw.

      Irritate the public enough to stop them demanding more.

      In this case it’s a double whammy of also getting our sweet private data for their AI models.

      • sramder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Got any more info on the plastic straw plot? Because I’d love for that to be true, but I’m just getting craploads of articles saying the opposite.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Of course, the mad men won’t leak those details until they’re on their death bed and need to repent.

          Here of a slightly more refined take.

          Anti plastic straw campaign is an industry gambit to undermine environmentalist anti plastic movement. It create maximum public inconvenience and backlash against the environmentalist cause for a minimal loss of profits. This moves protects the rest of the industry by reducing support to the anti plastic caused through backlash and the feeling of accomplishment and sacrifice

          Chatgpt re interpretation

          This perspective suggests that the anti-plastic straw campaign is a strategic move by the plastic industry to protect itself. By targeting plastic straws, which are a minor part of plastic waste but widely used, the campaign creates significant public inconvenience. This inconvenience can lead to a backlash against the broader environmental movement. Consequently, people might feel that the inconvenience of giving up straws is enough of a sacrifice, reducing their motivation to support more substantial anti-plastic initiatives. Meanwhile, the plastic industry sustains minimal financial impact since straws represent a small fraction of their overall product lineup. This theory implies a sophisticated tactic to safeguard the industry’s interests by diverting attention from more impactful areas of plastic production and consumption.

          • sramder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            So just a personal theory then?

            There was definitely a time when I would have called this seriously tinfoil-hat… but given the stuff that keeps coming out, the industries support for community recycling programs that they knew would never work, etc. I’m giving it a 7/10 for probably and a 10/10 for creativity ;-)

            Personally I tend to believe that generally well meaning people thought that paper straw technology would continue to improve, didn’t involve PFAS or microplastics… or that we’d all carry around a personal straw. But I do love the smoke filled room of mad men architecting a masterful conspiracy propped on the plastic shoulders of the humblest of columns.

    • Stitch0815@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes and no As long as there is no wide spread opposition they will Long term we need to make this a very unpopular stance

  • Kekzkrieger@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    5 months ago

    If only in the same breath we would make all the politicians text messages public, guess they only want other chats to be controlled but not their own.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I keep mentioning this idea, hoping to someday make it seem less extreme: the government should be under total surveillance 24/7.

      Like, anyone at any time can look through any of the tens of thousands of cameras saturating every government building.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Army and police get to have non-camera operations of course. They’re still recorded, just not broadcast for whatever delay makes the tactical information obsolete.

      • probableprotogen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Honestly this is an intersting idea. Albeit, it may be hatd to implement since some buildings have to be private for national security reasons (specifically regarding military strategy and such).

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Military’s camera feeds go into memory crystals that automatically unshuffle after like 50 years. That way history is guaranteed to get a full accounting of the conflict, but there’s no possibility of strategic information giveaway.

      • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        And then blamed for ruining the 2016 American election.

        Snowden showed the government was spying, had to flee, deemed a terrorist. Assange showed the government disobeys the laws it enforces on everyone else, deemed a terrorist. Manning showed that war crimes are constant, deemed a terrorist, subjected to inhumane torture.

        Every time a whistleblower exposes corruption and violations of laws in every country, they are punished. China, Russia, America, England, they’re all guilty of it.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Every time a whistleblower exposes corruption and violations of laws in every country, they are punished.

          Typically by being accused of acting as foreign agents. Assange was a Radical Islamist under Bush, a nefarious Russia/China double agent under Obama, and an insidious Hispanic cartel boss under Trump.

        • Synnr@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t know why but I’ve got this strange tingling feeling it might just be a human nature group thing.

    • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Even if I deeply like the Idea, something like this could backfire if it’s done constantly and not just once. But I would like to see a law that makes the usage of government communications mandatory for all government-related communication while storing everything revision-proof on their servers with different access rights. And a second law that makes it possible to access it by requiring petitions to be singled by a low number of people. Less extreme but still makes it harder to be corrupt.

  • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Make no mistake, Germany isn’t opposing this out of a principled stance. The German government too wants more ways to control people’s activity.

  • toastal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    5 months ago

    Folks, this should inspire you to start self-hosting a federated, decentralized chat server with freely available source code by yourself or with a small community. Governments can coerce these big, usually-corpo centralized servers to give up data but good luck if there are hundreds of thousands (of millions?) of small servers with 1–10 users on it & clients not controlled by a single entity for distribution (easier now that y’all coerced Mommy Apple to let you sideload applications & use alternative package managers).

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yes, kind of weird, since chat control is postponed because too many countries opposed it. Is it on the table again?

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        AFAIK chat control 2. First one was struch down by ECHR.

  • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Relying on legislation to get passed or not get passed only gets us so far. Yes, absolutely, write your reps and vote, but also donate to your favorite decentralized, private tech project so they can improve the user experience and get more users. We need to make tyrannical censorship & surveillance not only technically impossible but politically unfeasible. The way we do that is by building better tech and getting more and more of the population to use it.

  • Alexxxolotl@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Honestly I just wish I could take the steps written in the article but it would most likely be of no use.

    I have very few close relationships and am not widely liked or popular by any means, don’t use social media because nobody sees my posts anyway, and the country I live in has a lot of media censorship, therefore the vast majority of the population is very conservative, uneducated and narrow-minded about most political topics.

    I’ve been taking a lot of steps lately to reclaim my online privacy, and would hate to see it all thrown out the window by the EU, a union I thought was doing Europe justice before now…

  • Crow@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    My biggest takeaway from this infographic is that norway is not part of the EU, who would’ve thought

  • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    I understand that this has been a recent topic in the EU but I’d really like to see information on government positions on this in more areas of the world.

  • TheChargedCreeper864@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    The Netherlands only remains “neutral” because of the clause that forces companies to detect unknown CSAM and/or “grooming” material (last time I checked). It’s only a matter of one or two countries that can make the difference, with most neutral countries probably having similarly “minor” objections.