this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
254 points (71.5% liked)

Technology

75963 readers
3282 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Chat Control didnt pass - they didnt even vote because they were afraid the result would be embarassing.

And we got told so many times, that EU now wants Chat Control. But it was a big fat lie.

EU is a democracy with different opinions, and when a small group of facists tries to read your chats, it does not represent the EU opinion.

But the whole media got you thinking so. Proving even on Lemmy, you and me are extremly prone to propaganda.

I quoted the article here with the news:

In a major breakthrough for the digital rights movement, the German government has refused to back the EU’s controversial Chat Control regulation yesterday after facing massive public pressure.

The government did not take a position on the proposal.

This blocks the required majority in the EU Council, derailing the plan to pass the surveillance law next week.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 34 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

What a bizarre take. The EU council is backing down - they do want chat control but each time they propose it they meet resistance and back down. Then they come back again and try again.

To suggest the public reaction is overblown and media manipulation is bizarre. This is the 3rd or 4th time the EU has attempted to get this through. Just because they chickened out of a vote doesn't mean the politicians don't want this.

In a democracy votes happen. In the EU they keep resurrecting this terrible idea hoping to get it through but then backing away if they don't think they can win. They know if there was an actual vote it likely would put an end to his.

Also the EU council is the antithesis of a democracy. It is not directly elected - instead it's a club of the heads of states of all the countries in the EU. It just represents who happens to be in charge of each country, and gives equal weights to all those countries regardless of their population size. The EU has a Parliament but it's a fig leaf of democracy as so much power is held in bodies like the Council and the Commission (which is 1 post per state and horse traded not elected).

So please don't make this out as a sign that EU democracy works. If EI democracy was working properly they would have listened the first time, and they'd have moved to a directly elected system for the executive Council and commission years ago.

The EU gets too much of a free pass for "not being America" but it's got huge problems that need fixing to make it an actual democracy.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know. I live in Russia. One can say things like "aggressor state" and such, but if democracy worked here, we'd probably have no nukes by now, and I don't think this would have worked well, aggression or not.

While the last few years show more and more persuasively that it's unwise to let go of your weapons, any democracy in Russia in a long period between now and 1999 would have resulted in a radical contraction of the military and everything associated with it. Because it was very easy to believe that the world is different now and daddy USA is the global power for good that will keep peace. And that "rules-based order" really exists. And what not.

Propaganda is a thing. The EU is maybe not democratic, but making it such one should first make brakes.

At least the EU includes France which has nukes. In case world suddenly becomes even crazier.

[–] ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

What exactly would not have worked without nukes?

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Having an option of saying no when threatened with one.

[–] ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Oh yea I suppose Russia would have had to say "no" to invading Ukraine. Terrible thought /s

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 16 hours ago

Your sarcasm is out of place here really, and yes, Ukraine gave up its nukes and got this outcome. Ukraine had nukes after the union's breakup.

We naturally can't compare Russia without nukes to Russia with nukes, having only one version of history, but it's pretty clear that having nukes is beneficial, from comparing countries treated by western media similarly between which have nukes and which don't have nukes.

Say, there is North Korea with nukes, which, despite all its despotism, still survives, even somewhat modernizes and doesn't even have hunger as it did in some other periods of its history. It's a functional nation.

And there's Syria, where rebranded ISIS took power, is openly massacring Alawites and Druze and basically everyone not Sunni Arab whom they can get (Kurds they can't, Kurds have their own military organization still existing), and the western media is praising them and behaving as if it's regrettable, but necessary that genocide took place. Say, Bashar al-Assad didn't do genocide. He really had an unpleasant regime, basically abusing all dissenters and selling drugs as the basis of his rule, and he even all by himself put off payroll the units most useful in preserving his power in the civil war. And he is to blame that this happened and the Syrian state fell apart like some rotten fruit, for pieces to be picked up by jihadis. Except all those civilian Alawites are not to blame, and if you read something in western media about it, it's almost as if they were. Because what's a little genocide between friends, right. It's not a functional nation.

And then there's Iran, which got invaded by Saddam Hussein with western cheering almost immediately after its revolution (against western-approved "Shah", whose father, by the way, was a half-literate cavalry officer who took power in a coup, it wasn't any kind of respectable legitimate government), and then they decided that they need nukes. And if they really had nukes, they might have had more peace. It's a very corrupt nation ruled by religious nutheads, but compared to fucking Saudi Arabia it's almost progressive.

I mean, these are all not even important. It's a pretty commonly accepted thing that the Cold War was "cold" because of nukes. We got half a century of peace in most of the world thanks to nukes.

Most people are kinda sane, only a few are insane. Sane aggressors fear nukes on their victim's side, and don't use nukes first because they want to win something, not burn themselves and the victim. A revolution in strategic armaments discouraging most aggressors and encouraging only a few helps peace.

All hail nukes.