Politicians promoting Chat Control are handing an advantage to dictatorships, organized crime, and adversaries of the European Union or perhaps they're assets of those very adversaries.
If politicians keep bringing this up, why shouldn't EU citizens bring up the issue of losing trust in politicians (using the same tactic—over and over again)?
> Despite strong opposition, Denmark is pushing forward and taking its current proposal to the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on October 14th.
What is it about the Danes in particular that make them want to be spied on and surveilled by the government? Is it some sort of weird national fetish?
As a Dane: I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. A ton of people in Denmark are sceptical about this. You may argue that the Danes voted for the government that is now in favor in the surveillance, but the issue of surveillance weren't even on the agenda in the last election, so this has taken most people by surprise.
Is there any way to remove elected EU representatives from office?
When are the next EU elections? Is anyone using this as a campaigning issue, like "Don't vote these crooks in again, vote for me and I will end this chat control nonsense!"
It continues to amaze me how much time Europeans spend criticizing the U.S. for all of our nonsense, while they too are sprinting toward a more authoritarian future.
There’s no incongruence in criticising both. Don’t be a tribalist arguing for one over the other; criticise each for what they do wrong, and praise each for what they do right.
Argue for a better world for all instead of wishing for others to be worse off.
There's no incongruence as you say, but focusing on problems in other countries where you have little to no first hand knowledge or influence and no real skin in the game is just a distraction.
Decentralized open source is essential to human freedom. I can’t believe so many talented technologists and entrepreneurs are on HN correctly diagnosing the problems with relying on centralized platforms of governments and corporations, but then these same people oppose anything that has the words “web3” or “blockchain” in it. They oppose it so strongly, they won’t click and read any details, they’ll just knee-jerk downvote it. And they’ll boost every argument against it. But we absolutely need ways to monetize open source and have it compete without becoming enshittified, pleasing shareholders and creating big juicy targets for governments and advertisers. Opposing micropayments and blockchain settlements is just useful idiocy in the governments’ war against privacy and autonomy, and make no mistake, it is a global war, not just in the EU. Here is the map:
I can get behind making secure chats decentralized, but putting it on a blockchain? Why? I don't want my supposedly private chats going to a public ledger, encrypted or not.
No, you aren't supposed to put the chats on a blockchain. You're supposed to settle the micropayments (done over trustlines, state channels) to a blockchain.
1. Have you ever texted someone from EU? You are now chat controlled too.
2. EU is pumping billions to foreign countries to promote EU values. How long until they condition this "help" with chat control?