• 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      Thats actually insane in itself that it got that close. Next time they will succeed. :/

      People are so stupid to support this. They dont seem to understand that its never about protecting anyone and its always about building dystopia.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Even worse I think there was one more vote for the extension but they need 50% +1 to pass and there were 24 abstentions.

    • chigga@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      i don’t understand, was EPP for or against the extension ? Cause my understanding was that they asked to have a second vote even if the first one already rejected the extension.

      • orosus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I don’t understand the votes on that website, most people from EPP voted 👎 (against the extension) but that means they are against chat control? Or in favor? What european parties are opposing to the chat control, I want to know which parties we can trust on this matter.

        • chigga@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          as another comment said, EPP was against this proposal due to it being not strict enough. They want full control of your chat (e2ee ones too). they were afraid that this would set a precedent for limits for chat control and voted againts

    • chigga@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      this is the real thing, this is almost certainly unconstitutional.

      greedy corps going against law as usual.

      • themurphy@lemmy.ml
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, not really. It’s because they retracted the proposal before going to vote, because they knew it wouldnt pass after Germany publicly said they would vote against.

        Then they changed some stuff and send it again, which is now rejected as it seems.

        Now they need to wait, but they didnt before.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      it’s indicative of the system we’re in. our oligarchs have enough money to pay people to push for this in perpetuity while the rest of us are forced to give up some degree of our lives to fight it off on a field of battles that’s tilted towards money; they will win eventually unless the system itself is changed.

      • bampop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Green = “opposing”, red = “supporting”… “chat control extension”. I guess the greens are against the chat control proposal, though that’s hardly clear, and there seem to be more reds than greens so that suggests the chat control proposal was accepted, or is there some other layer to this? Also the stance of a state bears no relation to that of its representatives. Very confusing

        • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          The “Chat Control” proposal would legalise scanning of all private digital communications, including encrypted messages and photos.

          it’s explained right there above the vote summary

          • bampop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s not the topic of the vote I’m trying to clarify but rather trying to make sense of that web page showing who is voting for what, and how, if at all that is connected to the European Parliament vote. That website suggests overwhelming support for the proposal at both state and representative level, I’m not sure what to make of that.

            • MoffKalast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yeah it seems to be backwards, they voted for an “Extension of the temporary derogation”, which I assume means if do you want to take more time to discuss this problem vote yes, or vote no to enact the newly proposed law now. Which is why the greens are paradoxically for the proposal and the EPP is against. Another layer of shenanigans to confuse people I guess.

              https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574

    • chigga@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think that Patrick posted it. basically the ones against where the conservatives, both left and right where against (even if there were some people inside those parities who voted to continue the scanning)

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    they will keep trying in the most sneaky ways until they are deposed. they only need to succeed once.

    • lb_o@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Dude, we’re protesting now until all those fuckers who voted in favor of chat control are voted out of parliament. We have names!

  • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Let’s celebrate this victory… even though it’s concerning that it is a recurring topic :-/

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    They’ll just change a few things and try again. I feel like we’ve been hearing about chat control on and off for about 5 years now and I can’t imagine it’ll go away soon.