from themurphy@lemmy.ml to technology@lemmy.world on 11 Oct 06:12
https://lemmy.ml/post/37381161
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.
threaded - newest
I believe it should be all over the media to ensure that it never passes. Democracy dies in darkness. Name and shame those who supported it.
Are you mad that people got mad? Anger is not a subtle political instrument, a win is a win.
Isn’t this how liberal democracies are supposed to work? How exactly did “the media” get the better of “us”?
AnOtHeR oRpHaN eScApEd ThE oRpHaN cRuShInG mAcHiNe!!!
I guess op was pessimistic as was i and that’s the narrative that was/kind of pushed: It is going to come in one way or another. Instead of: It is not going to win and if it is we are not going to accept it.
Yeah, buy… It really is a horrible idea. Any media outcry is warranted. Not like right-wingers spouting nonsense of eating cats and dogs…
Media covinced people that it was coming and it didn’t - my understanding of the argument.
That seems like a statement. I’m still lost on how this answers the question
They answered the second question. The problem is that OP was not actually posing anything coherent.
They’re alleging some made up media conspiracy that makes no sense and undermines the impact of the media on the outcome.
Yeah, agreed.
I’m not hugely on board with the comment answering the second question though. For me, it’s a bit too similar to saying that meteorologists lied to us because they said there was a 60% chance of rain and it didn’t happen. In the context of this question its a lot more complicated than that though
This is exactly the dumb shit take from y2k.
I Still hear people go on about how “it was supposed to be this big thing and then nothing happened! Smart people are so dumb!”
Yeah nothing happened because a lot of smart people worked very hard to fix the goddamn problem, you fucking shitwaffle.
Here? “You dum dums got so worked up thinking it would pass and then it didn’t, so the freak out was for nothing!” yeah it didn’t pass because a lot of Europeans got very upset about their governments trying to spy on them harder than ever.
I’m not European, so I can’t say how people talked about it openly on the metro with random strangers, but online? People were vocal and pissed. A PROPER government (lol can we have some of that functioning democracy please) listens to its people. This was them listening to the people.
The people’s reaction was appropriate, and necessary. And shouldn’t be lessened just because “lol you guys got so propaganda’d and it was obviously never gonna happen and I knew cause I’m so smart” is quite the take on things.
It reminds me of when climate hoaxers claim the hole in the ozone layer shrinking proves those campaigning to fix it were just fearmongering.
I work on software security (not it/infosec) and deal with this constantly. Bad stuff didn’t happen so we can scale back security, right? No, shit for brains, either the bad stuff didn’t happen because we prevented it, or the bad stuff just hasn’t happened yet because the vulnerability wasn’t discovered, or worse still, the bad stuff DID happen and we haven’t been informed yet. Either way, please do not make my job harder.
Yeah, I can totally empathise. I used to work in QA for a couple different software companies, including around CVEs and security bug bounty programs. One company scaled back their QA department to near nothing, the other eliminated QA altogether, instead relying on devs to QA their own stuff or automation. It’s not going well for either of them.
it never does lol
vaccines also. nobody is getting sick so vaccines must be unneccessary
I think you should never take these things lightly.
It’s better to be too cautious than not cautious enough, especially since there are powerful interest groups that want mass surveillance.
The people don’t want that, of course, but many politicians do, as evidenced by the fact that Palantir is being introduced in Germany, of all places, and completely illegally. This must be prevented, and the population has a role to play in this—for example, with petitions like this one, which already has more than 400,000 signatures: Trump software Palantir: Stop surveillance plans
Uuuuh… This place is a breeding ground of heavily biased propaganda. Just look at your feed, it’s all news articles reinforcing a side of things. It’s got its fair share of users that don’t look at things from a broad perspective and most get mad when they perceive their opinion is being challenged, even when it’s not. That’s why it’s riddled with posts that aren’t for interest; they’re rooted in agenda that is to either push narrative or reinforce ego.
And if your filter lists aren’t full of users, communities, and instances, it’s very plausible your mind my be one that’s easily duped, because the shits got to be one of the most obvious places on the internet to spot it. Part of the Lemmy experience is maintaining and customising the feed.
Lemmy is a perfect example of the often unspoken side of propaganda: when you’re surrounded by people who all seem to share the same opinion, you’re far less likely to speak up if you disagree. In extreme cases, this leads to situations where the majority actually disagrees but stays silent, falsely assuming they’re in the minority. That’s how a vocal minority ends up controlling the silent majority - and it’s exactly why authoritarian governments try to silence the media. This is why freedom of speech and a free press are so important, and why silencing dissenting voices, even with good intentions, ends up mimicking the tactics of authoritarian regimes.
Would the outcome have been the same without people in the media repeatedly bringing this to everyone’s attention? Probably not, because there would have been no public pressure against it, while the shadow groups that want this would have still been lobbying the politicians.
Something bad is going to happen.
Some people advocate to stop that bad thing.
Even more people are holding their clutches that the bad thing might happen.
Because of public pressure, action is undertaken to prevent the bad thing from happening.
Thanks to those efforts, the bad thing is successfully averted.
Some random person: that bad thing was never going to happen, look at all those gullible people who were panicking over nothing, we could have just done nothing and the outcome would have been the same.
Also known as the “preparedness paradox”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox
👆 exactly
It didn’t pass because people pressured Germany to reject it. If Germany had stayed undecided they would definitely have had a vote on Chat Control and potentially passed it.
But even if they voted on it and even if it did pass. European courts probably would have stopped it immediately.
Maybe, but I’m much more comfortable with it failing as early as possible
This kind of haphazard approach isn’t going well for the US. We thought we could rely on decency.
You can‘t compare the US to the EU here. I would never say trust US courts. LMAO
The US has been basically completely flipped on its head in only a few short years into fucking authoritarianism. We have many measures in place to prevent this and they all fell apart. Our system was only loosely held together by good faith. And that faith is gone. And as a side tangent I’m not sure we’ll ever get it back. Be vigilant, it happens quickly.
That is the American approach to legislation: get in as many laws that favour you or your sponsors, and pray the courts let at least some of them through.
That’s not how this is meant to work. The courts shutting down a law is a last measure, when everything else has failed and hell’s about to break loose.
I mean duh but similar bad things have passed and got rejected by courts so it‘s a very functional mechanism. The EU isn‘t very comparable to the US system by the way.
This is what the EU democracy opinion was as of July 2024 BTW, before the “media got to you”: <img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/22388f9b-93d9-492d-af08-75d00e028ffb.png">
That image is the thumbnail for OP’s link LOL
A lot. A. Lot.
All that trouble to clown people… uses “alot”.
Kills me 🙃😘
Thank goodness for no Chat Control. Shit’s straight-up Bozo Time.
They’re bound to try again in a few months.
just like y2k was just a media hoax, since it didnt happen?
What kind of shit take is this?
Media made people aware of ongoing bullshit, people reacted and put pressure on their governments and somehow “media got to us”?
If anything it didn’t pass because of media attention.
Yeah, keeping the public in the dark so people against it aren’t there to voice their opinion is how these like this get passed. Media attention to inform the public was a good thing.
That’s what I thought, OP if nobody believed the news and there was no pressure chat control might of passed
The kind of shit is called “ignoring dynamics and transient processes”.
The lemmy.ml kind, check OP’s profile
What an idiotic take on the issue.
What politicians want and what the public wants are often totally different things. People vote on a few hot-button issues like immigration, and for stuff that gets less attention, politicians do what they want. So calling attention to chat control likely made a significant difference.
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.
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.
What exactly would not have worked without nukes?
Having an option of saying no when threatened with one.
Oh yea I suppose Russia would have had to say “no” to invading Ukraine. Terrible thought /s
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.
.
As a swede, I’m so embarrassed that my country supports this shit.
We will have to fight Chat Control again and again…
Mass Surveillance should be blocked at the constitutional level in all countries.
On another point, my country, France is in a very deep political turmoil right now, so thanks for the robust response of our German friends that was definitely critical. I wish we could have mobilized better in France but we are struggling to just have a working government right now…
Mass surveillance is a very bad solution to a real problem. The more years pass, the bigger are the chances of a war with equal adversary or worse, a conventional normal war or not. And the real problem would be cutting the flow of intelligence and control messages the potential adversary possesses.
If that potential adversary is US or close to US, this would require either going offline with jamming all communication over EU borders and other such things, while not doing mass surveillance, so that nothing got through, or mass surveillance to proactively filter out and find the specific actors leaking intelligence and neutralize them, while not having the expenses associated with the previous variant. Those expenses would be such that they could kill the EU economies very quickly, not even talking about protests and such turmoil that what you have now won’t feel anything deep.
Just playing devil’s advocate.
It’s either that or limiting flow of information over EU borders, which, honestly, is not so bad, except without wide popular understanding and support it would lead to what I said.
The fact that wars are rarely declared in our time really hurts.
And if you think this is nuts, then you haven’t been paying attention in history classes.
What does any of this have to do with the government forcing backdoors into otherwise encrypted chats? The point is that nobody but the recipient should be able to read it, not even governments.
That people who can, do. Sometimes that means forcing others. Sometimes that means breaking good things for others. And sometimes locally that’s the lesser evil.
Anyway, I’ve described, why a truly competent well-meaning imagined government would possibly be doing this, and what would be one alternative for it without backdoors. An EU-wide intranet. Probably with outside communications whitelisted and analyzed similarly to the GFW of China.
It’s hypothetical, in reality, of course, we all should be judging to the best of our knowledge, not on imagination. Which means resisting such legislation.
Yeah… no.
Germany switched to opposed partially because people knew about it and contacted their representatives.
They contacted their representatives because they heard about it… through the media.
I contacted my representatives in Spain and they gave two fucks about it, they still positioned as “in favour”.
yeah im in Ireland, anything positoned to be about about protecting kids from sexual predators will pass here.
all taxes should from now on be paid to you, to protect kids.
These people clearly don’t represent you.
What? LOL Who do you think is pushing said “propaganda” to make people fear Chat Control unnecessarily?
It was demonstrably not a lie. There were so many regions in support of it that it was dangerously close to passing.
I’m thinking this post is the propaganda. Really really lazy propaganda.
Don’t worry, it’ll be back again in a few months with a new coat of paint.
It really wasn’t. It couldn’t have been close to passing without a vote even taking place. The vote was scheduled for October 14th. However, since countries representing more than 35% of the EU population have declared their opposition to this proposal, it has been canceled.
A lot of countries have indeed declared support, though this is completely separate from the vote. There, it’d require a qualified majority (55% of member states in favor, or countries representing 65% of the EU population in favor). Looking at MEPs’ public statements, it’s unlikely that the vote would have passed.
Nonetheless, it remains troubling that they keep trying to force this proposal through. We have to push back every single time, but they only need it to pass once. Who knows what the future may hold.
Huh? Do countries voicing their approval or disapproval not count as a “vote”?
That’s not even half…
That’s because, as you mentioned earlier, the vote never happened.
Which, according to your own numbers, they already had.
No. The stances of countries are the [leaked] stances of their respective governments. Which may or may not reflect the views of the country’s MEPs. You can read more here: Fight Chat Control
True, and that’s indeed very concerning. However, it should be noted that this is not how many countries are against this proposal, but how many countries oppose it enough to reject it before voting. Many countries currently ‘undecided’ are likely to vote against the proposal in the end (if a vote took place). Likewise, some of them could vote in favor.
Not at all. I mentioned that, with Germany changing their stance to against, we had over 35% of the EU population against. Which means in favor and undecided both had less than 65% together. Right now I can’t count the populations, but there’s 12 countries in favor, 9 against and 6 undecided. This by no means gives the countries in favor a qualified majority. Unless all in favor and at least half of undecided (3 countries) fully voted in favor. Which is fairly unlikely.
Additionally, as I mentioned above, these numbers are for the member states’ governments, not their MEPs. Usually MEPs are more pro-people, but of course, it depends on the country and its current government.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but - it wasn’t “close to passing”, it was “close to being passed on as a proposal for a law”, requiring then a formal vote, no?
So, even if Germany retained its support and the motion went forward, it could still get smashed during the vote.
I think you’re misreading it and badly.
I read it as: “don’t believe those who panicked that the EU is a fascist dictatorship that wants to subjugate the population, because it’s still a democracy where the people have the power, as proven by Chat Control being thrown in the bin yet again”.
It’s the same thing. Why would a country show support for the legislation and then vote against it later?
This is such a charitable reading that it’s probably fair to assume this is OPs alt account.
It absolutely is not. I don’t know, maybe you’re more familiar with the US federal system (pre-Trump, because that’s a different can of worms)? If so: imagine if the president (in this case having no ability to issue executive orders, mind you) says “we should do X”. That’s all well and good, but the X must still go through the Senate and Congress, where it might fail.
Well, because “a country” is not a singular hive-mind, is it? The government says “yes”, but their own Parliament might say “no”.
Governments have no say in what goes on in the EU Commission or Parliament. I mean, sure, most of the time the MEPs coming out of the government-aligned parties will have similar votes, but the EU elections aren’t in-step with most countries’ elections, so it’s never a 1:1 translation. And even then, many MEPs will just vote on their own.
Holy fuck, watch out when opening the fridge, mate, OP might jump out of it!
Why risk it even being considered for a law, when so many governments have become emboldened by Taco to show their real colours? The soonest it can be put down to rest, the better.
Not going to downvote this because the source article is useful, but OP’s take is ludicrous. Have we really reached the point where ALL media is propaganda?
It might be time to unplug society and plug it back in again.
Always has been.
Good news. But I’m downvoting that post. OP’s living in reverse crying-wolf land, it seems.
First, Chat Control got further than previous attempts, with a bigger scope than ever. Being worried about that is not the result of propaganda.
Second, a lot of countries where on board, including Germany. Stuff changed after lot of feedback. You can be cynical all you want arguing that “people’s voice don’t matter” and saying there’s no causality there, but people made themselves heard, and thing moved. There’s no telling what would have happened if they didn’t.
The proposal being ultimately shot down (this time!) does not mean, at ALL, that it wasn’t a very dangerous one.
That means nothing. The governments (which the stances of were being counted) have not that much to say on how the MEPs will vote.
For example, if the Polish government was in favour of this, half of their MEPs would’ve still been against.
I think he’s arguing the exact opposite, mate. He literally said that:
There was a lot of panic about the EU being an oppressive “over-government”, trying to subjugate the population like the UK government is doing. That propaganda never made sense to me, but it felt very much like something the pro-russian mob would be spewing because it sows division and chaos, decreasing people’s appreciation of the EU, stoking exit views.
This post reminds me of a bunch of the “y2k scare was a hoax and a waste of money!” stuff from back in the day. With a bunch of people not realizing how much shit was fixed and what massive success it all was.
The EU officials are not elected by the people. Some of them are absolute idiots. The people pushing for this will continue making adjustments to Chat Control until one of the countries changes sides. The media is absolutely right.
There always seems to be some kind of corruption amongst the governing class. And even if the government is technically guided by the people, this dynamic gets ultimately manipulated to further their authoritarian tyranny.
Can’t someone pick the shitty parts of this proposal and push it to a vote, so it can be struck down already?
“Because there was push back and the EU decided to not go forward with a vote and be embarrassed, that means they never really wanted it at all” is one of the dumbest takes I’ve heard in a minute.
the fuck kind of dumbass bullshit tankie take is this?
Troll post. Not falling for it. Bye.
There’s no media about the EU in USA. Nobody gives a crap. The “news” is all just fascist propaganda about how genocide is good and windmills cause tornados.
Why in the world would this be talking about the USA?
Maybe like everyone else that poster was confused what the actual fuck OP was on about
Wait, have people been setting their windmills to the tornado mode? I always thought it odd to have that setting.
Let’s not protest terrible ideas to not embarrass facists (who may or may not be part of your/our government) or what’s supposed to be the message here?
The message here is: “don’t believe when people start screaming that the EU is a fascist organisation that wants to subjugate the population”.
Because there was A LOT of that online when Chat Control reared its head.
The difference between a fascist government and a democratic government can be distressingly thin, something we should all be aware of by now.
In this case, the EU has just proven it is currently on the right side of that divide. When extremely unpopular and authoritarian ideas were considered, the public felt able to voice their disapproval and the government felt they had to listen. That is a crucial step. Good for you all.
Sadly it likely will continue to require major work to keep the public on guard against future attempts like this one, but that’s life.
That’s the same EU that mandates online de-anonymisation, punishable with up to a year in prison, as a last minute amendment to an unrelated CSAM-directive.
Some press releases: (1), (2), (3)
Have you read the sources you posted?
Nobody is mandating anything - yet.
Sure, it might end up like that, but - to date - the Commission has been rather sensible when it comes to such things. They also have the example of UK that shows that the law works against its intentions by driving people towards unregulated and more dangerous websites.
We’ll see how it goes.
That’s simply how any EU directive works: EU decides what must happen, and it’s up to the individual countries to put it into their respective laws.
That way people get angry at their federal government instead. Who can point their finger higher up. Who can then point to the countries specific implementation in their turn. It’s a neat trick. Nobody’s responsible for anything.
When has that ever stopped a puritan?
Wow, it’s so weird that the article you linked lied, then!
No, it’s saying that exact thing: online users of porn must be deanonymised on penalty of prison. To stop child abuse because that’s related somehow?
It’s just that the countries themselves must choose the particulates: who will do the deanonymisation, in what way, what will enforcement look like, etc.
That’s what they mean with “the final shape of the law hasn’t been determined yet”.
Every EU directive works that way: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)
In this case: the de-anonymisation must happen. Up to the respective countries to do the dirty work.
When people, rightfully, get angry the local politician will say “we had to because EU”. And the EU will say “well we didn’t say it had to be in that way, it’s your local politician that did that.”
Are you reading your own sources…?
Considering (another quote from your own sources):
They might as well look at the UK, and go “OK, lets have the user click that they pinky promise they’re 18”.
I have: here’s the relevant paragraph from the directive:
Pinky promise is explicitely not allowed.
And you’re doing the exact thing: blaming the specific implementation 🙂 It’s so sad that that still tricks people. Is this your first time learning how a EU directive works?
Tell you what: let’s wait the 5-10 years of consultations and see what they end up doing, then let’s come back to this discussion.
Boiling the frog 👍
That’s basically the definition of democracy.
“Democracy is a horrible system, but nobody has invented anything better yet”. Can’t remember who said it. Churchill, maybe?
What a retarded blog post.
If that graphic is accurate, the media didn’t “get” anyone. Seems some countries are actually gun-ho with the elimination of privacy, and its a movement that doesn’t die with one failed vote.
Y’all are getting too fucking comfortable. Authoritarianism is always around the corner, even when things feel safe.
The biggest problem with democracy is it demands a level of vigilance most people are not capable of. Because it is expressly unnatural. Human nature is to gravitate to power and authority
This is a terrible map, lumping neutral and opposed together? I am against chat control but ffs we don’t need more misleading media with the internet already dying under waves of automated misinformation
Agreed
Oh no lemmy is a reactionary craphole that despises nuanced discussion? Well atleast it’s a place to call people facists.
Maybe I don’t understand, but the fact there is a vote for it (or even just talk about it) is enough for me to warrant everyones immediate action.
I’m glad the media got this to our attention asap, because we were able to react quickly (and stop this… hopefully its stopped and wont continue or come back).
Edit: commented then read others, think ppl agree with this and they say it better than I have.
P.s. i really don’t like this post and hopefully it doesn’t change anyones mind about action on this type of stuff in the future… we need action and to keep fightijg to keep our freedoms.
“let your motto be ‘eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.’”
Freedom dies in the silence of the many at the hands of the few. We must always be adamant with opposition, because it’s hard to undo what has been done. The easiest way to put the genie back in the bottle is never letting it out in the first place.
Jesus Christ, you think this will be the last attempt?
The fact that these guys even proposed (and more than once) something that so profoundly violates the fundamental right to privacy of European citizens is cause for great alarm.
OP’s post seems like propaganda to me and of the lazy kind.
There will be another one within 5 months.
What kind of nonsense is this writeup? Media “got to me”? Look, you see Denmark? You see how it’s in support of chat control?
Yeah, that’s my country. So it’s a rather serious issue here.
People here are very groupthink.
When Tesla was at like 250 in the stock market just six months ago, I said that the stock will recover very soon. But the groupthink here was totally agreeing with eachother that Tesla is gone forever, and people kept posting Elon doing nazi gestures and saying they are done.
Now, the stock is over 400. But no posts is made about that and how maybe the groupthink was completely wrong. Instead the next thing is ongoing.
We have evidence around us all the time how the group is completely wrong in their assumptions. Majority opinion is not right by default.
Is this some sort of misguided patriotism? I don’t see what the propaganda we are supposedly falling for is. Is it not as equally accurate to say that public opinion and outcry led to it not coming to a vote? I think keeping that public outcry is important to defeat future attempts to undermine rights. Don’t think it can’t happen in the EU. It’s happening if the US
I’m talking about all the opinions already made up, that EU wanted to take away encryption and give us chat control.
They didnt want that.
It’s like saying Denmark wants to throw out all immigrants, just because a small minority is proposing it. They dont.
Democracy is just great for media outlets, because they can bandwagon stupid proposals.