this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
343 points (99.7% liked)

Privacy

7662 readers
107 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] artyom@piefed.social 32 points 5 days ago

See you guys next week!

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago

I think people need to realize that they simply cant afford to be tired of fighting this, because this will be an ongoing fight the rest of their lives waiting for them to slip up once.

One tragedy, one stream of exciting events, one slippage, and this gets sailed through and never reverted.

People get angry at the idea like "why should I have to care so much! This is bullshit!" and its like, just because it is bullshit does not mean you can stop dealing with it.

If you don't get the type of politician who is influenced into doing such things out of office, you just have to face this.

Almost always, terrible policies get put on the table because a good portion of people allow themselves to be tricked by some "look at that poorer/more brown person than you. They are the problem" rhetoric. It happens everywhere and I think people just acting like this is some separate, unrelated issue is part of why fights against awful policies never stop.

You can float a turd with bigotry attached.

[–] wiegell@feddit.dk 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What are the details about this? Not really apparent from the links

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

From a post here two days ago: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/this-is-a-political-deception-new-chat-control-convinces-lawmakers-but-not-privacy-experts-yet

I guess this is an addendum to this proposal to clarify that these rules dont classify as making scanning mandatory.

[–] wiegell@feddit.dk 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Yea i read that, but isn’t this post about that not being an issue anymore?? // Edit: I mean in particular Patrick Breyer was been critical about the revised proposal, so him posting this now suggests that something new has happened?

Yes and the new thing that happened is the section "17a" shown in this post i would assume.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 days ago

The thing with chat control is that people seem to keep bringing it back up after a while.