Or just host their own actually end-to-end encrypted chat apps.

socioeconomic factors and ethnicity are highly correlated. So Prof. Estrada Dörner is probably noting that there is no causation (foreigner -> becomes criminal) but the correlation is high and is due to many factors including segregation and latent racism, so maybe the causal factor is more like discrimination -> creates criminals.

>So, Chat Control is an attempt by a few politicians to give police some tools to prevent teenagers from shooting each other in gang wars

No that is not ChatControl, that is just some Swedish thing. Chat Control would make it mandatory for servive providers to scan every single message in the EU for offending material and notify the authorities if anything is detected. It's blatant mass surveillance under the guise of protecting the children.

Naive question, but what is the cause of youth violance? Or the increase in violance for that demographic?

[flagged]

The biggest factor is that the police simply suck at doing their real job but have worked hard at making sure the rank and file doesn't complain in public.

They accepted a lot of migration but then expected immigrants to be content with being extremely poor and with no way to improve their condition and got surprise picachu faces when they decided that crime was an appropriate way since no other way existed.

I don't think it's that. I think the EU, as a political structure, obfuscates what's going on from the citizens sufficiently, that it's uncommon for citizens to hear about what's actually happening. Some third party has to basically start ringing alarm bells for even a minority of citizens to hear about an issue, let alone a majority.

If I were to ask what my relatives think of Chat Control I'm certain that an overwhelming majority would not have even heard about it. Hard to oppose something if you don't know about it. But even if they did oppose it - does the average European even know how to figure out how their chosen politician voted on the issue? Probably not.

Maybe it's a lack of journalism, I'm unsure, but I don't see any other reason for it. I also think that this is the factor in euroskepticism.

I live in Sweden and I am not a Swede, so I read this country with from an outsider prospective but I am no historian either. From my observations and from I have been reading, Sweden has always had small, low density population living in a harsh environment. A centralised government was an effective way to gain efficiency, and it has historically had much less friction than in other places where other forms of power were more solidified. Socialist Sweden in the 30s and 40s was pretty much as totalitarian as other countries in Europe, but as they did not participate in the war, they have always seen themselves as the "good guys". No point of rupture, as it happened in Germany for example, very little self-criticism. To these days Swedes have very little discussion about what does not work in their country, they just assume that they live in the best place ever and that someone will take care of the problems. They have complete trust in authorities, which is good for many reasons, but it's also often blind and lenient even in front of quite obvious inefficiencies or abuses of power.

For reference of discussion in Sweden see https://chatcontrol.se/ (in Swedish). Social democrats and Christian democrats are the ones who seem to be more supportive of this law.

Media and conversations in a small population with a unique native languages lacks the population for diversity of opinions and often results of blind trust in local government, power structures and group thought influenced by those in power. Who can be critical in this type of society? Ignorance can be bliss.

I doubt your friends are a representative sample. And they probably think they wouldn't be the first ones to be oppressed by this.

In the context of chat, it likely refers to a desire to make sure there isn't any "illegal talk" or "bad think" going on.

[flagged]

Today it aligns with Danish definition of socialism.

capitalism can also be interpreted as something which "serves the modern, specialised multifunctional community by doing your job." to "profit then use the sum to upgrade society"

what the heck you place socialism as something towards <the overall happiness of the society, and not focusing on increasing material wealth>? first that socialism is a temporary state towards communism, that despite, it doesn't need to pursue communism. see China. second; WHY DO YOU WANT TO CENTRALIZE POWER TOWARDS A SELECTED GROUP OF PEOPLE? Karl Marx is fine, but it's a european guy who lived in 1800s. socialism and capitalism are essentially the same with the difference of the hope of donation of power coming from the public vs. the private... you need to be quite naive to believe the goverment will do the good without corruption. much more people with power allowing their goods to be taken. see our history before capitalism

As somebody who lived its early years in a socialist country, all I can tell you is that socialism does not work. Never did, never will.

You sure know a lot about socialism and words, for someone that doesn't know that these social democrats are called so because it's literally the name of their parties.