▲ | gpderetta 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No EU means that most states would already have implemented Chat Control. Case in point, the UK. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | flanked-evergl 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If the UK citizens want Chat Control they should have it. If they don't, they should not elect a government that wants it. Same goes for almost every issue the EU is pushing. Not everyone in the EU needs Chat Control just because the UK citizens really want a government that will give them Chat Control. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | rdm_blackhole 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No EU means that this law would have to passed in 27 different countries whihc would make it much harder to put this many people under surveillance. So, in this particular case no EU would be a clear benefit because it would give us time to see the effect on this law on the neighboring countries first, just like we saw with the UK and the OSA. I am becoming more anti-EU by the day and this is just one more nail in the coffin. |