By your own framing, literally any enforcement of a law is “terrorism”.

So your solution to this proposal of “terrorism” is to actually commit “terrorism”.

That’s a lazy straw man. The difference is proportionality and target. Enforcing a law against individual wrongdoing isn’t the same as redesigning society around mass suspicion and fear. “Chat Control” doesn’t punish a crime - it manufactures a climate where everyone is treated as a potential criminal, and coerced into self-censorship. That’s systemic intimidation, not law enforcement.

▲

nandomrumber 5 days ago | parent [-]

You don’t have to enact laws like Chat Control (literally Speech Control, they’re not even pretending to try to hide it) to have tyrannical government.

To have tyrannical government we only have to have governments who want to propose such legislation.

Any reasonable sort of government would be highlighting the absurdity of such ideas and speak out against them.

▲

sjy 5 days ago | parent [-]

“Chat Control” is a pejorative name used by the law’s opponents. Its official name is the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse.

	▲	varispeed 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Names can be deceptive. The Nazis called their purge of Jewish officials the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service - a title that sounded wholesome and bureaucratic. The most destructive laws rarely advertise what they do; they hide behind words like “protection,” “safety,” or “restoration.” The point isn’t the label, it’s the power it grants.