Partly it's because the Danish have the rotating EU presidency at the moment so they have the job of pushing things forward (which also means receiving the most lobbying). In the previous wave earlier in the year, it was the Polish for the same reason.

Partly it's they don't have the same pro-privacy culture that say Germany and many of the eastern european countries have.

People also think the current Danish PM was also offended by a former prominent Danish politician and cabinet minister who was arrested for CSAM possession.

▲

permo-w 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I wonder how aware they are of the damage to the EU's reputation that they're continually creating by repeatedly bringing this back

I think this theme of the EU, this lack of taboo against continually bringing unwanted laws until they pass by fatigue, it may well be the death of the institution as a whole. every time they try, every time people hear about it, more and more think worse of the EU, and unlike most western governments, the existence and function of the EU is actually severely vulnerable to what people think of it. no other major government takes as much reputational damage from laws that don't even pass, and the existence of no other major government is as vulnerable to reputational damage as the EU is right now. all it takes is another 1 or 2 major exits and the whole thing will slowly collapse, which is insanely sad

▲

Macha 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The UK government laundering unpopular regulations through the EU and then blaming the EU for them even when the UK had proposed and often championed then was definitely a factor in Brexit passing.

Somewhat relevantly, the UK already has their own version of this legislation in the Online Safety Act which lead to a bunch of small-medium UK community sites closing and the likes of Imgur, pixiv and 4chan blocking the UK.

▲

liminvorous 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I believe 4chan is taking ofcom to court for trying to restrict their first amendment rights rather than blocking the UK, at least I'm still able to access it without a vpn.

▲

VWWHFSfQ 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> restrict their first amendment rights

how is this relevant in the UK

▲

mikkupikku 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

4chan is an American company with no presence whatsoever in the UK. 4chan doesn't even use normal payment processors, relying on crypto instead, so the UK can't even block payments made by UK subjects to 4chan.

In light of this, why would 4chan comply? Contrary to the claim above, 4chan has not actually blocked UK users, and has no reason to do so. They did however get a lawyer to write up a letter telling the redcoats to go fuck themselves.

▲

andersa 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A better question is how is whatever the UK is doing relevant for 4chan, which is an American company with no presence in the UK.

	▲	permo-w 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		because 4chan's services are available to people residing in the UK the OSA is ridiculous and I hope it goes the same way as the last time they tried it, but this idea that US companies should be immune to domestic regulation in countries their services are available to is silly. even if that domestic regulation is silly. because otherwise the utterly encaptured regulatory environment of the US (plus Visa and MC) solely dictates the internet

▲

mikkupikku 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You describe the EU as an undemocratic institution that brings about unwanted laws by fatigue, I understand that perspective.

You also say that the collapse of the EU would be insanely sad. I also understand that perspective.

What I don't understand is how somebody could have both of these points of view at once, in the same comment no less.

	▲	permo-w 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		first of all, not everything is good or bad. the EU does masses of good and is probably [read: definitely] the most mature and healthy legislative body governing >100m people ever to have existed chat control has not passed, and undoubtedly will not pass in any deeply unpalatable state. this is the point of the unanimity requirement of the EU. most likely in the end we will get some kind of law giving additional search powers to police, perhaps allowing them to remotely "switch on" chat scanning for a suspect via specific court order, comparably to how they compromised on facial recognition secondly, to agree with the sibling commenter, I look at the results, not the process. the EU has incredible results by anyone's measure, and perhaps some of the culture there needs improvement, but this "it must be ultra-democracy or I don't want it" attitude just feels overly simplistic. and, honestly--and this is where I cannot understand anti-EU Europeans--without the EU, who are you expecting to represent your interests on the global stage? the US? all the other global powers would not bat an eyelid at corrupting democracy in a manner 10x worse than what we're talking about here
	▲	graemep 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		A lot of people think democracy is a bad thing - or that too much democracy is a bad thing. A lot of people support what they want the EU to be rather than what it actually is. Applies in general - people can love their country without supporting its current government or constitution.