> EPP voted against both

EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).

So they voted against the total because it did not include indiscriminate scanning? I am not saying this is not the case, but it does not make sense to me. If indiscriminate scanning does not pass, why not vote for the total even without it, and amend it after it passes and gets normalised at a later point?

▲

layer8 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.

▲

btilly 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something".

A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later.

In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

▲

subscribed 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Its never about paedophiles.

A huge ring has been uncovered in the us, with the broad international link, and none of these with mountains of evidence against them is harmed.

Instead they serve in the prominent public positions sometimes silencing and killing their victims.

If the reason in the arguments for the bill is about protecting the children, you can be sure as hell that's a strawman.

▲

torstenvl 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU.

> Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

Lol what?

The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K.

For any definition of authoritarian that relates to chat control, the UK is two base-10 orders of magnitude more authoritarian than Hungary (7 base-2 orders of magnitude).

▲

tompagenet2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This figure in the UK is unsourced and I'm fairly sure is not true (or at least not what you've labelled it), and has been quoted out of context by people trying to stir trouble not reasoned debate. I'll assume good faith here and say the start of the video lays out why the figure is not what you've labelled it to be

https://youtu.be/tB3WVygAM8I?si=2KVNjw7mc29sNbQw

▲

subscribed 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm quite sure they thought about the UK as well, given the practice of prosecuting for lawful speech, jailing or arresting for planning peaceful protests (or threatening to arrest a man with an EMPTY placard), jailing for opposing the genocide or voicing support for the unlawfully proscribed organisation.

Etc.

▲

Aerroon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The UK isn't in the EU anymore though.

	▲	torstenvl 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Germany and Poland are. Does the existence of a non-EU country in a data set about European countries detract from the fact that Hungary doesn't prosecute people for online speech to the same extent as other European (incl. EU) countries?

▲

btilly 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The issue isn't how much free speech online is being punished. It is how surveillance could be used to reinforce authoritarianism.

The UK does a lot of prosecuting people for having said nasty things online that someone else didn't like.

Hungary is far more inclined to surveil political opponents, put people in their network in jail without fair trial, surveil successful businesses whose bribes were insufficient, find excuses to punish those businesses.

▲

christkv an hour ago | parent [-]

Sources please

	▲	btilly an hour ago \| parent [-]
		UK prosecutions happen in public. So I presume that the Hungary accusations need justification. Lack of fair trials: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251120IP... Illegal surveillance of political opposition: https://rm.coe.int/pegasus-and-similar-spyware-and-secret-st... Strong arming companies into bribes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Fidesz Not only are there not similar reports about the UK, but its better position in international corruption rankings points to a culture that would be less likely to tolerate this. Any further questions about why there should be concerns about how Hungary would be likely to abuse a law like this?

▲

mikkupikku 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Leave it to the British to beat the Germans at their own game.

▲

surgical_fire 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

gpderetta 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's happens often in parliamentary proceedings: when the other party succeeds in unrecognizably amending the law, the party proposing it will vote against.

Specifically for the European Parliament, this is also why, while it is true it doesn't have the power of legislative initiative, given the ability to amend at will any "law", in practice it doesn't make much of a difference.

	▲	philipwhiuk 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Which is sometimes why amendments are added, as wrecking motions.