It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.

▲

ryandrake 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.

▲

__loam 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.

	▲	bigyabai an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I feel like that would end with the same surveillance loopholes that Google, Microsoft and Apple exploit today. Users need the ability to choose operating systems and software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software isn't a competitive market is what put us into this surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust" distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.

▲

dmitrygr 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.

▲

krapp 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want.

Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.

▲

jagged-chisel 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Not to mention how would one even define "the same legislation"?

▲

dmitrygr 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you really think Chat Control has high public support? Given how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting their ability to do further harm might be worth it.

	▲	krapp 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This wouldn't limit the ability of governments to do harm, it would limit the ability of the people to mitigate that harm by giving them only one chance to ever do so. I don't think "democracy is flawed therefore we need less of it" is a good idea.

▲

cess11 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The US really, really wants it implemented, and several national police institutions in the EU does too. Plus the politicians that start to drool a little at the prospect.