I don't much think that Chat Control is desirable as a policy, but I suspect that you won't find many democracies out there where passing legislation wasn't tried again after failing. If that alone makes a democracy a joke, I think that there wouldn't be many non-joke democracies.
I think this should be somewhat discouraged in a democracy, though. Decisions have to be binding in some form. You can't just do 5 and then randomly discard 4 and go with the one result you like. And for some reason that's supposed to be the binding one. I mean it's a bit tricky. But ultimately it's the same kindergarden game like you'll ask your mom to allow something and after she says no you'll go to your dad and ask him, then your grandparents, uncle... and at some point some adult is busy with other stuff, doesn't pay attention and you get your "yes" and you'll do it. It's a weird thing kids do, not a feature of a democracy.
And in democratic systems it leads to the same discussion blocking the agenda again and again because of some people's dispute. And other weird things like in the USA, where the first official act of a new president is, to cancel as much bills from the previous administration as possible.
I mean there's reasons to do it. But I still think it's mostly a dark procedure within a democratic system.
And other kind of law has it covered. For example court rulings. You'll need substantial new evidence. Or a changed situation to re-do their binding decisions. And that's for good reasons. (I think in philosophy of law it's called "non bis in idem" or double jeopardy doctrine)
Decisions have to be binding in some form. You can’t just do 5 and then randomly discard 4 and go with the one result you like.
Funny how that works though. As long as something doesn't pass, you can try again as many times as you want but the moment something passes its a "done thing" and can't be undone. Brexit is the example of the latter. Obviously a stupid and damaging decision that cannot be voted on again because "we already voted once."
Is there precedent for this in Europe? I can't remember good things which were repeated. They tend to either succeed or fail but that's basically it. Or political parties rallye to do something but then they don't. Or can't agree within the coalition. Or there's other pressing issues after the election and it gets postponed... But they don't really say, that's what we promised, we failed and we'll put it on the agenda again 5 months later?!
If that alone makes a democracy a joke, I think that there wouldn't be many non-joke democracies.
Which would be a correct statement. There should be at least a timeout before a legislation can be proposed again, with changes substantial enough to justify the new vote.
That's a thought, though that'll also introduce some new political strategies that one might not want, like making poison-pilling legislation a much-more-powerful move or immediately proposing and voting down legislation just before a given legislature departs to kill the ability of the incoming legislators to pass that legislation.
It also may be hard to draw that "substantial enough" line. Similar problem to determining what qualifies as a rider for the purposes of anti-rider restrictions ("you can't just attach unrelated legislation to legislation" and "well, what qualifies as unrelated?").
I think that the anti-democratic impulse here is that they are trying to get this by any means possible. They were refused by the elected parliament and they are still trying to get their chat control by trying it in other legislation, other channels and so on. That means that they are just using the democratic process and are not accepting that elected representatives refused their proposal. That is antidemocratic.
we are round 4 with chat control, maybe even more, also the voted parlament is only one of 3 instances who work on laws and has no right to peopose them themselves, both the council and the commission are not elected and have no legitimacy given by the people I'm being generous by calling the EU a Democracy at all.
The EU is a Democracy like Fetterman is a Democrat
Luckily this is about the rollback of 1.0, we've actually made progress.
Those votes were about mandatory chat control, 1.0 is about opt-in chat control for companies, which was passed 6 years ago, but the EP let it expire now.
In face of this I just posted an update on the chat control issue here.
TL;DR ; Not happening for now.
" The extension of the voluntary monitoring of private communication on the internet by online platforms in the EU has failed. Negotiators from EU states and the parliament could not agree on a compromise, as a spokeswoman for the Cypriot Council Presidency announced on Monday."
Doesn't mean it won't come back on the agenda But MEPs and a couple of memberstates have never been on board. So democracy works fyi.
Lastly, chatcontrol 1.0 was the very first iniative from years ago . Then we had 2.0 and afterwards it was again ammended to chat control vs.2.5 or something. So the post by OP must be quite old.
Democracy is not a joke. The title aims for a framing moving the overton window to a place where our democracy is no longer a given. I resent this, and I distance myself from this attempt.
If you are tired of fighting this battle over and over again like we are, help us change the world so we don't have to again! If you want to know more about who we are check out our website!
If we all where to think like that we would risk to create the same two party system they have in the US. So I would argued that voting for a smaller party helps in avoiding that and strengthening democracy!
Okay, I am trying to register.
However I am getting a postal code error, and I believe it is hard to make a mistake in just five digits, so it might be something you tech team should look at.
The title of this post is one more pebble on the mountain of attacks against democracy and the rule of law in Europe. Sure, the EU could be improved a lot, but declaring it a joke and tearing it all down is certainly not going to make anything better; except maybe for authoritarian leaders in countries outside of the EU who want to go back to being able to bully around all those smaller nations individually.
I never had the option to vote for something that fulfilled my needs even when I was promised that. Tell me again of the power of abstracting needs away into an average of the people. The only power I see in that is keeping more or less the same people at the steering wheel.
From the other side of the pond.. Be careful y'all, these bastards are global, well organized and hell bent on pushing this dystopia at any cost necessary.
Voting again within a month because you don't like the result is a bit of a joke though. Nothing has changed in the last month to warrant another vote, so if it swings the other way this time, then democracy really is a joke.
Ah, so what you meant to say is not "democracy is a joke" but rather: "people's awareness of what's going on is a joke", I got it.
They're not voting on the same thing they voted just recently. "Chat control 1.0", as it is sometimes called, was passed 6 years ago - it was the voluntary monitoring that vendors were allowed to do. That law has just ended. The conservatives want to extend it. This is the current vote.
What they voted on a month ago was the "2.0" version, where monitoring would've been mandatory.
Isn't Chat Control about scanning E2E encrypted messages on users device? What Gmail has to do with it? They are and will keep scanning your email on servers as those are not encrypted and you agree to it in T&C. Does Linkedin have E2E encrypted messenger? AFAIK their chat is not E2E encrypted. If they are fighting against Chat Control they could at least understand what it is and use valid examples.
42 Comments
tal@lemmy.today · 73 pts · 143d
I don't much think that Chat Control is desirable as a policy, but I suspect that you won't find many democracies out there where passing legislation wasn't tried again after failing. If that alone makes a democracy a joke, I think that there wouldn't be many non-joke democracies.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de · 16 pts · 143d
I think this should be somewhat discouraged in a democracy, though. Decisions have to be binding in some form. You can't just do 5 and then randomly discard 4 and go with the one result you like. And for some reason that's supposed to be the binding one. I mean it's a bit tricky. But ultimately it's the same kindergarden game like you'll ask your mom to allow something and after she says no you'll go to your dad and ask him, then your grandparents, uncle... and at some point some adult is busy with other stuff, doesn't pay attention and you get your "yes" and you'll do it. It's a weird thing kids do, not a feature of a democracy.
And in democratic systems it leads to the same discussion blocking the agenda again and again because of some people's dispute. And other weird things like in the USA, where the first official act of a new president is, to cancel as much bills from the previous administration as possible.
I mean there's reasons to do it. But I still think it's mostly a dark procedure within a democratic system.
And other kind of law has it covered. For example court rulings. You'll need substantial new evidence. Or a changed situation to re-do their binding decisions. And that's for good reasons. (I think in philosophy of law it's called "non bis in idem" or double jeopardy doctrine)
HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social · 26 pts · 143d
Funny how that works though. As long as something doesn't pass, you can try again as many times as you want but the moment something passes its a "done thing" and can't be undone. Brexit is the example of the latter. Obviously a stupid and damaging decision that cannot be voted on again because "we already voted once."
pennomi@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 143d
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de · 4 pts · 143d
Is there precedent for this in Europe? I can't remember good things which were repeated. They tend to either succeed or fail but that's basically it. Or political parties rallye to do something but then they don't. Or can't agree within the coalition. Or there's other pressing issues after the election and it gets postponed... But they don't really say, that's what we promised, we failed and we'll put it on the agenda again 5 months later?!
hubobes@piefed.europe.pub · 3 pts · 142d
In Switzerland we rejected women's right to vote in 1959 and then it passed in 1971. I am certain that we have many such examples.
bufalo1973@piefed.social · 3 pts · 142d
I vote for "expands rights? Can repeat. Reduces rights? Has to wait".
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 9 pts · 142d
Which would be a correct statement. There should be at least a timeout before a legislation can be proposed again, with changes substantial enough to justify the new vote.
tal@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 142d
That's a thought, though that'll also introduce some new political strategies that one might not want, like making poison-pilling legislation a much-more-powerful move or immediately proposing and voting down legislation just before a given legislature departs to kill the ability of the incoming legislators to pass that legislation.
It also may be hard to draw that "substantial enough" line. Similar problem to determining what qualifies as a rider for the purposes of anti-rider restrictions ("you can't just attach unrelated legislation to legislation" and "well, what qualifies as unrelated?").
Lemming6969@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 142d
Single issue voting
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org · 6 pts · 142d
I think that the anti-democratic impulse here is that they are trying to get this by any means possible. They were refused by the elected parliament and they are still trying to get their chat control by trying it in other legislation, other channels and so on. That means that they are just using the democratic process and are not accepting that elected representatives refused their proposal. That is antidemocratic.
drmoose@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 142d
the anti-democracy wave is crazy right now. This is exactly what all of these dictators and wannabe dictators want us to do - give up.
not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 142d
we are round 4 with chat control, maybe even more, also the voted parlament is only one of 3 instances who work on laws and has no right to peopose them themselves, both the council and the commission are not elected and have no legitimacy given by the people I'm being generous by calling the EU a Democracy at all. The EU is a Democracy like Fetterman is a Democrat
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org · 43 pts · 142d
That is like the fourth time in the past six month they try to implement chat control. It really gets tiring.
HK65@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 142d
Luckily this is about the rollback of 1.0, we've actually made progress.
Those votes were about mandatory chat control, 1.0 is about opt-in chat control for companies, which was passed 6 years ago, but the EP let it expire now.
Conservatives want it back.
HowRu68@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 143d
In face of this I just posted an update on the chat control issue here.
TL;DR ; Not happening for now.
" The extension of the voluntary monitoring of private communication on the internet by online platforms in the EU has failed. Negotiators from EU states and the parliament could not agree on a compromise, as a spokeswoman for the Cypriot Council Presidency announced on Monday."
Doesn't mean it won't come back on the agenda But MEPs and a couple of memberstates have never been on board. So democracy works fyi.
Lastly, chatcontrol 1.0 was the very first iniative from years ago . Then we had 2.0 and afterwards it was again ammended to chat control vs.2.5 or something. So the post by OP must be quite old.
machie27@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 142d
OP is right though. It’s indeed happening (again)
More info (in timeline) https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
Link to screenshot from OP: https://mastodon.social/@Tutanota/116277691327823258
jenesaisquoi@feddit.org · 28 pts · 142d
Democracy is not a joke. The title aims for a framing moving the overton window to a place where our democracy is no longer a given. I resent this, and I distance myself from this attempt.
Pip@feddit.org · 3 pts · 142d
This.
PiratPartiet@feddit.nu · 21 pts · 142d
If you are tired of fighting this battle over and over again like we are, help us change the world so we don't have to again! If you want to know more about who we are check out our website!
https://piratpartiet.se/en
And feel free to ask us for help to find your local Pirates! 🇸🇪🏴☠️💜🇪🇺"
lb_o@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 142d
Always vote pirate party in all elections! I even want to join, but have to focus on my own projects to get some moneys running first.
wabasso@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 142d
Doesn’t that take votes away from the larger parties that have a chance of keeping out the conservatives (or liberals, whichever it is for you)?
lb_o@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 103d
Fair enough, but well, most conventional parties voted for chat control.
PiratPartiet@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 96d
If we all where to think like that we would risk to create the same two party system they have in the US. So I would argued that voting for a smaller party helps in avoiding that and strengthening democracy!
sp3ctre@feddit.org · 2 pts · 142d
Greetings from the german pirate party!
!Piratenpartei@feddit.org
🇩🇪🏴☠️
PiratPartiet@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 96d
Greetings fellow pirate mate! 💜🏴☠️ Cool that you have your own community! We might to create a lemmy community some day!
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 142d
Any in the UK? Also can y'all help us do unBrexit?
PiratPartiet@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 96d
This is what I could find hope it helps! 🏴☠️💜https://www.ukpirate.party/
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 96d
Damn, not particularly active, their last post was in 2025
lb_o@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 142d
Okay, I am trying to register. However I am getting a postal code error, and I believe it is hard to make a mistake in just five digits, so it might be something you tech team should look at.
I can give you details in DM.
PiratPartiet@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 96d
We have sent you a DM! And will help you to the best of our abilities! 🏴☠️💜
NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.org · 19 pts · 143d
The title of this post is one more pebble on the mountain of attacks against democracy and the rule of law in Europe. Sure, the EU could be improved a lot, but declaring it a joke and tearing it all down is certainly not going to make anything better; except maybe for authoritarian leaders in countries outside of the EU who want to go back to being able to bully around all those smaller nations individually.
silverneedle@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 142d
I never had the option to vote for something that fulfilled my needs even when I was promised that. Tell me again of the power of abstracting needs away into an average of the people. The only power I see in that is keeping more or less the same people at the steering wheel.
trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf · 17 pts · 142d
From the other side of the pond.. Be careful y'all, these bastards are global, well organized and hell bent on pushing this dystopia at any cost necessary.
running_system@feddit.org · 15 pts · 142d
Fuck them conservatives. All they do is lobbying for bug corpos, voting for oppression and conserving feudalism.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 142d
AXEL VOSS YOU LITTLE SHIT STAIN!
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 142d
Nothing screams "democracy is a joke" more than voting on things, amirite guys?
PieMePlenty@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 142d
Voting again within a month because you don't like the result is a bit of a joke though. Nothing has changed in the last month to warrant another vote, so if it swings the other way this time, then democracy really is a joke.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 142d
Ah, so what you meant to say is not "democracy is a joke" but rather: "people's awareness of what's going on is a joke", I got it.
They're not voting on the same thing they voted just recently. "Chat control 1.0", as it is sometimes called, was passed 6 years ago - it was the voluntary monitoring that vendors were allowed to do. That law has just ended. The conservatives want to extend it. This is the current vote.
What they voted on a month ago was the "2.0" version, where monitoring would've been mandatory.
Pip@feddit.org · 1 pts · 142d
Exactly!!
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 5 pts · 142d
Yes, voting on things is the end of democracy.
TheV2@programming.dev · 2 pts · 143d
Kudos for the Fight Chat Control initiative! But I wonder, if providing a template ready to be sent to MEPs isn't counterproductive?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 142d
Isn't Chat Control about scanning E2E encrypted messages on users device? What Gmail has to do with it? They are and will keep scanning your email on servers as those are not encrypted and you agree to it in T&C. Does Linkedin have E2E encrypted messenger? AFAIK their chat is not E2E encrypted. If they are fighting against Chat Control they could at least understand what it is and use valid examples.