# EU Presidency led initiative to revive Chat Control 1.0: Reinstated again until 2028, people's efforts still showed noticeable effect **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/eu-presidency-led-initiative-to-revive-chat-control-1-0-reinstated-again-until-2028-peoples-efforts-still-showed-noticeable-effect/38982 **Category:** General **Tags:** guide **Created:** 2026-07-04T08:15:11Z **Posts:** 54 ## Post 1 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-04T08:15:11Z **Final Update:** Chat Control passes again, as simple majority votes in favor (absolute majority opposed would have been needed). [I left some closing words and more information in a comment.](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/eu-presidency-led-initiative-to-revive-chat-control-1-0-cc1-0-gets-reinstated-again-until-2028/38982/39) I will no longer maintain this post. Further development and additional information may now be in the more recent comments. **[Also, here’s the comment with a detailed results link](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/eu-presidency-led-initiative-to-revive-chat-control-1-0-cc1-0-gets-reinstated-again-until-2028/38982/41)**, currently not particularly clear because results presumably have to be read inversely, see comment on alleged gambit. [Another on mepwatch.eu](https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=195775). Thank you all for your effort, see you when we’re (then successfully!) fighting the next thing. **Edit: Looking at the numbers, it seems we swayed a noticeable amount: If I’m not mistaken, 331 to 304 became 276 to 314, passing only because of 112 absentees, as Metsola’s gambit worked.** **Update7: The vote is set for tomorrow at 12.00 CEST.** There is a new template on fightchatcontrol.eu / [fightchatcontrol.de](http://fightchatcontrol.de) that you can customize. At least send this to your MEP now. After the customization, you can copy all your countries MEP as a batch to insert into your email’s BCC field. I have not tried sending it through their site and I don’t know how it works, as I don’t want to spam them. Feel free to try this yourself. > **Previous updates** > > Update6: Don’t have the time and energy to email/call each of your MEPs? > [Here is how each of your MEP voted today on mepwatch.eu.](https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=195338) You can sort by country to easily find yours, but keep in mind this is only their agreement to grant the urgent procedure. > **Personal observation: It seems that CC1.0 supporting German MEPs saw some of them voting against urgent procedure today.** > **Check your country MEPs stance on fightchatcontrol.eu and see if you already could have had an impact!** > > Update5: According to a [toot by Breyer](https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/116878253081563900), the vote for urgent procedure has passed by a narrow majority. > 51.2% (331) in favor, 47.1% (304) against, 1.7% (11) abstentions. > **Contact your MEPs now to tell them you oppose reinstating CC1.0, mentioning even shortened reasons from linked sources below.** > > **Update4: As I said, I’m not an expert, so I need to clarify and correct something.** > **The vote for urgent procedure is currently in progress. When accepted, the vote to reinstate CC1.0 will be held later this week.** > Which also means there is more time to contact your MEP. > > Update3: Added 2 latest toots from Breyer. > ~~Again, **still worth a try to CALL your MEP before 12.00 CEST** and ask them to **oppose the urgent procedure trick** to not be forced for a rushed decision.~~ **Correction: the current vote only decides whether it gets the urgent procedure.** (That is to force not already on vacation MEPs for a rushed decision.) > (See latest comments when 12.00 CEST is.) > > Update2: New article by Breyer, vote (edit: for urgent procedure to prepare a vote) set for tomorrow, 7th July @12.00. > **You can still CALL your representative’s office, if you haven’t emailed them! Find yours on fightchatcontrol.eu** > [Procedural Trick Before Summer Recess Pushes EU Parliament Towards Capitulation on “Chat Control” – Patrick Breyer](https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/procedural-trick-before-summer-recess-pushes-eu-parliament-towards-capitulation-on-chat-control/) > > Update: Changed the title to reflect it is now this week. I don’t have a date as i struggle to navigate all the listings and procedure numbers. Comment here if you have any new development. Not an expert on the matter, but I’ll leave the English post by Dr. Patrick Breyer (former MEP, Pirates) here. > **[“Double Threat” to Private Communications: Undemocratic Chat Control Backroom...](https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/double-threat-to-private-communications-undemocratic-chat-control-backroom-deals-and-imminent-concessions-spark-relaunch-of-fightchatcontrol-eu/)** > > Civil rights activist Dr. Patrick Breyer warns of an unprecedented "double-attack" on secure messaging ahead of critical Friday and Monday EU meetings. > > > > Ahead of a highly critical weekend for digital civil rights in Europe, former Member of the... Apparently, it is tried to urgently process this as well as an **adoption as early as next week** (when some MEPs are already on vacation, I read). Here is another article from Politico: > **[President vs Parliament: Metsola overrides MEPs in bid to force through child...](https://www.politico.eu/article/president-vs-parliament-roberta-metsola-overrides-meps-bid-force-child-abuse-law/)** > > The European Parliament president’s power play is “without precedent,” diplomats wrote in a note seen by POLITICO. **What you can do:** Contact your MEPs to oppose this and not falter to illegitimate vote repetition, warning them about the implications of the system, and telling them about better means. You could even preface it with your support of effective child protection or mention you are a parent yourself. Also consider spreading the news (not this mess of a post), or sharing your own texts around your family and friends, or asking them to take action, albeit with only a template or a short notice with their opposition. You may use the filter on > **[Fight Chat Control - Protect Digital Privacy in the EU](https://fightchatcontrol.eu/)** > > Learn about the EU Chat Control proposal and contact your representatives to protect digital privacy and encryption. to find and contact your MEPs ( **edit: see below for sending mutliple at once** ) and use their template (not sure how relevantly phrased it is currently), but **I would advise to write a short and concise text yourself**. Also don’t only contact “supporting” MEPs, **contact all, since their stance could have changed**. ~~In my case, two listed MEPs were no longer members, so add mssing new MEPs from here [Home | MEPs | European Parliament](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home) or if you get an automated email from an inactive MEP, find active MEPs on their offical party website.~~ **No longer needed, current MEPs have refreshed.** > ****It only needs to contain** that you ...** > > are opposed to it and that there are severe implications of such a system, which “they already probably know of”, but some of which are its ineffectiveness compared to conventional means (whose big successes may be impeded by diverted ressources\*) and preventive education as well as securely designed services, or gradually eroding privacy and questionably extensive measures against a clearly definable target. Bonus points if you can mention you are a parent (I mentioned my niece). > _You may use these points or rewrite them as your own, if you wish._ > Underneath the details below is also a link to a post by Breyer with not only sources, but an action plan with better protection means. > **\*** More details, if wanted: **** > > Europol’s “Operation Alice” alone shut down 373000 websites, combined with other operations, thousands of pedocriminals were arrested over the past 10-15 years, without such a system. > Reports also declined by 50% since 2022, for which an EU commision estimates a further decline of 36%. Commissioner Johansson speaks of 75% false positives in the yearly 300000 (225000). The German Federal Criminal Police Office says 48% of reports are either irrelevant or not actionable (e.g. consentual “s\*xting” among youth themselves), which shows a massive imbalance between conventional successes and successes from Chat Control. > Sources can be retrieved here for example: > [The End of Chat Control is an Opportunity: 5-Point Action Plan for Genuine Child Protection – Patrick Breyer](https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/the-end-of-chat-control-is-an-opportunity-5-point-action-plan-for-genuine-child-protection/) **Some hints for making it easier:** **(Edit: At this point, it’s probably best to send the mentioned template as soon as possible or typing only a short text and batch-copy the addresses in the second step on fightchatcontrol.eu / -.de)** - type out and cleanly format your email or use the template (keep correct formal greetings in mind) - optional: save it as a template - use member state filter on fightchatcontrol.eu - click on the MEP and copy their email address - **paste their addresses in the BCC field of your email** (your provider may have limits; Proton Free has 10 BCC recipients per mail, up to 50 emails/h, 150/d), **it hides other recipients from each recipient** - keep a list or remember the MEP you got to on fightchatcontrol.eu (they’re always alphabetical) - use your template or copy the old text for the next group of BCC recipients. (Simply forwarding may appear as lower effort to your MEP.) - check for automated replies in your inbox to determine retired MEPs (often with links to party’s current MEPs), see if others appear on europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home - send the rest (again, remember BCC) What I did: Sent a short email to my national trilogue shadow (although already over). Then whipped up a general 2000 German-length words email which I then sent to my 96 MEPs. Yep. (This post is probably a formatting mess, which I will fix after posting. Edit: Actually not as bad, I need a break now though. :wink: ) \_ Here are the two latest toots by Breyer, one with a CSA survivor’s opposing statement and one with a quick summary of CC1.0 and CC2.0: > **[Patrick Breyer (@echo_pbreyer@digitalcourage.social)](https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/116877350647745837)** > > 🇪🇺Abuse survivor to EU Parliament: #ChatControl silences victims and hinders law enforcement. NO URGENCY procedure! https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/csa-survivor-plea-to-eu-parliament/ > > 📞 Call MEPs marked “SUPPORTS” before 12:00 today — demand a... > **[Patrick Breyer (@echo_pbreyer@digitalcourage.social)](https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/116874781544330132)** > > Attached: 1 image > > #ChatControl 1.0 and 2.0 Explained: There is not one proposed “Chat Control” law — there are two, and they are moving through the EU institutions in parallel. This page untangles the... --- ## Post 2 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-04T08:32:38Z In case you’re wondering why it’s a reminder: [The previous post with the Politico article](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/president-vs-parliament-metsola-overrides-meps-in-bid-to-force-through-child-abuse-law/38794) ~~gathered no particular attention.~~ saw no comments and quickly sank unfortunately. --- ## Post 3 by @FranklyFlawless — 2026-07-04T09:23:31Z It gathered attention, just zero meaningful engagement. --- ## Post 4 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-04T11:33:53Z You’re right, I missed the views. Clarified to what I actually intended now. --- ## Post 5 by @DanielM — 2026-07-04T12:19:48Z As I said before: if they want to spy on you, they’ll do it with or without your consent. That’s just how it is, and on top of that, there will be real chases when the rules change. --- ## Post 6 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-04T13:40:44Z What’s with the defeatist attitude? Of course you can be spied upon via the already deployed means, but at least for a western state it is often illegal to spy on its own citizens and also usually pointless, if it does not already show authoritarian tendencies. The point here is preventing and not enabling mass surveillance, so there is no system to abuse in the first place. It’s also part of one’s freedom. In one of [Benn Jordan’s videos on Flock cameras (timestamped)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo&t=206) there is a scene of a man in an empty park playground. He goes to the swing set and …just swings. There is a possibility he would not have done that if he knew surveillance cameras were pointed at him. (see [Hawthorne effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)) It is analogous to indiscriminate surveillance of chat messages. This _would_ have an impact on everyone, not just on the offenders. Not too long ago (damn, it _is_ long ago, I’m old…) before the German reunion, the GDR was also an eager spy on it’s citizens to keep them in line. So to those opposing such a proposal, it is baffling that some actually would stand behind creating the infrastructure, if there were no ulterior motives. --- ## Post 7 by @DanielM — 2026-07-04T14:38:50Z I watched the video you sent me partially, but I’m still going to tell you the truth with no filter: It’s not defeat for me, it’s victory. You know why? For the simple reason that I’d rather go to jail than surrender in front of them. You know why people in the United States disappear and then a mysterious news story pops up saying they’re dead? For the simple reason that they revealed crucial information the system was supposed to protect and couldn’t. **That’s victory. That’s power, not defeat.** I suffer from things like headaches, I ignore the cameras without fear, etc., and still, I keep moving forward. The truth hurts more when you say it to their face. I’m not talking about you—I’m talking about them. Can you understand what I’m telling you? --- ## Post 8 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-04T15:07:12Z I think I follow you, but it seems we address different statuses. If I understand you correctly, you argue about a status, in which such systems are already in place and to not bow to the authority, even if they use their leverage against you. I respect the sentiment. The thing is, that is not the status of the EU and it can be prevented. There simply is no need to rebel if there aren’t means that can be leveraged against you. This is what I advocate for. Indiscriminate scanning would be an unprecedented deployment of a surveillance apparatus (in the EU). There is no equal for it to argue that they are already spying on us and implying it would not matter (forgive me if I misinterpreted the subtext of the first comment). And I’m sorry if I made it not very clear, but you weren’t meant to watch the (whole) video. I just wanted to address a scene for a comparison with Chat Control, which is why described the scene and intended the timestamp only as a source. Let’s discuss this further in off-topic fields if I’m wrong, or let’s drop the discussion of fundamentals completely, so we don’t derail the original intention. --- ## Post 9 by @DanielM — 2026-07-04T15:32:39Z Got it. Don’t apologize—talking things through is how you come to understand each other. Yes, I know what you’re referring to, but the EU can be infected by the US too. I’m not saying you shouldn’t fight to prevent it—I’m saying be aware that if someday it ever happens, I only ask you one thing: stay calm until the very end and don’t give up. Surveillance can grow, visible or invisible—I’m not assuming, I’m basing this on their typical patterns. This isn’t something I’m making up; real facts speak for themselves. That’s why I try to teach people not to be afraid of difficulties, to be persistent, etc. A clear example—and one that’s super well documented but isn’t the only one: Edward Snowden. That kind of massive surveillance, in certain cases, is also meant to find and lock up people who go against the manipulations, lies, and other things done by certain authorities. Some will use excuses like: “for national security.” It also affects innocent people—I’m aware of that. --- ## Post 10 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-04T17:07:25Z Oh, absolutely agree. In the EU we have the advantage that no one can strong-arm it by other members. So the day you motivate for hopefully never comes or is far off. There were those high profile votes that got relatively large publicity and engagement, especially around CC2.0, but this current one is, if I understand the matter correctly, much smaller and more covert. EU Parliament President Metsola, along with supposed others, seems to try to undermine conventions and parlamentary regulations. This is why we need to shut it down again; to send a message, we don’t back down from our opposition, no matter the form or how covert. Again, if I understood this correctly, this is not a roll call kind of vote. This is sneaking by the extensions or reinstating the prior CC1.0 regulation, that already has expired officially and whose continuation has since been voted against. The circumstances are a bit obscure for me as a layman, so please, if anyone knows better, correct me, but I also recall this was a written procedure becoming adopted if it weren’t turned down, or it would clear for vote (a repetition which is illegitimate btw). Which is also why in my email to all 95 German MEPs I found, I also stressed they should push for reevaluation of this procedure first before taking any action, if their mind is not clearly made up, opposed or in favor. Supposedly, many MEPs even are on summer break when this is tried. **Also worth noting:** the EU council presidency (different from elected Parliament President Metsola, Malta) rotates to enable each member state to hold it for a period of time. Currently Ireland assumes this position after Cyprus, both of which fightchatcontrol.eu lists (apparently from mepwatch.eu) as supporting. The thing about Ireland is, it is often used by big tech as european seat for tax reasons. I have to assume this might influence interest. --- ## Post 11 by @DanielM — 2026-07-04T19:51:59Z _I was thinking about how to respond to you at the same time in real scenarios (based on real events)_ There’s something you need to know if you don’t already: don’t trust. Do you know what I call those people? High-level actors who appear “perfect.” One thing is visible and another is invisible. Even though your words show that you have knowledge, you probably know the history of Crypto AG from 1970 to 2018. Does that ring a bell? **High-level adversaries** deceive even the most experienced experts, but there is one word they can never refute: suspicious. I don’t get involved in politics because I don’t vote for anyone else, and I don’t even trust the government of the country where I’m living. I simply let situations unfold, but I’m attentive to what’s emerging and ready to act. I remember when I sent a letter to another country. They replied to me, and when I replied to them, they blocked me. That’s the way it is. They don’t want to listen; they’re not interested in the truth. There’s nothing more that can be done. --- ## Post 12 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-05T08:25:21Z > **Regarding Crypto AG analogy** > > Of course I know the case of Crypto AG. I don’t want to dispute your argument, but we also need to keep in mind those were different times cryptographically. > Also, the ones who fell victim made their lives easy, though, and they just trusted a private party. Cryptographic devices have been compromised long before, but apparently affected countries never made the connection there is massive financial incentive to covertly sell out, given a big enough buyer. Following this up, it’s hard to describe such high-level adversaries you mention, or their very existence or even motives, if they are covert or cautious enough. You’d have to trust no one, but there is also an argument to be made against them, at least in functional democracies. Today, governments and tech are oftentimes adversaries (e.g. see recurring EU fines of hundreds of millions towards tech), which puts tech under much scrutiny. Also opposing parties completing the governing body are massively incentivized to find any dirt on the ruling parties for their own benefit. Which then puts the government itself under scrutiny. Of course this no longer applies to governments that have passed a certain threshold toward authoritarianism. Such adversaries would still have to deal with some absolute steps, which would be hard to deceive over. The consensus is, you erode fundamental rights gradually to make it work. However, some of these steps can not be taken easily. In free speech, at the very first step, you would try to forbid talking about a minor thing or widen topics that are exempt from free speech (e.g. widen insults). There will be something big enough for people to notice. Or take this Chat Control. Multiple times it was tried under the banner of child protection and every time there are critics. Even if currently people would accept that, there would have to be a point where this would have to expand, which would make people really suspicious about ulterior motives. **This is why it is our duty to oppose and make each step as prominent as we can, _while we still can_.** > **About government not caring** > > Which brings me to the point you make about not listening or caring for their citizens anymore, i.e. oppressive regimes: > People oftentimes forget how much shit a human is fine to deal with. At some point, they _will_ stop caring about their own “wellbeing”. And when this tipping point is reached, they will grab their pitchforks and violently overturn their government, even if it costs their lives. And they _will_ be supported by other countries who _will_ at some point judge this a genocide by the party in power. > This is where some dystopian scenarios often fall short. It has happened many times and it _will_ happen again. > **My outlook on the paragraph above** > > Sadly, as it is today, this will probably be bloodier than it has ever has been. > There is no denying that today there are signs of corporate becoming bigger than its government, especially in the US, but who will stop them from going full cyberpunk or outright buying a whole already authoritarian country, declaring to be exempt from or not respecting any national or international law or convention. They don’t even need a real army anymore, because today’s technology can and already has done automated killing, and they have the means and money for it. I keep wondering how many automated weaponized drones a certain almost trillionaire can buy himself and have maintained, if he decides, he only needs 100 billion for living, or if a multi-trillion company starts expanding into the arms production directly. > This imbalance would make any revolution a terrible prospect, and like I said, presumably bloodier on one side than ever. --- ## Post 13 by @DanielM — 2026-07-05T12:10:30Z You should have refuted me, even if briefly and to the point, about Crypto AG. I brought up this story about how adversaries have the ability to go unnoticed while operating in the shadows, and a lot of strategies, tactics, and knowledge apply here. That story shows that even the most privacy-“friendly” countries are vulnerable to exploitation. And it’s true, defenses do exist, but don’t forget that those people can still be persecuted. I’ve already seen information about how they operate in Europe on various issues; they have heavy weaponry, we have the basics; it’s not out of fear, it is what it is. That kind of actor isn’t defined by what you see on the outside, but by what’s on the inside. Here’s how I explain it as it truly is: they simultaneously use various types of methods and counter-methods, for example → kindness (it’s one of the most important weapons to convince people, but it turns out there’s hidden work behind it), hardline (their arguments are strong signals that can convince an entire herd at once—a lie repeated 10 times becomes unquestioned truth), truth mixed with lies (it’s so powerful that it works in real-time adaptation mode), coherence (their arguments are highly coherent in the long term while simultaneously leaving a needle in a haystack, being such a minor weakness), among others. I didn’t say you shouldn’t trust anyone; what I said was “don’t trust,” which is completely different. Don’t focus on the fines; that’s a distraction, because if Europe were what it truly is, they would have kicked Google and other companies out for collecting its data, for example. When people accept those “facts,” they lower their guard and the situation continues as is, with no real or complete changes. Like I said, if they want to spy on you, they will, with or without your consent. That right there shows one of the major weaknesses without needing any explanation. Yes, for as long as possible, but I’m not in Europe; my place is different. It’s not that I “settle,” it’s that I learned to navigate through the storm and its waves, staying calm and patient while I do my work. **I have two fundamental questions for you:** 1. Are you prepared in case it fails, even if the worst comes, and then a supposed unknown savior comes along bringing peace disguised as being good? Regarding peace, it’s often used as a trap, being highly complex, and I know these patterns. 2. Can you explain the following to me: why don’t they uproot it when you say: This is where some dystopian scenarios often fall short. It has happened many times and it will happen again.? I’ll leave you with the following to think about: privacy is fundamental, but the reality is this → you can’t convince everyone, censorship exists, and even so, it’s better to be prepared. --- ## Post 14 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-05T14:43:55Z > **Fines instead of ban:** > > Regarding the fines and not kicking them out, it is impossible for such widely adopted services like Google’s, Meta’s, Microsoft’s, etc., especially when they run legitimate businesses otherwise. You can only fine them for violations, if the rest of the service is compliant with current guidelines and laws. > You also might not be aware of it, but the general tendency in the EU is to get independent from these, as more of these (even sometimes state-backed) services in Europe pop up, complying with the guidelines or even outbidding each other in terms of privacy or anonymity. > Also more and more Linux gets deployed to retire Windows as the de facto operating system in public departments and offices. > Of course it’s a slow adoption, but the lack of options in the past as well as the options being not quite on par most definitely has played a role. > I’m certain the EU would love to kick out Big Tech otherwise and thank them for nothing. There is also the important disctinction between a private corporation and a government setting up a surveillance network or data collection systems, so let me make this very clear: A government of a democracy or republic has to protect and care for its citizens by its fundamental duty, whereas a private corporation is unbound besides following the local law where they operate. It is directly formed by all of its citizens and the citizens normally have all the power to dismantle it. If all checks and balances are in place, as well as the three powers are still separated, it is within everyone’s power to prevent a descent into authoritarianism or a surveillance state. I get this might sound too idealistic, but the concept is generally still the status quo here. At least to the point where _something_ can be done. Pardon me when I say we might be going in circles now, and also for being blunt: I appreciate you warning about red flags or the way malicious intention might play out, it cannot be stressed enough. I am grateful for the constructive discussion. I am sorry for you having to live in more difficult circumstances than me. But your precedent is no reason for us Europeans to give up and brace for impact. Us both are outsiders to each others lives, but please keep in mind we still have the action of opposition against putting the means in place instead of waiting for them to inevitably happen and seeking ways around. This is the sole point I am trying to make and the campaigns are about. --- ## Post 15 by @DanielM — 2026-07-05T17:36:39Z If they are legitimate, that means Europe remains vulnerable from within, and the NSA has great power when attacking submarine cables during traffic whenever they please. Don’t forget that these systems exist: the CIA, Interpol, NSA, etc.; together, they collect information from physical and internet sources regarding people’s patterns, among other hidden tasks. I recognize that the EU seeks to be independent; its software like Office is an example. I know it and I’m clear on it. Don’t let your guard down, stand firm, and I’m not referring to fighting “ghosts,” but rather being realistic and aware that things are dynamic, not static (this applies to the EU too). That’s why Edward Snowden went to Russia; why? For the simple reason that Russia and the United States are enemies. The question that arises here is: why didn’t he go to Europe? The answer is easy: because the United States has a lot of control. NATO is just on paper; the difference is that they issue an order and track you down in many ways. Stay strong out there and thanks! You’re welcome. I don’t give up; what I don’t do is what I told you before; even so, until the end. --- ## Post 16 by @MyIdentityIsntImportant — 2026-07-05T18:29:06Z Or as I’ve seen it put: _There are no technological solutions to political problems._ If the ruling class wants to spy on you, they will attempt do so no matter what technologies you attempt to use to outrun them. Got a new messenger? Banned. Got a new phone? That’s illegal. You’re not allowing us to install a microphone in your home? Only criminals do that. Whatever technological “solutions” are implemented, they can simply be declared illegal. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Until the people say _no_, things like these will be pushed. And when people do say _no_, things will be pushed right up to that line, after which the line _will_ be tested to determine if it’s actually a line or just a bluff. So remember to be active politically in your own jurisdiction with regards to issues like these, because as much as FOSS projects can help us, they’re not the correct type of solution for this problem. --- ## Post 17 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-05T21:05:31Z > [@MyIdentityIsntImportant](#): > > There are no technological solutions to political problems. Absolutely agree, which is why we need to take action before that, or utilize political solutions ourselves. The obvious issue is the mediate connection between voters and representatives. This is either being solved by the opposition’s very own agenda of …well, being opposed, or for their own benefit. In Germany, as well as in other countries, there is a political party or rather movement (which is still officially votable for) that translates to something like “free voters”, an independent party. They do call for more direct votes even for “minor” votes, e.g. “Shall we adopt Chat Control?”, but they majorly trail behind the bigger parties (IMO because many people are habit-voters or paradoxically and ironically assume minor parties can’t overcome the threshold for seats in the Bundestag, which has been proven wrong time and time again). > [@MyIdentityIsntImportant](#): > > Got a new messenger? Banned. Got a new phone? That’s illegal. For this, the solution starts with civil disobedience. A ban csn never be enforced outright, there is always a delay between the ruling and the technical means. E.g. as water-proof as the Great Firewall of China is, they also did play catch-up a long time to get there. And we’re talking here about a country long gone beyond having a population being able to speak out. So there’s always a bypass before things really have gone south (see Signal proxies or other messengers and DNS posing as regular traffic). And the flying spaghetti monster help me, I will disobey. > [@MyIdentityIsntImportant](#): > > Only criminals do that. This narrative is difficult to avoid. Many people, who don’t care as much (or don’t realize they should), just buy it with the “I have nothing to hide” discount. Which is why loud voices have to compete against it as best as they can. Like I mentioned earlier, in a lot of countries, the ruling party still is under much scrutiny by the opposition and there is a big incentive to prove them wrong. This status must not be carelessly lost under any circumstances. > [@MyIdentityIsntImportant](#): > > as much as FOSS projects can help us, they’re not the correct type of solution Of course not. Their open nature makes it really obvious for a government where to fix things. But they also easily spread and adapt, so it could escalate into a glorified Whack-A-Mole, or cat and mouse game, if you will. > [@MyIdentityIsntImportant](#): > > The beatings will continue until morale improves. Right, but you can be sure I will hit back before it is dangerous, and also after I can no longer deal with this crap even if it became dangerous. Something like the former will have to be done now. > [@MyIdentityIsntImportant](#): > > Until the people say _no_, things like these will be pushed. And when people do say _no_, things will be pushed right up to that line, after which the line _will_ be tested to determine if it’s actually a line or just a bluff. This is the status quo and you’re absolutely correct. We’d have to stand our ground to make sure they don’t even dare to assume it is a bluff. And a bluff it even is not right now. It is a formal opposition in a system that still allows it. We must prevail and push back. --- ## Post 18 by @DanielM — 2026-07-06T12:46:29Z > [@MyIdentityIsntImportant](#): > > active politically I’m not an activist. My work is something else. The context in this publication is about “politics” and the motives behind it. --- ## Post 19 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-06T15:03:36Z You don’t have to be an political activist to be active politically. It does not have to be an ism. It only needs to be a person informing their elected representative that they don’t agree, and as a consequence, doing what they were elected for. Also, commenter did not address you personally besides replying to your comment. The way I see it, they addressed this ever-growing movement to test limits and thresholds, which I agree with. This is another symptom and this thread is to inform people about it and taking action against it, should they agree. Like I said above, I appreciate the constructive discussion above, but is has long become adjacent at best, so let’s stop it already. Let us furthermore only discuss the implications, the means to avoid it, and the newest developments around it. --- ## Post 20 by @DanielM — 2026-07-06T15:50:11Z > [@anon76815711](#): > > Let us furthermore only discuss the implications, the means to avoid it, and the newest developments around it. You haven’t understood me. I don’t just see the “surface” of chat control; I see the sub-branches and their deeper connections in different directions. Privacy Guides talks about certain topics that I mentioned to you, but I gave you broader information. It’s to contribute to the topic. You’ll decide what to do with it. Keep me informed on the situation, if you wish. --- ## Post 21 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-07T08:06:12Z **Final call:** If you’re still interested, try to call your MEP’s office before 12.00 CEST **(find “Supports” MEPs of your countries and their offices’s phone number on fightchatcontrol.eu)** and at least ask them to consider opposing the urgent procedure trickery, so they are not forced into a rushed decision on an already expired and dismissed topic. (Also consider including “Opposes” MEPs, they could have changed their stance or are able to speak to their colleagues.) 12.00 CEST is in 2 hours from this comment. --- ## Post 22 by @SYST3M_D3STR0YER — 2026-07-07T08:45:47Z _ **LAST TIME, IT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY ONE, YES, ONE SINGLE VOTE. EVERY CALL, EVERYTHING COUNTS.** _ > The first iteration of Chat Control, commonly dubbed “Chat Control 1.0”, was ultimately rejected on March 26, 2026, following a vote that passed by one vote that rejected the extension of the regulation. However, later iterations of Chat Control, commonly dubbed “Chat Control 2.0”, are still under discussion.[[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control#cite_note-6) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat\_Control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control) > **[Fight Chat Control - Protect Digital Privacy in the EU](https://fightchatcontrol.eu/)** > > Learn about the EU Chat Control proposal and contact your representatives to protect digital privacy and encryption. --- ## Post 23 by @kalium — 2026-07-07T11:10:57Z Bad news > **[Patrick Breyer (@echo_pbreyer@digitalcourage.social)](https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/116878253081563900)** > > Narrow majority to allow the urgent motion to reinstate #ChatControl 1.0 mass scans. > 331 in favor. > 304 against. > 11 abstentions. > A dark day for privacy and democracy. On Thursday, there will be a vote on the substance of the law. Only an absolute... --- ## Post 24 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-07T11:48:09Z Right, but it was **only accepted to grant an urgent procedure** to make a vote happen this week. Also, it was almost split 50/50, so **half of our MEPs directly shut it down** , be it only for its urgency request or being opposed altogether. **IMO this shows there’s not much convincing needed.** **People opposing it, make sure to get your voices heard before the vote on thursday via emailing or calling your MEP’s office** (listed on fightchatcontrol.eu or searchable on the EU parliament’s website). **If you don’t want to write a longer text, at least only tell them you are opposed for the many established downsides, like diverting ressources from already very successful prosecution efforts, or being inferior than directly educating the children in school.** (Also, a sad fact: I did not check other group accounts yet, but the official X/Twitter account of the EPP group repeatedly spreads misinformation about the topic even bending an obscure 8/10 on their own graphic to "90%“, and earns comments exclusively against it. Will later add the other groups, if relevant.) --- ## Post 25 by @Beepstek — 2026-07-07T13:09:48Z Sent 5+ representatives an email. :raised_fist: Hopefully able to change some minds or add more critical thinking behind the representatives decisions. --- ## Post 26 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-07T14:23:50Z Great! :raised_fist: (Unfortunately) I’m from Germany, so it’s 96 again for me. :upside_down_face: **Edit:** For those skipping the updates on the first post (worth checking out), I’d like to mention that of the stances of German MEPs listed on fightchatcontrol.eu, **more than just the opposed ones have voted against the urgency procedure today.** I have not cross-referenced names. I only looked at their numbers. (Which is why you should not just feel safe with an MEP listed as opposing and contact them as well.) **This could mean a stance change, or simply opposing the urgent procedure of it (which should have been in their interest).** Also: **The European People’s Party group** (a group is a coalition of parties across countries that share similar values), which I have previously mentioned as spreading and repeating misinformation on their X/Twitter ([one of many aggressive tweets, this is one with the 8/10=90% twist](https://nitter.net/EPPGroup/status/2073830576025485718)), **had by far the most supporters in today’s vote, with almost 100% of their members in favor.** Which would either mean an urgent need to convince them, or to give up on them altogether and to sway more supporting MEPs from the mixed parties to oppose it. **Edit2: As I have previously mentioned, I have now checked the Twitter accounts of the groups.** None of them make Chat Control a big deal, some of them even officially state that they want a real solution instead of it. But man, only the EPP account mass-posts about protecting children vs protecting predators, sometimes multiple times per day… Really hard to not insinuate ulterior motives when one is this aggressive… --- ## Post 27 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-07T18:46:28Z Putting a little bit of America into the topic: **Forefront of current Chat Control revival President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola** , today’s **microphone cutter** of **Martin Sonneborn’s** during [his argumentation](https://nitter.net/MartinSonneborn/status/2074201042703778256) on this **procedure’s violations** , taking a selfie with **Ashton Kutcher, founding member of Thorn** , a child protection non-profit and seller of scanning software, then still member of, March 2023: ![media_HMjB4iEXUAA_fN4](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/8/7/87f136e1f89a0123eaff4d982bae7de9e0c9fc0c.jpeg) --- ## Post 28 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-08T08:31:08Z **Final day before the vote is due tomorrow.** If you can’t email your MEP in time, you may still try calling their office **until the vote is happening**. For Germany, the **votes against yesterdays urgent procedure were already higher than the last tracked vote** on the matter. **On Parliament President Metsola cutting Sonneborn’s microphone during his speech on the violations of this procedure from the last comment:** It is according to the rules to only have a short amount of time (60 seconds?) for your speech, but its strict enforcement is supposedly rare and unusual. Here is the [YouTube link on MEP Sonneborn’s channel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNKFnOJnQpY), an English audio track of the real-time translation is available. --- ## Post 29 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-08T10:03:17Z **Edit: There is a new template on fightchatcontrol.eu / [fightchatcontrol.de](http://fightchatcontrol.de) that you can use.** **You can customize it and also copy all their addresses in the next step.** **This streamlines it even further, if you’re still hesitant about the work involved.** **I suggested a personal text, but at least use the template and show it is important to you.** **Original comment:** If you are from Germany and want an easier time copying their email addresses, **here is a raw list of all 96 German MEP addresses** for copying into your email’s BCC field ( **keep in mind your provider might have limits for either BCC recipients or hourly/daily emails** ): > **German MEP emails** > > ``` > christine.anderson@europarl.europa.eu > rasmus.andresen@europarl.europa.eu > anja.arndt@europarl.europa.eu > rene.aust@europarl.europa.eu > katarina.barley@europarl.europa.eu > arno.bausemer@europarl.europa.eu > hildegard.bentele@europarl.europa.eu > stefan.berger@europarl.europa.eu > sibylle.berg@europarl.europa.eu > gabriele.bischoff@europarl.europa.eu > michael.bloss@europarl.europa.eu > damian.boeselager@europarl.europa.eu > irmhild.bossdorf@europarl.europa.eu > markus.buchheit@europarl.europa.eu > udo.bullmann@europarl.europa.eu > delara.burkhardt@europarl.europa.eu > petr.bystron@europarl.europa.eu > anna.cavazzini@europarl.europa.eu > vivien.costanzo@europarl.europa.eu > tobias.cremer@europarl.europa.eu > fabio.demasi@europarl.europa.eu > oezlem.demirel@europarl.europa.eu > christian.doleschal@europarl.europa.eu > siegbert.droese@europarl.europa.eu > lena.duepont@europarl.europa.eu > matthias.ecke@europarl.europa.eu > christian.ehler@europarl.europa.eu > engin.eroglu@europarl.europa.eu > sebastian.everding@europarl.europa.eu > markus.ferber@europarl.europa.eu > ruth.firmenich@europarl.europa.eu > daniel.freund@europarl.europa.eu > tomasz.froelich@europarl.europa.eu > michael.gahler@europarl.europa.eu > alexandra.geese@europarl.europa.eu > jens.geier@europarl.europa.eu > thomas.geisel@europarl.europa.eu > niels.geuking@europarl.europa.eu > jens.gieseke@europarl.europa.eu > andreas.glueck@europarl.europa.eu > svenja.hahn@europarl.europa.eu > martin.haeusling@europarl.europa.eu > niclas.herbst@europarl.europa.eu > norbert.herhammer@europarl.europa.eu > monika.hohlmeier@europarl.europa.eu > marc.jongen@europarl.europa.eu > alexander.jungbluth@europarl.europa.eu > mary.khan@europarl.europa.eu > stefan.koehler@europarl.europa.eu > moritz.koerner@europarl.europa.eu > sergey.lagodinsky@europarl.europa.eu > bernd.lange@europarl.europa.eu > katrin.langensiepen@europarl.europa.eu > marie-sophie.lanig@europarl.europa.eu > peter.liese@europarl.europa.eu > norbert.lins@europarl.europa.eu > david.mcallister@europarl.europa.eu > erik.marquardt@europarl.europa.eu > alexandra.mehnert@europarl.europa.eu > verena.mertens@europarl.europa.eu > hans.neuhoff@europarl.europa.eu > hannah.neumann@europarl.europa.eu > angelika.niebler@europarl.europa.eu > maria.noichl@europarl.europa.eu > jan-christoph.oetjen@europarl.europa.eu > jutta.paulus@europarl.europa.eu > friedrich.puerner@europarl.europa.eu > martin.guenther@europarl.europa.eu > dennis.radtke@europarl.europa.eu > terry.reintke@europarl.europa.eu > rene.repasi@europarl.europa.eu > sabrina.repp@europarl.europa.eu > nela.riehl@europarl.europa.eu > manuela.ripa@europarl.europa.eu > oliver.schenk@europarl.europa.eu > martin.schirdewan@europarl.europa.eu > volker.schnurrbusch@europarl.europa.eu > andreas.schwab@europarl.europa.eu > ralf.seekatz@europarl.europa.eu > alexander.sell@europarl.europa.eu > lukas.sieper@europarl.europa.eu > sven.simon@europarl.europa.eu > christine.singer@europarl.europa.eu > birgit.sippel@europarl.europa.eu > martin.sonneborn@europarl.europa.eu > marie-agnes.strack-zimmermann@europarl.europa.eu > joachim.streit@europarl.europa.eu > kai.tegethoff@europarl.europa.eu > sabine.verheyen@europarl.europa.eu > michael.vonderschulenburg@europarl.europa.eu > axel.voss@europarl.europa.eu > marionerika.walsmann@europarl.europa.eu > jan-peter.warnke@europarl.europa.eu > manfred.weber@europarl.europa.eu > andrea.wechsler@europarl.europa.eu > tiemo.woelken@europarl.europa.eu > ``` ~~**If you are from another country with a large list, you could help out by posting your addresses in this format using this:**~~ **Not needed, you can copy your batch during the second step on fightchatcontrol.** ``` [Delete both "\", they only keep this example block intact] [details="CountryXYZ MEP emails"] \``` xyz@europarl.europa.eu \``` [/details] ``` --- ## Post 30 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-08T14:19:26Z More confrontation of EU Parliament President Metsola by Czech MEP Markéta Gregorová of the European Pirates, followed up by Metsola claiming to “do [her] job according to every single rule”, which both Gregorová and Sonneborn have shown not to be the case. (Spoken English, only title and description Czech) > **[Tímto hlasováním porušujeme vlastní pravidla. 😤](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CncrZtDr8)** > > Evropští lidovci zneužívají svoji pozici nejsilnější frakce a vrací nám právní kličkou na agendu znovu návrh, který jsme odmítli. I přes moje upozornění přím... **(Also, only 19½ hours until vote from posting this comment.)** --- ## Post 31 by @lemonjuise20 — 2026-07-08T15:07:13Z Is there a chance this proposal is going be passed? Because it definitly feels like one. --- ## Post 32 by @Regime6045 — 2026-07-08T15:34:26Z It will most likely be passed. But important to note this is not the Chat Control 2.0 proposal which wanted to backdoor end-to-end encrypted chats. This is the 1.0 proposal for the mass scanning of unencrypted (no E2EE) messages. --- ## Post 33 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-08T15:39:12Z It even has been active until the beginning of april this year, when it expired, following a vote days prior that shut its extension down. Now is the **biggest chance for the supporting MEPs to force it through, or beat it through** , as Sonneborn put it. The thing is, **it only got shut down very narrowly last time (one vote), and it seems since then 100% of the EPP (usually conservative parties) minus only 3 MEPs (2 abstentions and 1 opposition) have banded together.** Since the EPP group is the biggest group in the parliament, almost 100% from them in favor is a tall order (_and also very questionable how much personal opinion is left in there at this rate_). What makes it even more difficult: **It can only be avoided by an absolute majority now** (more than half of all elegible voters). **Metsola’s urgent push just before summer recess** , especially since tomorrow is the last day, **means that a lot of MEPs are already on vacation.** So **her initiative even exploits that a lot of voters are not even present** , which means **their absence even benefits her.** So yeah, we even need a significant amount of votes from yesterday’s votes in favor of the urgent procedure. Since then, I’m sure a lot more emails have reached the MEPs, some press outlets even reported on the trickery behind it, maybe convincing other MEPs to vote against it. --- ## Post 34 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-08T15:58:36Z Another point I thought of, maybe someone knows the technical side better: Will such a system only be able to report hashes or something? Or would it be able to even send the material to local authorities for revision? I imagine there would be safeguards, but even then, imagine a private company being informed that there are nudes of your child on their system. **Would it not take only one rogue employee to get access to these files?** --- ## Post 35 by @lemonjuise20 — 2026-07-08T16:09:59Z Welp, I guess I’m not chatting anywhere without encryption, including here. --- ## Post 36 by @Colter — 2026-07-08T17:06:06Z Its a fucking joke that the EU parliament always gets pushed around by the other institutions who are far less democratic. --- ## Post 37 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-08T18:35:36Z Not only that, it is just as bad inside the parliament now, seeing the **Parliament** President even exploiting the system. Then there is a healthy ratio of mixed opinions across the groups, which is fine. But you can be sure I am **never voting for parties on neither European nor national level** , where members **colluding so blatantly push their agenda** , when the agenda itself even is questionable at best. **The EPP group is really strong-arming the rest of the parliament here with their effective 100% consensus** , which is outrageous. --- ## Post 38 by @lemonjuise20 — 2026-07-08T19:28:57Z Yeah, the EU is fucked. --- ## Post 39 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-09T10:42:21Z Vote over, Chat Control 1.0 passes again. [MEP Martin Sonneborn on X:](https://nitter.net/MartinSonneborn/status/2075165738856300718) **“Chat Control is coming. No good day for freedom & civil rights…”** ![media_HMx4PaYWEAAMqwL](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/d/e/de626a0f0c2818af52157fc8c248cd3080d1047a.jpeg) - [Also Sonneborn:](https://nitter.net/MartinSonneborn/status/2075133155120460144) **"In case someone is wondering how Parliament President Metsola could have come up with the clever idea putting Chat Control on the agenda for today, 12:00 (illegitimately) - here are some snapshots from her California visit at the end of May… Smiley![sic]** **In this picture: US-Tech-Bros Mark Zuckerberg, the guy from Google, Tim Cook, Roberta Metaxa[sic]"** ![media_HMxaMm9WQAA8LpL](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/5/4/5484beeed48ddb1f866fc84830e9889003c144f0.jpeg) **[Additional link to earlier comment with selfie of Metsola and Ashton Kutcher from May 2023](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/eu-presidency-led-initiative-to-revive-chat-control-1-0-cc1-0-gets-reinstated-again-until-2028/38982/27)** > **Who Sonneborn is:** > > Sonneborn is federal chairman of the initially satirical party “Die PARTEI” (The PARTY), as he also was editor-in-chief of German satirical magazine “Titanic”. Which is why there is often a satirical or cynical tone to his statements - see “beating through [Chat Control]” in the video above. - **Personal opinion:** We return to the status quo before the end of March, it’s not all lost. **Tell your family and friends to use trusted and end-to-end encrypted services instead of big tech.** **The scanning is still voluntary, however big tech will happily oblige.** **Stay informed and stay vigilant, for there will be a Chat Control 2.0 again.** Contact your MEPs early, **even a first time before there are new developments on CC2.0**. **Don’t spam** them, tell them who you are, what you do, whether you have kids, politely state all your concerns and don’t disrespect their position. Don’t be discouraged or angry when they don’t reply. **I send over 200 (self written) emails and only one MEP replied** with a prepared statement of his opposition, which I still appreciate. Do not falter. They are our representatives and still need our votes. Them, or privacy friendlier parties in the next election. (Especially those previously given to EPP parties in their group-wide almost 100% collusion…) --- ## Post 40 by @sneakysquirel — 2026-07-09T11:11:22Z Is the vote secret or public ballot? Can we at least know who voted in favor to try to hold them accountable? This hole situation madness, how tf did this happen --- ## Post 41 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-09T11:36:52Z Votes are public. Besides the official website of the parliament, they get tracked more conveniently on mepwatch.eu or on howtheyvote.eu. I don’t have a link yet, but they should update soon and I will add one. **Edit: [Here’s the vote on howtheyvote.eu.](https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775)** Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but as this is a “Proposition de rejet” (Proposal for rejection), you’ll have to look at it inversely, no? (And wouldn’t the total bar be unintentionally misleading?) That should mean a vote in favor is a vote to reject it, if I understood correctly. This would be also why a absolute majority would have been needed, as absent MEPs count as not rejecting it, am I wrong? If not, this would be the aforementioned major gambit of Metsola&Co, meaning claiming these missing votes for them through a loophole. --- ## Post 42 by @kalium — 2026-07-09T11:38:55Z Article by Patrick Breyer: > **[EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0 – Breyer: "Our children lose out"](https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-parliament-greenlights-chat-control-1-0-breyer-our-children-lose-out/)** > > Today, the European Parliament allowed the suspicionless mass scanning of private communications ("Chat Control 1.0") to pass, a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually... Dumb question maybe, but when they say they scan “communication”, what is that actually referring to? Is it just person-to-person chats? Or also forum posts, comment sections or what else? --- ## Post 44 by @kalium — 2026-07-09T12:09:34Z Right, should have read it more carefully :person_facepalming: --- ## Post 45 by @fiqiluvo.epileto — 2026-07-09T12:25:29Z > [@anon76815711](#): > > "In case someone is wondering how Parliament President Metsola could have come up with the clever idea putting Chat Control on the agenda for today Read the bill to understand that it subjects companies to implement more processes and spend more money. Showing proof of intent from a press release pictures is certainly a choice. I doubt that Google and especially Apple wanted this, only Zuckerberg’s sister could’ve influenced him so it’s 1/3 for me. --- ## Post 46 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-09T12:40:12Z I have only linked MEP Sonneborn’s post on X and translated it to closely resemble its tone while being mostly verbatim. Sure, companies would spend more money, but are also enabled to source more data from this. Before, they were **not allowed** (i.e. not only not financially incentivized), and now they can do it on a voluntary base. As it stands, everyone of them is affected; Google with Gmail, Apple in at least parts of iMessage and Meta with Facebook. --- ## Post 47 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-09T12:54:53Z I posted [the link to the vote on howtheyvote in my previous comment](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/eu-presidency-led-initiative-to-revive-chat-control-1-0-cc1-0-gets-reinstated-again-until-2028/38982/41), as well as how it is presumably to be interpreted. [Here is the link from mepwatch](https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=195775). **Important:** I think, as this is a “Proposition de rejet” (Proposal for rejection), you’ll have to look at the votes inversely. **A vote in favor is a vote against Chat Control.** This was probably done by Metsola&Co to utilize all absentees’ missing votes against the rejection. **Edit: Wait, did Tuesday’s 331/304/11 turn into today’s 276/314/17?!** **Do I interpret these correctly?** This would mean **a big change** , if we assume Tuesday’s vote as actual positions. **If the absentees would have been split similarly, it could have been narrowly won, despite the odds and the trickery.** --- ## Post 48 by @kalium — 2026-07-09T13:15:49Z ![Screenshot_20260709-150917_1_1](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/2/b/2b24a8452886df083488f6dfad4838e982e8b3c6.png) Man, this doesn’t bode well for the Ireland presidency --- ## Post 49 by @Quantum — 2026-07-09T14:29:23Z There is a bizarre (and annoyingly increasing) trend in online discourse for Europeans to blame all their problems on the U.S. I don’t think that sentiment is really popular IRL, but it’s becoming malignant online. The EU did this to itself. It was not US tech companies. --- ## Post 50 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-09T15:18:23Z **If you’re interested in a visual representation of your country’s national party distribution:** - go to [https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=195775](https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=195775) - scroll to the second bar chart “%MEP" - find the bar with your country’s code and click on the bar - a bar chart above it now appears with the national parties **Example with Germany:** As you can see, **all parties 100% opposed besides the conservative CDU/CSU and Family Party, who 100% supported Chat Control 1.0** (alongside almost 100% of their associated European People’s Party group relatives): ![Screenshot_20260709-170609_Brave (0)](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/a/3/a36f814f7d315b8a6d927b382f5fd9f9f24468ed.png) **I have to say, I’m pretty happy about the German votes.** Of course the related CDU and CSU banded together to support it, with chancellor Merz of the CDU a vehement supporter, probably afraid to show weakness by infighting in current national politcal climate. --- ## Post 51 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-09T18:30:29Z For anyone curious (and if I did not make a major mistake), some approximations: Distributing every absentee according to their parties percentage on todays vote: - **Against** CC1.0: ~372 (58) - **Favoring** CC1.0: ~325 (51) - **Abstaining** : ~20 (3) — Anyway, apparently on average 11.8% of MEPs are absent on a roll-call vote (disregarding if one party has more absentees in general), which means for today’s numbers, if it wasn’t for summer recess: - **Against** : ~328 - **Favoring** : ~287 - **Abstaining** : ~18 — This would not make the absolute majority needed, so the gambit with the “Proposal for rejection” paid off splendidly. — Also, like I indicated in a recent comment, positions changed noticeably since last direct vote on the matter, **possibly because of you**. March 26th’s vote compared to July 9th’s: - **In favor:** 306 → 274 - **Against:** 307 → 314 - **Abstaining:** 24 → 17 --- ## Post 52 by @win11.shading291 — 2026-07-15T21:04:57Z > **Offtopic** > > It’s not bizarre, there’s been multiple visits by Musk and the likes to influence European politics. > > I’m not saying it’s all the US fault, but… > > [EU lawmakers try to counter tech bros’ Washington lobbying – POLITICO](https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-lawmakers-counter-tech-bro-washington-lobby-mark-zuckerberg-elon-musk/) > > [Elon Musk trying to influence upcoming German election, Berlin says – POLITICO](https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-interferes-german-election-berlin-says-afd-tech-billionaire/) > > [Reddit User Uncovers Who Is Behind Meta's $2B Lobbying for Invasive Age Verification Tech - NewsBreak](https://www.newsbreak.com/gadget-review-324582152/4542766166308-reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-behind-meta-s-2b-lobbying-for-invasive-age-verification-tech) --- ## Post 53 by @Quantum — 2026-07-17T02:59:45Z Lobbying is a normal activity conducted by every industry/interest group. Big Tech does a lot more lobbying in the U.S. and yet there is no Chat Control there. Laws are passed by legislators. They are the ones responsible for bad laws. --- ## Post 54 by @anon76815711 — 2026-07-18T18:24:18Z Yes, lobbying is not bad per se, it is often used for good. It becomes bad when a disproportionately large party like a multi-billion dollar company utilizes **financial incentive or leverage against politicians** official duty to establish a narrative or consensus they (i.e. the company) benefit from, oftentimes to the detriment of or against the intent of the citizens. > [@Quantum](#): > > Big Tech does a lot more lobbying in the U.S. and yet there is no Chat Control there. Well yes, but **there also aren’t guardrails to prohibit them** from doing exactly that. If I understand correctly (IANAL): Under **18 U.S.C. § 2258A** US companies **only have a duty to report material** once they reach a knowledge threshold, but they are **not prohibited from analyzing** material to reach that threshold, e.g. **Snap automatically analyzing pictures**. It is already allowed there, so no need for a CC1.0 equivalent.