"spam" is a grave mischaracterization, at that. It's a tool assisting citizens to voice their concerns to their elected representatives.
I also feel uneasy about Politico putting the lights on the creator this way and stopping short of doxxing them when they clearly wish to have their identity unknown and could face threats from having their personals broadcasted.
It's also telling that the two opponents to the bill named in the article are Musk and WhatsApp - hardly the most sympathetic picks for the Politico audience.
My main problem with Fight Chat Control is that it asks people to send messages to the wrong audience. The site asks me to contact members of the European /parliament/, while the proposal is being discussed by the EU /commission/, a completely different body.
The commissioners are not elected by the citizens of their respective countries. Instead, they are selected via a parliamentary vetting process, and approved by the European Parliament.
The commission has no direct responsibility towards the citizens in EU. It is also the European Parliament that scrutinized and votes on the laws created by the commission. The commission job is only to write proposal for laws.
This is a bit like complaining that people have objections about a politician speech and send emails to the politician rather than the employed person who wrote it. Should citizens direct their messages and complaints to speech writes?
This does not seem a fitting metaphor: you complain only after the politician has read that speech. But this whole campaign is about a speech that has not been written yet, i.e., a proposal that has not been finalized. You are writing to a MEP about a certain draft that is still being worked on, and that they might have to vote on in the future.
What do you expect them to answer, other than "thanks, I can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind if and when I have to vote on it"? Why not wait and write to them when they actually have to vote on this proposal?
Just like a political speech writer do not invent what they write independently without some input and oversight by the politician, so does the commission.
This is also politics. You don't wait until last second to file a complaint. Politics is a slow moving process, not a single event, and creating support takes work over time. MEP are not subject experts so they will usually seek input long before it comes down to voting, which occur in parallel with the work of the commission.
"thanks, I can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind if and when I have to vote on it"? is basically all that an citizens can expect by talking to a politician which only job is to vote on things. The same goes the other way around. If a politician today speaks about a political subject, I as a citizen can only say "thanks, I can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind when its time to vote".
I don't understand. I thought politicians are a subset of the people. If millions are aware of the issue and the speech, why would the politicians be oblivious?
Yes you are correct, but technically the parliament passes the laws, so they have the final say. It should be the commission that gets slapped in the face (or even better dissolved as it's quite undemocratic), but what can you do...
>>or even better dissolved as it's quite undemocratic)
I never understood this argument. The comission's job is to write the laws, the parliment's job is to make sure they acceptable to all member states and either pass them or send them back.
It's the same how say, UK government uses various comissions to write legislation which then goes in front of the parliment which then either passes it or don't - and I don't think we would call the British system undemocratic(well, other than the monarchy and the house of lords - but the way the parliment works is deeply democratic). I don't believe any EU member state directly elects their law writers and comissions that propose them - the democratic part is always at the top.
I think it's fairly common that individual members of parliament do directly draft and submit their own bills, certainly it is not uncommon that they have the right to propose their own bills.
But by volume most of these bills are shit and so just quietly die in a vote nobody noticed, and so most law that we actually have was indeed drafted by a special commission and put forward by the executive before it was approved by parliament.
I mean, in the sense that your comment here was unsolicited, and thus spam, I suppose one could make a semantic argument? But generally "unsolicited" means that it's outside normal communication expectations: we expect people to post on a forum even if their opinion hasn't been explicitly solicited, and we equally expect people to communicate with their representatives.
That depends on how many comments you post in a short time and how repetitive they are. If it looks automated then I think it would be considered spam, at least informally.
Politico.eu is owned by Axel Springer, the same Axel Springer SE which received US$ 7m from the CIA back in the early 2000s [0].
It's the closest to a Fox News-esque entity in Western Europe, I believe. They also own BILD, a tabloid, and Die Welt, a newspaper that constantly publishes climate-skeptic articles, and also infamously published an op-ed by Musk supporting the AfD.
I agree, I feel like it gives the article a negative bias against the developer. Perhaps the editor wants to generate pressure against them or discourage further opposition?
At least it’s not a complete hit piece, if you ignore the title then it’s mostly balanced.
If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't change the stated intention.
If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that doesn't change what the article should state unless there is evidence
They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal instead of writing "that will stop child..."
It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying information from both sides. The article even details that there is an opposition to the bill.
> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”
I have every expectation that Chat Control is either similar or is a blatant cash-grab by people interested in peddling technical "solutions", or both.
Because the bill obviously can‘t do that even if they would scan every message.
They are doctoring at the symptoms than the real issue.
But that would mean more personnel and more money needed and less side effects like mass surveillance
They could say "notionally aimed at". The accusation of detractors would certainly include that that isn't the real goal, so to repeat it uncritically is a bit odd.
> Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? ... And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts
I would guess that the author is to involved with writing the headline. An awful lot of journalists have been up in arms the last decade over the editors writing new headlines that imply the opposite stance of the article itself...
And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts:
> The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the bill and send it...
And most of the other headlines on their current front page are quite boring and descriptive.