this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
1085 points (99.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
9944 readers
3602 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Agreed - This feels like "we will keep voting on this until we pass it"
politicians to lobbyists: we just need a little more money to pass this
Years ago, had a guy in the young democrats club try to spin lobbying in a positive light, I just kept asking why TF we needed legalized bribery in politics.
Yeah, it feels like that because that's exactly what it is. It's a huge waste of time and money.
Accept chat control?
Do you want chat control?: Yes | Remind me in 3 days
They will keep proposing solutions until the problem is solved. Notice how everytime its voted down they try a different idea? Thats how its supposed to work.
This isn't a problem that needs to be solved.
Do you really think criminals will just continue using chat apps knowing they are being constantly scanned?
Of course not! They will find different ways to communicate. Criminals won't just disappear. This DOESN'T solve crime AT ALL.
This is such a fucking stupid political argument and people are falling for it. "Oh yes, if we introduce mass surveillance, there won't be any more terrorists or pedophiles"
It's pure mass surveillance that doesn't solve the problem and has zero benefit for the society.
Feel free to keep voting it down then.
It's not us who's voting on these issues. It's pretty obvious you don't understand how the process works. Why do you keep discussing it?
Except the "problem" they're trying to solve is to enable them to sueveil anyone.
Encyption for them, not for you.
The problem they want to "solve" is the ability to surveil everyone, which is impossible as long as netcat and gpg exist
Sounds a bit conspiratorial to me but thats just my opinion on it.
This is the same solution to the problem. By only proposing the same solution over and over it's pretty clear they just want full access to messaging. If it was actually about the children or security or whatever they would be attempting more privacy friendly alternatives
Do you have an example of a privacy friendly alternative?
Lucky for me, it's my role or job to pitch them, and I do not need to pitch them to you. You are more than welcome to read the EFF's writeup on alternatives yourself.
Could you send the link to the writeup you're referencing?? I can't find it. There's a whole bunch of EFF pages about Chat Control, but I can't find one specifically about alternatives.
Wow very helpful. Thanks for advocating for your cause so effectively. Clearly your rhetoric will win the day.
You're clearly trying to bait me into some argument which is why I have no interest in finding resources to show you. I'm not biting. I get some references, you try to tell me it's bunk or it won't work, I'm just not feeling it today. I don't feel like being trolled or pulled into your anger circle. So, won't respond anymore. Have a pleasant day!
I can clarify.
First I was asking for an example of a better solution, because I'm not aware of one and it would be nice to learn about one.
The next reply was me being sarcastic because instead of just giving a quick explanation of an idea, you dismissed me and told me to essentially "google it". Since you aren't treating me in good faith, I replied in kind.
Maybe when you are feeling better you can give this another shot. Have a better day.
Its your responsibility to educate yourself, not societies. You're not asking for help, you're asking for tutoring. The previous commenter answered your question anyway by directing you to the EFF. Its not their fault you dont want to put effort in and go read the work of an organisation whose entire purpose is to answer the question you asked.
While you're not wrong, it also would have taken them the same amount of time and effort to make a passing suggestion instead of saying "lol no, look it up yourself."
So yes, it is your own responsibility to educate yourself, but asking the more educated is one way that we do this. And the more educated answering "do your own research" is kind of a dick move.
What if they said "this book explains what you want to know" and you still dont go and read the book? Cos that's what's happening.
Google it. Learn to find information yourself. Its pretty cool what information is out there.
But why would you tell me to read an entire book when all I want is one tidbit of information. One or two words would have been enough, but instead they boasted that they know a lot about the topic and basically said "It's not my job to share information with you."
It's inane.
Sometimes we need to read books/web pages to understand things. This is a pretty complex subject and while our friend above was asking for a privacy friendly alternative (which in this situation I'm not even sure how you summarise into a few words tbh), the poster answered by saying go read work from the EFF. They're a great resource and great explainers, and they've written extensively on this topic.
Idk, should everyone be given the answers to everything, or is telling someone how to find the answer not okay? I'm of the opinion its necessary when a topic is difficult.
Admittedly, they could have said that as well, but I think it was clear the person asking isnt operating in good faith given their response to me. They're a troll.
You really told me, mister!
And the problem Here is what exactly?