this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
108 points (96.6% liked)

World News

56979 readers
2093 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stumu415@lemmy.zip 80 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Note that the law passed automatically because at least 361 MEPs did not vote against it, regardless of how many voted for it.

Yes this is a real thing in the EU, you can just pass laws on a minority if they really want them.

Straight out of the US/fascist playbook.

[–] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 17 points 12 hours ago

The US voting system is fucked up and we've got a dictator, but even we don't make a bill into a law when the nays outnumber the yays. Quorum rules exist for a reason.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Technically. The vote was worded in a way that it was about removing the old law - stopping it from being renewed automatically - which requires a 2/3rds majority to happen.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

You need to clarify, the record show majority in favour.

[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 4 points 11 hours ago

The vote was framed as stopping the automated renewal of an existing law.

So in favour means "in favour of not having mass surveillance"

My guess (which I admittedly haven't checked) is that that's also why a simple majority wasn't enough (because they essentially would have been overturning law)

[–] FergleFFergleson@infosec.pub 23 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

This is just gutting to hear about. I'm so incredibly disappointed. I genuinely, and naively as it turns out, thought the EU "leadership" was better than this. :(

[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

People voted in a bunch of right wing nutters, so there you are.

[–] hneerqe@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago
[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 28 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same:

  • What is coming back: US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud.
  • What remains unchanged: Public social media posts and files hosted in cloud storage could already be scanned without this law. Furthermore, private messages can always be reported by users, or monitored by authorities using targeted, court-ordered wiretapping.
  • What is still NOT being scanned: End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European providers of messaging and email services have never implemented chat control measures.
[–] ji59@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Huh? What is this for when e2ee is being exempt? Is it actually privacy measure in style "You will be tracked unless you use encryption"?

[–] Contrary@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

It's a stepping stone towards more surveillance, just like every other bill that lead us here. Small enough that the populus won't riot, large enough that's it's a tangible blow to privacy and democracy.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Howtheyvote show the reverse in the voting record. 314 in favour

[–] lividweasel@lemmy.world 15 points 17 hours ago

Yeah, this article seems to have the numbers flipped.

For: 314(52 %). Against: 276(45 %). Abstentions: 17(3 %). In total, 607 MEPs voted. 112 MEPs didn’t vote.

[–] emigu@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

Oh for fucks sake!

So, what are some good encrypted alternatives to common messaging apps? Signal instead of WhatsApp/Messenger etc? Proton mail/drive/etc instead of Google? Any other suggestions? Would a mobile vpn help?

[–] dfense@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago
[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 13 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Just go offline, I am so sick of everything being an opportunity for privacy invasions and money extraction.

[–] emigu@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

There's a number of both work and private reasons why that won't be feasible. Also, I feel that we should not surrender the whole of Internet because of this bullshit.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

I agree like but every direction is getting fucked at the moment.

[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 9 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Signal instead of WhatsApp is generally a good idea, but WA is not covered by this law as they are end to end encrypting all messages. Switching to Proton Mail would help, using a VPN (most likely) would not.

I can't understand why anybody would trust WhatsApp. It's development and infrastructure are paid for by one of the last companies you want to trust with your private data, and they even run expensive ad spots for it. Why would they do that? Facebook is not altruistic.

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Are you sure it’s all messages? I thought WA group chats are not encrypted.

[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, we don't know for sure since WA is closed source. But group chats are supposed to be encrypted. You're thinking of Telegram.

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago

I don’t use either of them but yeh, I probably mixed them up. Thanks!

[–] katkit@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Perhaps Briar? I keep wanting to try it, but don't have contacts that also do. It runs offline through Bluetooth and WiFi direct as well as online through TOR.

[–] ark3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Why are the votes flipped in the article?

[–] BaroqueW@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

You read correctly the majority went to the nays

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago