←back to thread

Denmark reportedly withdraws Chat Control proposal following controversy

(therecord.media)
568 points layer8 | 7 comments | 30 Oct 25 21:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
FinnKuhn ◴[30 Oct 25 23:07 UTC] No.45766467[source]▶
> The last chance for an agreement under Danish leadership is in December; the government in Copenhagen apparently preferred a compromise without chat control to no agreement at all. The current regulation, which allows the large platform providers to voluntarily and actively search for potential depictions of abuse, expires next spring after extension. It is precisely this voluntariness that Denmark's Minister of Justice now wants to codify within the framework of the future CSA regulation, which also contains a multitude of other, less controversial projects. [1]

Doesn't sound like it is over yet - only delayed.

[1] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Denmark-surprisingly-abandons-p...

replies(6): >>45766727 #>>45766789 #>>45766836 #>>45766914 #>>45767401 #>>45771111 #
1. zigzagger11 ◴[30 Oct 25 23:44 UTC] No.45766789[source]▶
That's why sites like this are so powerful. They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time.

This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide.

replies(2): >>45767139 #>>45767226 #
2. tavavex ◴[31 Oct 25 00:41 UTC] No.45767139[source]▶
> This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide.

Why would mass-emailing be effective, though? This one instance strikes me as the exception, not the rule, especially in a world where I see calls to write to your local government all the time (and basically none of it results in anything)

It costs them nothing to ignore emails. There's nothing on your end of the argument to use as leverage. It doesn't put any barriers to just right click->deleting the emails, or answering with something akin to "Thanks for your concern, but this isn't about you and we know better than you, so please stay out of it", just worded in a vaguer and more polite way.

replies(1): >>45767935 #
3. boltzmann-brain ◴[31 Oct 25 00:55 UTC] No.45767226[source]▶
> They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time

I'm one of the founders of Stop Killing Games. Me and a large group of other people have gotten annoyed at this cycle and have taken it upon ourselves to make such laws impossible to implement in the future. We're organizing the campaign now - this is fully separate from SKG, but a bunch of the same people who helped SKG succeed, and a plan that takes into accounts the learnings from SKG.

We're looking for people such as politicians, lawyers (EU/US/UK law), journalists, and donors who want to see Chat Control dead forever. If interested, email stopkillinggames+hn @ google's email service.

I think the value proposition for VCs and C-suite is pretty obvious here, you get to keep the government's hands off your communications and internal systems, which is directly where Chat Control is headed. Even avoiding the cost of Chat Control compliance (dev work, devops, legal, ...) can easily run into 7 figures for a larger corporation, and 8-9 figures for the top players.

replies(1): >>45767406 #
4. godelski ◴[31 Oct 25 01:30 UTC] No.45767406[source]▶
I know in the US, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is highly involved in Net Neutrality and tech. I once had a long conversation with his aid who specialized in tech issues and was quite happy with what they were trying to do. I'd recommend reaching out to his team. I'd expect that they would be happy to work with you all and help you navigate the space.
5. zigzagger11 ◴[31 Oct 25 03:10 UTC] No.45767935[source]▶
Mass emailing is effective because it's en masse. Hence the success in this situation. The things you're citing are the opposite of this approach.
replies(1): >>45768695 #
6. tavavex ◴[31 Oct 25 05:25 UTC] No.45768695{3}[source]▶
Both things I'm citing can work on a large scale with some effort, through the power of mass-deletion and auto-replying. I'm just not seeing how pushing some text towards a government representative compels them to act at all, especially when money and power are what's on the other end of the scale.
replies(1): >>45772617 #
7. zigzagger11 ◴[31 Oct 25 14:52 UTC] No.45772617{4}[source]▶
Well, maybe take a look at how this worked out? Because you're saying that all they have to do is delete the emails, but clearly that isn't what happened here.

The biggest difference is that there's little effort involved here. One click to send mass emails out to all relevant politicians. No they can not ignore a constant stream of emails from the electorate. Frankly, it doesn't seem like you understand why this site was different or effective.