Chat Control didnt pass - they didnt even vote because they were afraid the result would be embarassing.
And we got told so many times, that EU now wants Chat Control. But it was a big fat lie.
EU is a democracy with different opinions, and when a small group of facists tries to read your chats, it does not represent the EU opinion.
But the whole media got you thinking so. Proving even on Lemmy, you and me are extremly prone to propaganda.
I quoted the article here with the news:
In a major breakthrough for the digital rights movement, the German government has refused to back the EU’s controversial Chat Control regulation yesterday after facing massive public pressure.
The government did not take a position on the proposal.
This blocks the required majority in the EU Council, derailing the plan to pass the surveillance law next week.
Media covinced people that it was coming and it didn’t - my understanding of the argument.
deleted by creator
It reminds me of when climate hoaxers claim the hole in the ozone layer shrinking proves those campaigning to fix it were just fearmongering.
I work on software security (not it/infosec) and deal with this constantly. Bad stuff didn’t happen so we can scale back security, right? No, shit for brains, either the bad stuff didn’t happen because we prevented it, or the bad stuff just hasn’t happened yet because the vulnerability wasn’t discovered, or worse still, the bad stuff DID happen and we haven’t been informed yet. Either way, please do not make my job harder.
Yeah, I can totally empathise. I used to work in QA for a couple different software companies, including around CVEs and security bug bounty programs. One company scaled back their QA department to near nothing, the other eliminated QA altogether, instead relying on devs to QA their own stuff or automation. It’s not going well for either of them.
it never does lol
vaccines also. nobody is getting sick so vaccines must be unneccessary
That seems like a statement. I’m still lost on how this answers the question
They answered the second question. The problem is that OP was not actually posing anything coherent.
They’re alleging some made up media conspiracy that makes no sense and undermines the impact of the media on the outcome.
Yeah, agreed.
I’m not hugely on board with the comment answering the second question though. For me, it’s a bit too similar to saying that meteorologists lied to us because they said there was a 60% chance of rain and it didn’t happen. In the context of this question its a lot more complicated than that though