Nitpicking, but this has nothing to do with democracy. I know it works as a form of propaganda to use the "democracy should not do X" but democracy in no way disallows chat control programs. Democracy it's only the system used to chose governing officials. If a majority of the people's representatives approves chat control, it would be perfectly democratic. Anti-democratic would be to remove the freedom to contest the proposal, which no one did or is trying to do.
Also freedom of speech it's about the possibility to express your opinions, not that the opinions would receive no post-expression control nor that the people expressing them should bear no responsibility for what they say.
Monitoring and auditing have always been integral to democratic systems, they are called law enforcement and as such they have broader access to information that must be authorized, it is by design.
In the end it's all about different ideas supported by different parties here, that are discussing a proposal, which is the essence of democracy.
It will resolve in a compromise, as usual.
Those who are discussing it as "evil" VS "good" are missing the point of the democratic process IMO.
Mullvad is in fact urging politicians in the EU to vote no, they are not proposing to attack the EU institutions with guns and those supporting the chat control are not saying that Mullvad "supports online pedophilia".
> If a majority of the people's representatives approves chat control, it would be perfectly democratic.
In liberal theory, the tyranny of the majority[1] was supposedly solved with rights (encoded in constitutions.) The problem here, according to the theory, is that we don't have a right to privacy.
Also freedom of speech it's about the possibility to express your opinions, not that the opinions would receive no post-expression control nor that the people expressing them should bear no responsibility for what they say.
Monitoring and auditing have always been integral to democratic systems, they are called law enforcement and as such they have broader access to information that must be authorized, it is by design.
In the end it's all about different ideas supported by different parties here, that are discussing a proposal, which is the essence of democracy.
It will resolve in a compromise, as usual.
Those who are discussing it as "evil" VS "good" are missing the point of the democratic process IMO.
Mullvad is in fact urging politicians in the EU to vote no, they are not proposing to attack the EU institutions with guns and those supporting the chat control are not saying that Mullvad "supports online pedophilia".