The problem is that they can repeat this game indefinitely, Chat Control 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 231.24, ... Just slightly modify the initial Chat Control proposal, make it sound less harsh, and then resubmit it until they achieve a sufficient majority in the EU Parliament, while the general public gets too tired of the topic to create sufficient resistance.
fightchatcontrol.eu published the complete list of all countries stance on Chat Control and all representatives. They can be contacted via mail directly from the site.
Thanks for the link. While it will help to pressure undecided representatives and see who not to vote for in the future, the root cause of the problem remains unaddressed. Why do these proposals exist? Who/what is motivating them? It seems like nefarious actors are coordinating in secret, and they need to be exposed.
We should also try to minimize the number of useful idiots who are genuinely concerned about children's safety. There are two excuses being used to push these surveillance laws: CSAM scanning and content moderation for children. These are bad excuses and we need to call them out as such in every conversation.
CSAM scanning ignores the actual problem, which is the process by which CSAM is created. The root problem is the trafficking of children in physical space, not the tools used to transmit and store child porn, which are general purpose tools used to transmit and store anything. Our efforts and resources, as a matter of priority, should be spent on preventing children from being trafficked in the first place.
The under-16 social media ban ignores the actual problem of parental responsibility. We could implement configurable IP filters on the device itself at the OS level, with the setting being protected by a password parents can set, and this could be done completely offline. It would be way easier to implement and will work better than any of these remote solutions. And as a matter of principle: it is the responsibility of parents to decide how to raise their own children.
The purpose has never been to protect children; it's just a convenient motivation against which nobody would dare to object, just like mandating age restriction for porn sites is nothing more than an excuse to pushing further for elimination of anonymity, which started with porn sites exactly because nobody would dare exposing themselves for objecting to it. As I already wrote elsewhere, this happens while thousands of children are murdered in various wars, to their complete silence because going anywhere beyond the usual empty public condemnation followed by nothing would put them against very powerful foreign governments.
