to be clear, I obviously think the campaign against chat control is a very good and very necessary thing; I shared the article because I found the campaign methods interesting and also wanted to draw more attention to what’s going on, not because I agree with all of its framing (although I understood the “spam” in the headline to be tongue-in-cheek, maybe not everyone did though?).
I appreciate that. It’s important to note though that there’s much more wrong with their headline and subtitle than just the word “spam”. They’re trying hard to make it look as if it was really just some single peasant, who didn’t stay in his lane, abusing the powers accorded to him through modern technology, and the policymakers were so foolish as to fall for it:
One-man spam campaign ravages EU ‘chat control’ bill
A software developer from Denmark is having an outsized influence on a hotly debated law to break open encrypted apps.
They seem to think the only person allowed to have an outsized influence is Friede Springer, their owner.
to be clear, I obviously think the campaign against chat control is a very good and very necessary thing; I shared the article because I found the campaign methods interesting and also wanted to draw more attention to what’s going on, not because I agree with all of its framing (although I understood the “spam” in the headline to be tongue-in-cheek, maybe not everyone did though?).
I appreciate that. It’s important to note though that there’s much more wrong with their headline and subtitle than just the word “spam”. They’re trying hard to make it look as if it was really just some single peasant, who didn’t stay in his lane, abusing the powers accorded to him through modern technology, and the policymakers were so foolish as to fall for it:
They seem to think the only person allowed to have an outsized influence is Friede Springer, their owner.