No I did not mixed it up, I'm suggesting that proponents of something unpopular need to obtain a tool that works to defend their positions. Not an awful lot of people are into the stuff that Pirate Party advocates, maybe they should find something to push for that an awful lot of people are interested in. "Save the kids" so far has been a very effective tool, the only time it failed as far as I remember is the Apple's auto-policing for CSAM proposal. The internet privacy and freedom advocates need to have something like that.

So, something like "Europe and America will turn into China-style mass surveillance states if we don't demand a change in direction immediately"?

Has the benefit of being relatively true as well. Google leadership was all too eager to get in on the Chinese censorship machine (Dragonfly) as I recall:

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/google-dragonfly-china-cen...

I used to argue against this line of thinking, but as time progressed, I have become progressively more jaded and cynical. I wonder if I am effectively becoming what I previously fought against ('think of the children' line of argumentation), but as time have shown time and time again, it simply works and I am kinda done letting technical illiterates dictate my life.

Maybe we don't have to lower ourselves to exactly that argument, but surely there are other popular takes.

IMHO, intellectual debates and making people go vote for you are different things.

You don’t need a position of power to discuss stuff and come to conclusions.

You've convinced me. Here's a sensible compromise I can imagine:

1. Make a panel of concerned parents to review abuses by recommendation engines and to stop tracking abuses. Think of the children!

2. Give law enforcement the tools they need to deanonymize the abusers and criminals who are trafficking our kids. We don't want them to go dark-- think of the children!

What do you think? I sure hope you're the type of person who really cares about the children, and not the kind of opportunist who would reflexively argue against #2.

And, scene.

If you've got legitimate concerns about the children with well-documented evidence, let's hear it. Otherwise you're going to be out of your league.

I'm confused. Did I give you the impression that I believe that "save the children" is a legitimate concern for controlling the internet?

This whole bill is things that are popular with citizen and that companies opposed. They didn’t have to start writing a digital services act, and it’s building on privacy protections that were already better than anywhere else on earth. The assumption that big business has all the power and always gets everything it wants is prima facie disproven here.