[hyperman1]

Not really. This was expected. The commision tends to align with big business friendly proposals. The parliament tends to align with inhabitants, but has less power. Proposals go back and forth.

What makes this story special is how blatantly bribable the commission must be to make them spit out this proposal.

[malermeister]

https://netzpolitik.org/2023/chatkontrolle-lobbyismus-in-37-...

Here's an article in German about the sketchy dealings of the commissioner in question. Apparently, Ashton Kutcher (who's the main lobbying force behind this - how did that happen???), got a meeting with her confirmed 37 minutes after requesting it, while emails from privacy advocates continue being ignored.

[defrost]

Is Ashton Kutcher the actual "main lobbying force" or the hired face of the main lobbying force?

It's relatively common for lobby groups to hire known public faces to front for their interests .. a celebrity face can open a door to a meeting that might not otherwise happen.

It works both ways, celebrities will often hit a point in their careers where they start to look for a good noble cause to front for in order to keep their name and face in the public eye and aligned with <insert feel good values>.

[malermeister]

I think his star power is a big part of what makes the lobbying effective in the first place, so I'm not sure if that distinction even makes sense.

[defrost]

Sure, that is how these things evolve.

For the historians that like to trace the roots of things the test would be whether this is a lobby and cause that was bought into being by its star face, or did it kick around for a few years before being bought to the attention of a star by their PR people and agents.