[belval]

> Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations?

Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it.

[omnimus]

Also without chat control they would have to follow much stricter eprivacy directive laws that makes many of their monetisation strategies ilegal.

It's briliant really... instead of trying to dismantle privacy regulations you push for new regulation that overrides them and make data mining users even mandatory.

[frollogaston]

I get why this might be a thing, but scanning E2EE messages? Big tech invested a lot in making E2EE happen.

[blackqueeriroh]

Apple is wholly against Chat Control.

[omnimus]

Where did you get that impression? The main driver for Chat Control 2.0 is lobby org Internet Watch Foundation where Apple one of the main donors (along with Meta, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI)

[the_mar]

because we all can agree child porn is bad and just because a company donates to a charity doesn't mean they get to dictate their policies

[omnimus]

In a same way - just because a charity claims they want to solve child porn doesn't mean that their real aim is to help their donors.

In any case the OP claimed "Apple is wholly against Chat Control." i don't think it's so wholly if Apple financially supports biggest pro Chat Control proponents. Even if Apple is aware of it or not.

[elictronic]

That is regulatory capture but it really feels like it should be called something else.

If the laws are designed to directly benefit it makes sense like with the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate to the point of killing a few hundred people. This feels more like bureaucratic capture or some other name, where the entity must be so large to interact.

It has the same effect and you are not wrong, I just wish it was clearer.

[inglor_cz]

I cannot imagine Musk simply submitting to this sort of EU demand, and he has enough hue-and-cry capability on X to maneuver other tech firms into very uncomfortable positions in the same regard.

[omnimus]

Dream on. X corp is one of the sponsors of Internet Watch Foundation who are the lobby group behind Chat Control. Musk might play how terrible this is for his audience but in reality they sell all the user data and train their models on it just like every other big tech corp.

[sebastiennight]

You're implying that X is not scanning, or ever planning to scan, private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion?

[atmosx]

lol He'll put on a show and then cave-in like he always does: https://people.com/elon-musk-says-he-didnt-do-nazi-salute-at...

[m4xp]

Blud thinks musk has any principles, he is literally grifting for maga to stop immigration and then goes and facilitates h1b when there are plenty of talented workers that could be hired.

[jurgenburgen]

That guy is outright cheerleading fascists in European countries and wants to put them in power. Why would he want to take away such a powerful tool from them?

[inglor_cz]

He definitely does not want to put this power into the hands of EPP and S+D, which are precisely the two fractions that pushed this through.

[Mountain_Skies]

Once a law is passed that permits abuse of power, that new toy is available to whoever is in control of the government, which could be the parties he likes. Seen this kind of thing over and over again when one group gains control of a level of government, passes a bunch of authoritarian crap under the belief they have a mandate to rule forever, and then lose power, giving their opponents control over that new authoritarian toy. In the end, the political class gains more power and the public loses. What rarely happens is a change in leadership giving up the power the previous leadership gave itself.

[Hugsbox]

L, and I cannot stress this enough, OL