The article is written in an extremely manipulating way, the following phrase will trigger the intended knee-jerk reaction in anyone reading this who is not already pretty familiar with the actual content of the proposal and its implications.
> "The website, called Fight Chat Control, was set up by Joachim, a 30-year-old software engineer living in Aalborg, Denmark. He made it after learning of a new attempt to approve a European Union proposal to fight child sexual abuse material (CSAM)"
Now that the casual reader has already drawn a conclusion, they're also primed to dismiss the group referenced in the next sentence as as outliers and crazies (probably with hidden motives regarding CSAM):
> — a bill seen by privacy activists as breaking encryption and leading to mass surveillance.
So yeah, thanks to Joachim for making this.
Of course, it won't actually work, these people don't give a damn about the children, they just want total control, and surveillance and there's no lower bounds for what they will argue to achieve it.
The piece is likely a hired job by someone close to the EU commission. Of course not paid directly, but paid in favours inside the EU. It's unlikely the author is impartial.
That's how it always work. You're against the genocide in Gaza? "Activists think Israel doesn't have a right to exist". You don't like ICE abducting people on the street? "Activists think we shouldn't punish crime". Etc. etc. On and on it goes, this incessant ballet of "moderate" media kissing power's boot, painting the most ungenerous portrait possible out of the people who actually care about bettering the world.
And when the wind turns, they'll quickly sweep these articles under the rug and pretend they were always on the right side of history, defending democracy and freedom on the front line.
> "The website, called Fight Chat Control, was set up by Joachim, a 30-year-old software engineer living in Aalborg, Denmark. He made it after learning of a new attempt to approve a European Union proposal to fight child sexual abuse material (CSAM)"
Now that the casual reader has already drawn a conclusion, they're also primed to dismiss the group referenced in the next sentence as as outliers and crazies (probably with hidden motives regarding CSAM):
> — a bill seen by privacy activists as breaking encryption and leading to mass surveillance.
So yeah, thanks to Joachim for making this. Of course, it won't actually work, these people don't give a damn about the children, they just want total control, and surveillance and there's no lower bounds for what they will argue to achieve it.