The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal itself. The screenshot in the tweet is about the amendment, which was less important than the fact than then the whole proposal was rejected.

I think this article [0] discussed here [1] is much more informative, and I suggest merging the current comment thread there [1].

I am not sure of the logic of the amendment, as parties voted differently between proposals (eg left parties voted for the amendment and against the whole, and EPP voted against both, S&D voted in favour of both). In any case, one vote difference for the amendment is not really the point, the actual vote for the whole is what mattered, and this gained a more clear majority against chat control [2].

Not sure if this is higher because it is more "clickbait" (chat control 1.0) or what, but it is a single tweet with a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this.

[0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609

[2] https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270

> EPP voted against both

EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).

That's happens often in parliamentary proceedings: when the other party succeeds in unrecognizably amending the law, the party proposing it will vote against.

Specifically for the European Parliament, this is also why, while it is true it doesn't have the power of legislative initiative, given the ability to amend at will any "law", in practice it doesn't make much of a difference.