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).

Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something".

A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later.

In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU.

> Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

Lol what?

The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K.

For any definition of authoritarian that relates to chat control, the UK is two base-10 orders of magnitude more authoritarian than Hungary (7 base-2 orders of magnitude).