this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
399 points (99.8% liked)

World News

51910 readers
2119 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Greenland’s prime minister has said “we choose Denmark” before high-stakes talks at the White House as Donald Trump seeks to take control of the Arctic territory.

Amid rising tensions over the US president’s push, Jens-Frederik Nielsen on Tuesday told a joint press conference with his Danish counterpart, Mette Frederiksen, that the island would not be owned or governed by Washington.

“We are now facing a geopolitical crisis. If we have to choose between the US and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark, Nato and the EU,” Nielsen said, adding that the island’s “goal and desire is peaceful dialogue, with a focus on cooperation”.Trump’s pursuit of the island was also a matter of “international law and our right to our own country”, he said.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nforminvasion@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Chat control doesn't sound very much like respecting citizen's rights

[–] GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh shit, does that mean Europeans will get shot in the face now too? You know, to control their chatting. Like in the USA, if you say "I'm not mad at you", you get shot in the face.

Yeah, chat control is not great, but is FAR FAR FAR from what's happening in the Fascist States of America.

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It didn't start with people getting shot in the face. Chat control is a big step in that direction.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago

You all are fighting on who's riding the biggest turd boat into the sea and you're both making find points :)

The US is putting Nazi slogans on the government speech podiums and trying to annex countries that are too weak to put up a fight.

The EU is trying to remove private communication.

I think the US is a about 11:59 on the doomsday clock, the EU is about 10:45

We're both mostly fucked, the EU has more time to turn around, but that's not likely either.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Which part of it? I read the legislation and I think it does respect citizen's rights. Which paragraphs do you find problematic?

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Perhaps the entire idea that the government can spy on all your communications?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You have to be talking about some different Chat Control because the one I read doesn't allow anything like that. At least I think it doesn't. Can you point me to the specific part that covers it? Maybe I missed it.

But seriously, I can see you read some scary headlines that have nothing to do with reality. Of course you're not going to read the legislation yourself and hearing it form some random guy on lemmy will not change your mind because you read it on some random blog so it has to be true but for anyone interested, the proposed law specifically says that “the regulation shall not prohibit, make impossible, weaken, circumvent or otherwise undermine cybersecurity measures, in particular encryption, including end-to-end encryption”.

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 1 points 53 minutes ago (1 children)

OK, first off, fuck you and your smug-ass tone.

It seems that last year the legislation was amended and it removed the requirement that providers scan all messages and added the part that you quoted at the end. But it would require age verification which is something else of which I am opposed to the very idea.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/after-years-controversy-eus-chat-control-nears-its-final-hurdle-what-know

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 25 minutes ago

So you just said something 100% wrong and then doubled down on it despite not knowing much about it but the problem is that I'm smug... Yeah...

Age verification would be only required for services that are considered high risk for grooming and would have to be done in a way that preserves privacy and all the rights guaranteed by GDPR regulation. It's still just a proposal, nothing was approved. Personally I don't like it but I see it as a reasonable compromise for a regulation aimed at protecting children. Other than that we can simply ignore the issue and do nothing. And I do hope nothing will be done but since they were working on a law that was supposed to do something it's normal they come up with something like that. Taking this is saying "EU doesn't respect citizen's rights" is in best case ignorant, in worst misinformation.