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.
Chat control doesn’t sound very much like respecting citizen’s rights
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.
It didn’t start with people getting shot in the face. Chat control is a big step in that direction.
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.
Which part of it? I read the legislation and I think it does respect citizen’s rights. Which paragraphs do you find problematic?
Perhaps the entire idea that the government can spy on all your communications?
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”.
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
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.