Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Its not really governments, its specifically Ylva Johansson, the commissioner from Sweden who keeps pushing this, every time she does the rest of the EU apparatus slaps her down because it fundamentally won't work.


I read her wiki page after seeing this comment, and it all makes sense now ...


Can one commissioner push the machinery by her self? I need to read up on the rules. Surely there is support in the commission?


She can, but then she gets slapped down when the legislation makes it outside the commission.


Ylva Johansson?

We're not sending our best!

/Swede in the US


So I guess it might disappear with the new commission? Will she be nominated again?


It is possible that the lobbyists will find a new commissioner to buy.


[flagged]


The Left Party are one of the strongest opponents to Chat Control (and no longer include communism in their party platform). Ylvas actual career has been with the Social Democrats, who are basically the only party strongly for Chat Control.


They are so against it that they voted for it yesterday.


What is your source that the swedish Left Party voted for chat control yesterday? I haven't read that. Or are you talking about the Social Democrats which is a completely different party?


Every party except Centre Party and Sweden Democrats supported the proposal in the Committee on Justice [1], though Green Party and Left Party later said their support was a mistake [2].

[1] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-gar-vidare-med...

[2] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mp-och-v-rostade-fel-om-k...


Very disappointing.


Is the Wikipedia entry wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylva_Johansson says:

"In the 1988 general elections Johansson was elected as a member of the Riksdag for the Left Party – Communists (VPK). She later left the party and joined the Social Democrats."

Looks like she left the VPK in 1991.


No, that seems correct to me. What in that quote contradicts what I said?


I could have sworn 'actual' was not there when I read it. I must have missed it.


I mean in this case the problem isn't realy any of that, its that she has financial and personal links to American organisations (Thorn and Co.) who are in the business of selling this chat monitoring software.


It's these kind of people who really enable the far right to exist as well. Once you get to this level of lunacy, whether it's left or right is irrelevant.


I would argue she is behaving rationally. She has financial interests in organisations which sell chat monitoring software, they're going to make a shittone of money if her laws ever get passed.

She's a standard corrupt slug, not a misinformed ideologist.


No, she is just corrupt and she is not near as left-wing as that post tries to pretend. She just has financial interests in this.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: