Posts by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
 (DIR) Post #B8AZ9k6I6JmCfxy2ka by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wolf480pl @jmaris all experts write in such a way to understand its final, I think this is first alternative opinion I seen so far. If its not final, its almost certain the Council will approve (because encryption protection is symbolic change, and if they care about this passing, they won't postpone it any longer)
       
 (DIR) Post #B8FwLLfPcErwKpGHR2 by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wolf480pl @jmaris We could say there are flaws in EU law (loopholes), similarly like there are flaws in software code, and #chatcontrol proponents (hackers) used to exploit it (in exploit-chain).Also there are some strange decisions by MEPs themselves. On July 7 many MEPs themselves voted to invoke urgency procedure with majority (voted 331 vs. 304), but they later voted against chat control on July 9, Thursday. How does it make sense? How does it make sense to first vote FOR sneaky urgency procedure, and then vote AGAINST chat control few days later?It could be that some people may have changed their minds (that's good), and others may not understand what they vote for (that's bad) 🤷🏻 For example, its unclear what MEP @bartgroothuis did with such conflicting vote: be AGAINST chat control, but FOR the urgent procedure which enabled its passage? (maybe philosophically for urgent procedures?)There was astounding 83 members who reversed like this (by group: S&D - 24, Renew - 8, EPP - 19, ECR - 4, PFE 28),who were FOR urgent procedure, but AGAINST chat control.(@HowTheyVoteEU thanks for available json files for analysis)Those who reversed within EPP group - thank you 🙏🏻 (who voted against EPP consensus), and members of some other political groups - unclear why they would vote in this strange way?Other groups were consistent: Greens, The left, ESN & 24 non-attached members (surprisingly independents are so united 😀). So it is definitely possible to be consistent between these two votes.And the thing you wondered about, regarding how the Council did this - I found the exact rule in treaties, which allows Council to do so (or to be more exact - @protonprivacy Lumo found it for me 🙂, btw. it does a great job of surfing the web quickly):From "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_294/oj/engParagraph 5: "If the Council does not approve the European Parliament's position, it shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the European Parliament."Then Parliament has 3 months to react (as per paragraph 7), but instead - it invoked the urgency procedure last minute, skipped normal procedure of debates to review this important law, and went straight to voting on Council's position.At this stage (after the law has been returned from Council to Parliament for 2nd 'reading'), its normal and typical, that rejection at this stage requires absolute majority (paragraph 7b)But it is rare for Council to do this - it was sudden & unexpected, timed and coordinated by EPP group + EPP's Metsola + EPP's Commission + Council for last minute, but also approved by Parliament itself on July 7, for them to vote again, on July 9 before summer and to require absolute majority to do so 🤷🏻 Why MEPs themselves made this strange inconsistent decision?This is general nice picture how the process works:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/olp/en/ordinary-legislative-procedure/overviewEssentially Council of governments has equal weight to Parliament. They make decisions together (I like it). And they kinda can overrule each other for process to not get stuck and keep going. BUT it was ugly this time in practice.
       
 (DIR) Post #B8G5InLz7VmmvF22LY by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wolf480pl these are good questions.@jmarisI think it was clearly rejected.And rejection was counted as position by the Council 🤷🏻 Why that is the case, its unclear still.
       
 (DIR) Post #B8I4kQa3fiUilO9AMi by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @jmaris In US government case, that is to ensure US supremacy (not duopoly). For example, google increased its market share quick and by a lot recently; have the most data; models are competitive.@wolf480pl Yes, they should focus on banning development of these super large AI models altogether, starting with corporations. Their models are the prime source which open weight models distill their data from. And yes, because more problems of reckless AI developments are still to come, so sentencing them might be what will actually happen at some point.
       
 (DIR) Post #B8KPlDcBxqzQEiS1Bo by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @wolf480pl @jmaris what happened seem to have no conflict with ordinary procedure on the surface, and there is no conflict to what is visualized in the picture of the general procedure below.At first reading parliament 'adopt it as its position or amend it', there is no rejection possibility (as shown in the picture). And if Parliament rejects, then apparently it just misses an opportunity to amend it 🤷🏻 and rejection does not count as you say.Why the rejection happened first 2 times?2026-03-11 Parliament actually adopted a position (but it is understood as rejection of chat control 1.0 because of many amendments watering this bill down, it is also interpreted as shadow negotiation of 2.0), which Council did not like and refused to negotiate.2026-03-26 then Parliament rushed to adopt a different position quickly which Council could agree on, but amendments again were made watering this bill down, and EPP themselves rejected at the final vote this time because of amendments they did not like. And apparently parliament was left without a position at all 😯 (if that is the case, then it seems like a good trick to not adopt a position which Council does not like, enabling Council to adopt its own position)Sources:2026-03-11 vote is retrospectively explained in this video https://peertube.0011.lt/w/j83eBf1Qs8de2PeaHfBVcM (3 minutes total) by Pirate @marketkag and EPP member Lena Düpont, and 2026-03-26 vote is explained by Birgit Sippel in this video https://peertube.0011.lt/w/aXq9L2Rcjh4BQS4S6JWsTj (7 minutes total including speeches, votes and 2 minutes of not working microphones)
       
 (DIR) Post #B8xobRUDKcdPf6MN5U by mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @davidrevoy related story https://youtube.com/watch?v=OX1yHmeLPy8 (video "The Kurzgesagt Situation is Insane")@EUCommission