[sputr]

> First, Chat Control refers to a proposition in the EU, which has not been accepted at this point. So no, it's not Chat Control.

The EU proposition of Chat Control is the proposition to make it mandatory. Facebook has already been performing it voluntarily (as I've discovered today).

> The problem I see is that you disagree with how Meta handles Messenger, but still use it. Chat Control or not, there is no law preventing Meta from reading your messages for moderation.

Meta isn't just some random company who's decisions don't have wide and far reaching societal effects.

Moderation of private 1v1 chats only make sense in case of harassment - i.e. when one side complains. In all other cases, except with a courts decree based on legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing, it's absurd.

> Yes, and that's a good thing.

For now.

[true_religion]

I don't know about social media companies, but all web forums will 'moderate' 1v1 chats because of spam controls.

[palata]

> Meta isn't just some random company who's decisions don't have wide and far reaching societal effects.

So what? There is no law saying that messages should always be e2ee, period. If you want such a law, you need to convince politicians to think about it. But that is orthogonal to Chat Control.

[Bender]

It is technically impossible for a large platform to implement E2EE without having a way to target one person to bypass it. True E2EE will always have to be a program external to the chat platform that handles keys out of band like OTR.

Legally it will never truly happen. Any platform saying they have E2EE is outright lying. Lavabit was an example of what happens when a large platform makes lawful intercept impossible. People keep telling me that Proton and Signal are E2EE and I will always offer them a tropical island for sale on the dark side of the moon, heavily discounted. Moxie of all people should know better.