[limbero]

Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? I guess it's just clickbait, but I haven't previously found Politico to be this extreme.

And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts:

> The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the bill and send it...

And most of the other headlines on their current front page are quite boring and descriptive.

[baobun]

"spam" is a grave mischaracterization, at that. It's a tool assisting citizens to voice their concerns to their elected representatives.

I also feel uneasy about Politico putting the lights on the creator this way and stopping short of doxxing them when they clearly wish to have their identity unknown and could face threats from having their personals broadcasted.

It's also telling that the two opponents to the bill named in the article are Musk and WhatsApp - hardly the most sympathetic picks for the Politico audience.

[fph]

My main problem with Fight Chat Control is that it asks people to send messages to the wrong audience. The site asks me to contact members of the European /parliament/, while the proposal is being discussed by the EU /commission/, a completely different body.

[skybrian]

It sounds like it sends unsolicited mass email. For a good cause, but still, why isn't that a spam tool?

[piva00]

Politico.eu is owned by Axel Springer, the same Axel Springer SE which received US$ 7m from the CIA back in the early 2000s [0].

It's the closest to a Fox News-esque entity in Western Europe, I believe. They also own BILD, a tabloid, and Die Welt, a newspaper that constantly publishes climate-skeptic articles, and also infamously published an op-ed by Musk supporting the AfD.

[0] https://taz.de/cia-und-presse/!734289/

[WA]

Oh that’s why Elon was quoted in the article as if anything Elon has to say on this matter is relevant at all.

[iamnothere]

I agree, I feel like it gives the article a negative bias against the developer. Perhaps the editor wants to generate pressure against them or discourage further opposition?

At least it’s not a complete hit piece, if you ignore the title then it’s mostly balanced.

[croes]

>trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading online.

I wouldn’t call that neutral.

[Braxton1980]

Why?

That's what the bill's intentions are.

If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't change the stated intention.

If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that doesn't change what the article should state unless there is evidence

They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal instead of writing "that will stop child..."

It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying information from both sides. The article even details that there is an opposition to the bill.

[swiftcoder]

> Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? ... And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts

I would guess that the author is to involved with writing the headline. An awful lot of journalists have been up in arms the last decade over the editors writing new headlines that imply the opposite stance of the article itself...