The state is the single moat prolific user of violence by far. If it wants to claim violence is wrong, its first step needs to be to dismantle itself.
Of course, violence is not always wrong. Violence is a tool, whether it's good or bad depends against whom you use it.
One man's terrorist of another man's freedom fighter.
The people in positions of power (both politicians and owners of large tech companies) have been waging a global war on violence and Chat Control is just one part of it.
Exactly - the state is the main user of violence, which is why it hides its violence in bland packaging. Call it ‘security’, ‘safety’, or ‘child protection’, but the effect is the same: coercion by fear.
‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ misses the point here: the methods define terrorism, not the branding. When the state uses psychological violence to intimidate citizens into silence, it is engaging in the very thing it condemns. Chat Control is just the polished, bureaucratic face of terror.
> ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ misses the point
It's meant to express that our "democratic" governments use the same tools as dictatorships. For example, every time somebody in a position of power (not even just politicians) gets shot, other people in power say "ViOlEnCe DoEsN't BeLoNg In PoLiTiCs". Completely forgetting how many of today's democracies were created by widespread acts of violence against previous oppressive governments.
In fact, many countries celebrate their revolutions and their assassinations of dictators. So violence clearly does belong in politics, under some conditions. But instead of openly talking about those conditions, they are trying to brainwash the populace into docility.
---
(Tangent:
For example, reasonable people today agree today that by the end of the war, Hitler deserved to die, whether by assassination, execution, or suicide. But he was just a politician. In 1933, his party got 40%, he was a popular politician. So when was the line crossed from "violence does not belong in politics" to "Hitler is a dictator and mass murderer and must be shot"?
The reality is that once a person becomes dictator he immediately increases his own protection and surrounds himself with people just as bad or worse than him. So it's not just more difficult to kill him, it's also less practical. Reasonably people today say that Putin deserves to die but should not be killed because he purposefully made sure anybody in the line of succession would be even worse than him.)
---
Back on track, it's my belief that a government which is truly dedicated to remaining democratic and making sure the power comes from the people would make sure that the population is armed to a sufficient level that if a hostile takeover from within happened, the population would be able to successfully revolt and restore democracy.
And this is more true today than ever. Abusive governments used to have to employ people to spy on other people. They needed a certain ratio of sympathizers or the system would fall apart. Now much of it can be automated. The ratio of sympathizers a dictator needs is much lower than it used to be and potentially violent revolt can be detected much earlier and each invasion of privacy like Chat Control moves the needle towards resistance being harder and harder.
So those who believe violence does not belong in politics today should be very well aware than it might be necessary against the government tomorrow but it'll be impossible if nobody has guns and privacy to organize with other people who to use those guns. And yes, the price is some terrorist attacks. I am OK with that.
The level of surveillance which would stop a pressure cooker bomb at a public event or a lone gunman or a car ramming attack is completely unacceptable to me.
In fact, you will notice that most recent terrorist attacks would not be stopped by Chat Control. What would be stopped is organized resistance. That's a feature, not a bug.
At leaat one country also celebrate the opposite - Guy Fawkes' Night in the UK is a celebration of the thwarting of an attempt to overthrow the government.
(I do agree with your position; I just wanted to throw that out there.)
Of course, violence is not always wrong. Violence is a tool, whether it's good or bad depends against whom you use it.
One man's terrorist of another man's freedom fighter.
The people in positions of power (both politicians and owners of large tech companies) have been waging a global war on violence and Chat Control is just one part of it.