— Our Position on EU Laws —

— 1. Chat Control —

The regulation is ineffective with respect to messengers that use end-to-end encryption.
Beyond intruding into users’ privacy and crossing the boundaries of private life, the regulation is completely ineffective in combating crime.

For end‑to‑end encrypted chats, a proposal was made to perform client‑side content scanning. This approach does not work in practice because the client application can be modified, which is common. The moderation code can be removed or replaced. No level of code obfuscation prevents disassembly.

With all due respect to Parliament, we cannot accept this regulation.

Moreover, in our view we will have a more effective system for combating fraud and crime. We share the same goal, but we also uphold people’s rights. It is possible that our method of decentralized moderation will prove more effective and become a standard.

Thanks to our integration with the Self Protocol, offenders will receive effective, lasting penalties. This stands in contrast to other messengers, where one can simply recreate an account and continue unlawful activity.

— 2. Fact‑checking of content —

This is a good initiative if implemented correctly. But that raises a core question: what is the source of truth? Who will determine what is true and what is false? Does a correct implementation even exist? Does truth exist?

How can we claim to know the truth in order to prohibit what we do not deem to be true?

This recalls the story of the "banning" of Copernicus’s "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" in 1616. The Inquisition acted as "centralized moderation" and as the "sole source of truth"

Over time it turned out they were wrong. More than 200 years later the book was removed from the Index. For over two centuries society was forbidden to state the truth. Consider the impact: the progress of science and related fields was slowed for two centuries. Galileo Galilei was forced to recant the truth to save his life after condemnation by the Inquisition. People were subjected to fear of the authorities, who had the power to punish. Such influence still exists in many countries today.

One cannot deny that centralized moderation is always susceptible to subjectivity. It was true 400 years ago, and it is true today.

Historical sources:
Maurice A. Finocchiaro, "The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History"
Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers"

How, then, should we combat disinformation?
In the crypto industry there is a basic rule: DYOR (Do Your Own Research).

"The more a person learns, the more he realizes how little he knows"
Metaphysics, Aristotle

No matter how much the world strives toward truth, truth will always recede. What we consider truth at any given moment is only the version accepted by the majority. In that sense, the source of truth is a democratic process of adopting what is regarded as true. And decentralization is democracy at its best.

You should always conduct your own investigation and question even the accepted truth. This is how new discoveries are made.