I agree. A proper counter movement is needed.

Big American corporations are heavily lobbying EU council and governments. Transparency is not working, EU council are rolling back on GDPR, massively eroding our privacy, which is irreversible.

With the likes of Trump in charge the US are not trustworthy with any data. The data that they already take illegally is too much.

The UDHR article 12 is supposed to protect our privacy.

We need a counter movement big enough to scare the politicians when they start bending to the Big-Tech. They are not in the least bit worried as things stand now.

Peter Hummelgaard (among others) and his arrogance does not seem even a little concerned about his position.

Again. For the final time. You. Don’t. Understand. What. You. Are. Talking. About.

That’s a good thing. You can learn later on.

What or why would I refute anything you say? It’s obvious that you don’t really understand boxing, it’s level of corruption and how that exhibition was played out. You have already staggered with attempts to put words in my mouth/text twice that I didn’t mention anything even close to. I have no interest in going any further with somebody showing and starting with those traits.

As I said, you continue thinking what you like, but don’t contaminate other people’s thoughts with your nonsense.

😅😅🤡

You’re only saving grace is that you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

You keep telling yourself that. Tyson barely threw a punch.

Kid yourself all you want, but don’t try and contaminate the rest of the world with your nonsense.

Tyson reportedly interested in Turki Alalshikh’s offer, never got a reply from Jake Paul.

Never knew that, but I’m guessing he profits from his unlikeable traits, just from what I’ve seen online about him and how he markets himself.

😅

As the sub states - It is just mildly infuriating. But to reply to that - I don’t want to get into a discussion about this, so I probably will just leave it here.

The States that governing bodies oversaw his fights are far more lenient than other places, CSAC, TDLR (Tyson fight his licence was expired and renewed in record time), OSAC and FSBC. Had he not the money and followers, most, or not one of his ‘fights’ would ever have gone ahead.

Other than the people whose jobs require it, I have never spoken to or heard a person that was involved in or heavily fanatical about boxing dare refer to him as a boxer. It is only the clueless ‘casual’ fans, his youtube followers, the marketers and the people that work for them. JFH exhibition bouts were called exactly that, and are not to be confused with his professional career. Jake Paul has only ever had exhibition fights afaik. There is so much more to look at and talk about, but money talks. I just feel extremely sorry for all of the pro boxers that will never get a fair ranking despite being able to (without question) run rings around him without having to train too hard for the fight.

He is a professional exhibitionist or a professional exhibition fighter at best.

I couldn’t name one other single person who has fought most of their professional career against basketballers, UFC, retirees and other non professional boxers that are allowed to call themselves ‘professional boxers’. It brings the already struggling sport into further disrepute. The fixing has now gone mainstream. The Netflix goons talking about the good it’s doing for boxing when it is doing the opposite…

Okay, okay… I am starting to get a little more into this ‘mildly infuriating’ topic than planned. I will leave it there, with plenty more that could be said.

Tyson was definitely fixed.

1. I guess a wikipedia volunteer decided to classify him as that, and maybe another agreed.

2. No idea. I guess it would entail trying to prove that he setup, paid and that the fights were mostly scripted.

He has only has 13 fights, hopefully the Joshua fight will finally show him up. ‘win’ or lose.

https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/roll-back-digital-rights-prepared-secrecy

Yes, that’s the same with many things. No counter movement.

We will see how transparent it all is

https://transparency.eu/briefing-lobby-transparency-in-the-eu/

At a guess, I’d imagine big tech companies are lobbying as most of the information that they use comes from data gathering. Using data directly from texts etc. Leaves them open to court cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/12/eu-gdpr-data-law-us-tech-giants-digital

The options are limitless to the politicians regarding money making opportunities pushing x,y and z through once our private correspondence and devices are being scanned.

For example, in years to come insurance companies could refuse to pay out on all sorts of claims using that data. Doctor may have recommended you walk a mile a day and change your diet. You don’t do it, or just miss a day, your life insurance policy is voided. Car crash not your fault, no payout because you missed something else etc.

I couldn’t begin to to guess the amount of ways that this information could be used, but it’s a complete u-turn from what the EU was saying only a few years ago

https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/

They still recommend using signal - but only internally.

Which in itself is bizarre.

And exempting themselves from being scanned is just showing what they really think.

The timeline is here

Currently Denmark pushing it, they hold the EU presidency at the minute. Their minister for justice - Peter Hummelgaard is responsible for the big push and the wording. Specifically trying to pull the wool over the general public. Ireland are next (they take over in January) And the minister for justice in Ireland (Jim O’Callaghan) is also in favour of it.

U.N. right to privacy

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - Right to privacy in the digital age

U.N. - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

They play better without him

they would not be trying again if they did

It’s not the bureaucrats pushing it that are the problem, Hummelgaard is embedded so far up his own ass that nothing could change his mind to the realities of what he’s proposing.

It’s convincing the swing voters that he’s changing nothing other than the wording, but also that the general public, when made aware en-masse, would not allow the politicians to exempt themselves from this.

They have already rethought it a few times. The changes made have been to encourage the politicians to vote yes. One of the biggest, of not the biggest is to make them exempt from scanning. Enough questions in the right places and at the right times, would not give them any choice.

How could they defend adding an exemption clause for themselves into such an invasion of privacy.

No, I just wasn’t sure if you knew how the proposal is attempted. There are far too many to simply remove to stop it. The majority will still continue their term, and if with this mindset, could still push it through.

A good way to help them rethink it, is to have their devices scanned too. The only way this is going forward, is if they think that they are exempt from scanning.

But while they’re still serving their elected terms, and seem adamant to push this through, the least we can all do is push for their devices to be scanned too, if it has to go through.

I think it is more likely that the people proposing it don’t understand what it is that they are proposing. They don’t seem to have a grasp of why privacy should be so protected and what they are proposing is way too much. It also seems to completely contradict what the EU were saying about 5 years ago, possibly less.