Fact check: Will discord enter the Chat Control that EU is trying to add

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses, Discord would likely be subject to the EU's Chat Control proposal if it passes. The EU's Chat Control proposal is gaining significant momentum, with 19 out of 27 EU member states currently backing the measure ^[1]. The proposal would mandate scanning every message, photo, and video sent by users on messaging platforms, including those with end-to-end encryption ^[1].

Denmark reintroduced the proposal, with countries like France, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Italy, and Spain supporting it ^[1]. If Germany joins the supporting coalition, the proposal could pass by mid-October ^[1]. The scanning would target child sexual abuse material (CSAM) through client-side scanning before messages are encrypted ^[1].

The proposal would affect major messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram ^[1], and Discord would fall under this same category of messaging services that would be required to implement the scanning technology.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context revealed in the analyses:

• Discord already has compliance issues with EU regulations, specifically with GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) ^[2], which suggests the platform may face additional challenges implementing new EU requirements.
• Significant public opposition exists to the Chat Control proposal. Tech communities on platforms like Hacker News view it as potential government overreach and mass surveillance disguised as child protection ^[3].
• Multiple authoritative sources have criticized the proposal, including the UN and digital security researchers ^[4], indicating substantial expert opposition beyond just public skepticism.
• The proposal faces technical concerns about false positives in AI scanning and would effectively create a "soft ban" on end-to-end encryption ^[4].
• Privacy advocates and tech experts argue that while the stated goal is child protection, the infrastructure could be misused for broader surveillance purposes ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, asking about Discord's potential inclusion in the Chat Control proposal. However, it lacks important context:

• The question doesn't acknowledge that the proposal is controversial and faces significant opposition from privacy advocates, tech experts, and international organizations ^{[3] [4]}.
• It doesn't mention that Discord already has regulatory compliance issues in the EU ^[2], which provides relevant context for how the platform might handle new requirements.
• The framing doesn't capture the broader implications for digital privacy and encryption that critics argue make this proposal problematic beyond just its immediate implementation ^[3].

The question itself isn't biased, but it presents the Chat Control proposal as a straightforward regulatory matter without acknowledging the substantial debate about its necessity, effectiveness, and potential for abuse that characterizes the current discussion around this legislation.