The EU wants to scan every message sent in Europe (Chat control) — Why decentralized messengers could be the Future

[al-onyxprotocol]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/eu-digital-surveillance-child-protection

In “The EU wants to scan every message sent in Europe. Will that really make us safer?” by Apostolos Fotiadis (The Guardian), the author examines the EU’s proposal to introduce large-scale digital surveillance under the banner of protecting children from sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Key points:

• The proposal would require all messages sent across digital platforms (Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Snapchat, etc.), including encrypted chats, to be scanned for CSAM.
• To make scanning possible, end-to-end encryption would either have to be weakened or bypassed — creating systemic vulnerabilities that could be abused not only by authorities but also by malicious actors.
• Security experts warn such a system risks eroding privacy, opening the door to misuse, and expanding surveillance far beyond the stated purpose.
• Critics also highlight that the focus is almost entirely on technical surveillance, while broader strategies such as education, awareness, and social services are sidelined.
• The law remains stalled, with several EU member states concerned about the impact on cybersecurity.

The author concludes: while protecting children is a vital goal, the proposed measures threaten to undermine fundamental rights to privacy and security in the digital realm. A balance must be found that protects children without turning all personal communication into potential evidence.

Why decentralized messengers could be the Future

Looking at current trends, it seems increasingly likely that decentralized messengers will form the backbone of secure communication in the future. Here’s why:

Strengths of Decentralization

1. Encryption control

Decentralized systems often lack a central authority that can be forced to insert backdoors or weaken encryption. Keys remain user-controlled, making mass surveillance technically harder.

2. Privacy & censorship resistance

Without a single choke point, governments or corporations have less ability to monitor, censor, or shut down communication. Users can choose trusted nodes, and end-to-end encryption remains intact.

3. Checks on abuse of power

Centralized entities can be pressured to change policies or compromise security. Decentralized networks distribute influence and reduce the risk of unilateral abuse.

4. Innovation & diversity

Open, community-driven projects often experiment with new approaches, leading to more resilient, user-centric solutions. Hybrid models may emerge, combining decentralization with selective centralized services.

Challenges

• Legal pressure — even decentralized systems may face regulatory crackdowns, with authorities targeting node operators. Fuck them?
• Technical hurdles — scalability, strong spam protections, and usability require careful design
• Adoption curve — mainstream users are used to polished, integrated apps. Decentralized messengers need to match that experience to gain traction.

Conclusion

We may soon see decentralized messengers (or hybrid architectures) rise as a natural counter to growing surveillance pressure. They’re not a perfect solution, but they represent a strong path toward secure, private, and censorship-resistant communication.

Decentralization may well be the foundation of the next era of digital messaging.

#futureofmessaging

[dev-adamant-im]

Hello,

It's a good post, thanks.

I agree — decentralized messengers feel like the natural path forward if we want to preserve privacy against rising surveillance pressure. The architecture itself is much harder to regulate or compromise compared to centralized platforms.

That said, adoption is my main concern. Most people stick with apps that just work: they want a smooth interface, instant syncing across devices, good media handling, and support from friends already on the platform. Decentralized messengers often struggle here — setup can be confusing, performance less polished, and the learning curve turns mainstream users away.

So the big question isn’t only “can decentralization resist surveillance?” — I think it can. The harder question is: “how do we get millions of everyday users to switch?” Until usability and network effects catch up, decentralized messengers might stay niche.

What do you think is the best way to bridge that adoption gap — better UX, education, or integration with existing platforms?

[al-onyxprotocol]

I think decentralized messengers, including ADAMANT, are still unfamiliar to most users — concepts like passphrases can feel unusual compared to the “login with email/phone” flow people are used to. But time moves forward, and what feels strange today often becomes normal tomorrow.

Also, governments ironically help adoption: every new wave of bans, surveillance, or app restrictions makes people reconsider their choices and look for censorship-resistant tools.

So in the long run, both usability improvements and external pressure will push more people toward decentralized messengers.

[adamantmm]

Hi,
Smooth UI and reliability is the key for mass adoption.