What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?

>What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?

Minimize govt. Remove the govt ability to control many aspects of one's life.

Good effing luck with that. Government is an institution that grows until it controls every single aspect of its citizens’ lives. What to do when government grows cancerous?

Agreed, it won't happen in practice. It's common people who are in favor of more legislation without realizing that are shooting themselves in the foot.

> It's common people who are in favor of more legislation

I know. I've always called myself a progressive left individual, then found out the modern progressive left is all about solving every issue with more rules, more centralisation, more bureaucracy and more prohibition. It's maddening to see how many people feel their government isn't legislating enough and is still too liberal.

Case in point: Online Safety Act has been heavily pushed by Labour (despite starting as a Tory thing). Chat Control is being pushed by the Danish Social Democrats.

Promote a better constitution that protects people from laws like this?

That is a wish, not an actionable step.

We could instead say “promote a utopia where everyone is treated fairly and empathetically and everyone’s needs are met without destroying the planet or a need for government”. That’d “fix” the current problem and more, the issue is what exactly can we do to “promote” that change.

It's actionable if you have some imagination. Raise funds for a nonprofit. Start lobbying on both sides of the aisle. Enlist an advertising company to show the dystopian future if something like chat control comes into effect, poll for focus groups and target them. Find ways to undermine and expose the forces that are pushing for authoritarian legislation.