[HN Gopher] Canadian internet bill S-210 is a step closer to bec...
___________________________________________________________________
Canadian internet bill S-210 is a step closer to becoming law
Author : llm_nerd
Score : 190 points
Date : 2023-12-14 16:43 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.michaelgeist.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.michaelgeist.ca)
| tempest_ wrote:
| In 2023 I can't believe they are still naming bills like this
|
| "Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography"
|
| Every time a bill gets a moniker like that I assume it is hiding
| some major government over reach.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| They're appealing to their "fear" base. A certain segment of
| the voting population lives in fear (no thanks to the
| politicians who stoke this fear) of ... well everything.
| cibcin wrote:
| Not wanting your children to be influenced by pornography at
| a formative age is a very reasonable fear in this era.
| naremu wrote:
| I assumed this is what parental controls are invented for,
| but all too many parents don't seem to even have the
| knowledge to activate those in the first place.
|
| Maybe they should learn how they work instead of supporting
| a thin veil of totalitarianism.
| pfisch wrote:
| TikTok and instagram are full of things that are porn or
| are almost porn. Same with Reddit.
|
| It is unrealistic to lock your kids out of all social
| media.
| standardUser wrote:
| I sometimes forget that we consider simple nudity to be
| "porn". We shouldn't.
| munk-a wrote:
| It's absolutely ridiculous that we consider nudity to be
| nsfw - but TikTok and Instagram have a fair amount of
| content on them that are intentionally as close to nsfw
| as you can get without getting banned. I agree with your
| literal point - but there's actual porn on social media.
| vezycash wrote:
| I've seen actual porn on Twitter. I don't have an
| instagram account many porn models put links to their IG
| profiles.
| simion314 wrote:
| >It is unrealistic to lock your kids out of all social
| media.
|
| Really? so the state blocks porn, but then that social
| media will have people that use bad language so the state
| needs to also protect your kids from bad language, maybe
| people say on those social media that Santa or Jesus does
| not exist so state should protect them again and ban this
| stuff too.
|
| Do not allow your child on social media that is for
| adults. I am sure PlayStation offer social feature for
| children with strong moderation, so find similar social
| media that is targeted for children.
| munk-a wrote:
| It is perfectly reasonable to lock your kids out of
| social media until they're mature enough to handle to it.
| It's actually probably in their benefit to block them
| from the non-nsfw parts of social media as well since
| social media has an extremely negative effect on mental
| health.
|
| Parents are allowed to autocrat - it may feel icky but to
| parent well you need to occasionally put on your villain
| hat.
| logicchains wrote:
| >Parents are allowed to autocrat - it may feel icky but
| to parent well you need to occasionally put on your
| villain hat
|
| It's not about icky. If you autocrat too much as a parent
| your kids will simple resent you and once they're 18/left
| home they'll do whatever they want now that you're no
| longer around to control them, because they never learned
| any self control. Like US college kids going all out with
| drugs and alcohol.
| belval wrote:
| What a weird argument in the context of this bill. "If
| I'm too strict my child will resent me therefore I will
| vote so that my opinion can be enforced on everyone by
| the government and I can be my child's buddy".
|
| Must be interesting with other "sinful" activities, "I'd
| totally let you do cocain but shoot the government won't
| let me!".
| munk-a wrote:
| There is a place between a micro-managing helicopter
| parent and laissez-faire - your parenting should be in
| that place. And while it'd be awesome to be your kids'
| best friend forever it's more important that they learn
| boundaries, self-control and how to human. You can impart
| self-control without opening every door and, given how
| psychologically exploitative a lot of the internet and
| advertising is, it's hardly a fair fight to just let them
| sink or swim.
|
| Guidance is a responsibility of parenthood.
| kelnos wrote:
| My parents were pretty strict with me as a kid, and I
| missed out on a lot of things that my peers got to do. I
| did resent them, somewhat, at the time, but by my mid-20s
| I was able to recognize that they were just doing their
| best and, like literally all parents, were making things
| up as they went along.
|
| When I went to college I was fine. I developed a new
| social circle quickly, and didn't end up becoming a drunk
| or a druggie. Sure, I did many of the things my parents
| never would allow me to do, but it was fine.
|
| I totally get that some people end up in a worse place
| than I did, but that's not an excuse for blanket
| governmental bans on things. But I would absolutely 100%
| support any parent that decides to deny their children
| any and all access to social media. That shit is cancer,
| and IMO is worse for developing brains than nicotine or
| alcohol.
|
| I hesitate to present such a hard line on social media,
| when I'm kinda "whatever" on teens seeing some porn. The
| problem is that I see what social media does to _adults_
| with fully-developed brains, and I start to feel like
| social media is akin to heroin: no amount of it is safe,
| for anyone.
|
| A more relaxed view might be to give teens access to
| social media, but only in a supervised setting. Parents
| should be monitoring what goes on with their social media
| accounts, and have frank (but calm and non-judgemental)
| discussions with the kid whenever anything concerning
| comes up. Also parents need to find a way to impress upon
| their kids that social media is not real life, and that
| people present whatever slice of their lives (often an
| unrealistic rosy picture) they decide to paint. And then
| there's all the misinformation and echo chambers, and...
| ugh, yeah, no, just don't let kids on social media.
| blitz_skull wrote:
| > It is unrealistic to lock your kids out of all social
| media.
|
| Excuse me, what?
|
| Is it also unrealistic to prevent your kids from doing
| hard drugs? Sure maybe you can't control them past a
| certain age, but you certainly can AND SHOULD within a
| certain age time frame.
|
| Social media has been shown to be so hazardous to
| developing youth's mental health I think not only is it
| realistic, but you have a duty and an obligation do
| prevent your kids from using social media in an
| unrestricted manner.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| > unrestricted manner.
|
| They didn't say unrestricted, they said locked out. As
| in, not accessible at all.
|
| And you know what is also very hazardous to a developing
| person's mental health? Being left out of most social
| gatherings and interactions with their peers.
|
| You can block your kids from accessing social media, but
| to succeed you also need to force their peers to
| communicate and interact with them in a unique and more
| frictive way. And you have no right to force someone
| else's kids to do that. So the reality is that without a
| lot of like-minded families that do the same, your kids
| are going to be left out of a lot of things.
|
| So is it unrealistic to control your children's access to
| social media? No, not at all. But locking them out from
| it entirely as you stated, is a good way to negatively
| impact their social development.
| blitz_skull wrote:
| I disagree. I grew up without a cell phone while all my
| friends had them. Beyond that, my friends had online
| gaming where I barely even had access to the internet,
| and what access I had was limited.
|
| I find the argument that kids are going to unanimously
| ostracize another kid without an Instagram account very
| hard to believe. Kids _will_ be assholes for any reason
| under the sun, so it's not a question of will my kid have
| a hard time socially from time-to-time--that's just life.
|
| Hobbies, social outlets, groups in the community--these
| are all ways to ensure your kids aren't socially stunted
| without giving them the emotional / mental equivalent of
| heroin.
| fallingknife wrote:
| > Is it also unrealistic to prevent your kids from doing
| hard drugs?
|
| Yes. If they want it, it's not hard to find.
| blitz_skull wrote:
| That's not the point. The point is that it's your
| obligation to do your best to protect them from it. "Ease
| of access" is hardly a reason to not try.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Loneliness and a lifetime of sadness has been shown to
| have greater risks. Is cutting out social connections the
| answer? Because that's what ends up happening.
| kelnos wrote:
| Please present evidence that denying teens access to
| social media causes them to have literally no meaningful
| social connections. I do expect social interactions to
| suffer for a teen in that situation. But I find it hard
| to believe that it causes complete isolation and (gimme a
| break) a "lifetime of sadness".
| jrockway wrote:
| Is it unrealistic? Like, social media wasn't invented
| when I was a kid and I found some way to spend my time.
|
| I don't have kids but am planning on it, and I don't see
| myself locking kids out of social media. I also don't
| super care if they see naked people on the Internet. If
| it becomes a problem somehow I'll deal with the problem
| myself.
|
| I'm more worried about kids shows on TV with messages
| like "follow all the rules or you'll be bricked inside a
| tunnel". I grew up with those, and in retrospect, they
| are super creepy.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| To me, the problem is that while you might block your
| children from using social media, are all of your
| children's friends going to be in the same situation. If
| your kid has a circle of friends that interacts a lot on
| social media, and your kid doesn't participate in that,
| eventually they will be left out of that group.
| jrockway wrote:
| Yeah, exactly. That's why I think a categorical ban is
| not necessarily "good parenting". I think you have to
| peek in and see what they're watching on TikTok, and
| provide relevant information. If they think a video where
| someone burns down a store as "a prank" is funny, remind
| them of the consequences; hurting other people, prison,
| whatever. (OK, TikTok is a little less extreme than that,
| but you get the point.)
|
| Certainly, I understand why people want to delegate work
| to the government here; parenting is hard work. But it's
| necessary work, you don't want the government's children
| to go out into the world and do their own thing. You want
| your kids to. And so your touch is going to be required
| in their formative years. There is no getting around
| that.
| cf1241290841 wrote:
| I believe its even more unrealistic to make the internet
| sfw / children.
|
| While i do sympathize with the impossible difficulty of
| being a parent in the current decade, there is
| realistically no way i am going to just accept the death
| of the adult internet. Thats likely a common sentiment
| and realistically the people making these laws are too
| stupid to enforce them against motivated opponents with
| technical expertise.
|
| I dont see a way out of this other then create a
| whitelisted subset for children with enforcement being
| the responsibility of the parents. Because going death of
| anonymity for access control is a no go either.
|
| Looking on the bright side, to me this looks like just a
| lack of safe for children platforms that are still
| tolerable to use.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| or you know, talk to your kids
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Which parental controls, and how would those even work?
|
| Back in the IE6 days I remember there was some setting to
| tweak allowed content ratings for websites, which I
| believe was based on HTTP headers, but does anyone
| implement that anymore (did they ever)? I just checked
| reddit, and they don't seem to send any headers, and use
| the same domains for porn as they do for child-focused
| content.
|
| The obvious thing to advocate for would be to require
| commercial porn sites to send some kind of standardized
| headers that would allow parental controls to work in the
| first place, and/or to require any domains with content
| targeted to children to not also host adult-only content
| (e.g. reddit should put either their child-focused subs
| or their porn on a separate subdomain).
|
| Then require commercial browser vendors to implement
| content blocking settings based on those headers.
|
| Alternatively, it would be possible for governments to
| provide an oauth style service that provides tokens that
| assert the user is an adult without revealing any other
| info about the user, and then require porn sites to check
| for that token.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| Just don't allow your children to access these porn
| websites then. It really is that easy. ;)
| some_random wrote:
| Consider parenting your children instead of demanding the
| government do it for you.
| adra wrote:
| Yeah, I mean why does the government get to tell me how I
| raise my kids? I wanna put them to work, drive heavy
| machinery, and marry them off to 90 year old "founders"
| all I like so stay outta my business.
| some_random wrote:
| Oh I'm sorry you're totally right, we need to ban
| working, driving heavy machinery, and marriage to protect
| your children. Because that's what this is all actually
| about right? Sock puppet guy has made that quite clear,
| his goal is to ban all porn.
| kelnos wrote:
| The difference is that in the cases you mention, the
| government is protecting kids from bad actions that
| parents might take.
|
| Requiring age verification won't stop a parent from
| giving a kid access to porn. And, frankly, if a parent
| wants to show a teen porn as a way to educate them about
| what can be bad about it and what the dangers are, that's
| a private matter between the parent and the teen.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Not wanting your children to be influenced by pornography
| at a formative age is a very reasonable fear in this era.
|
| I agree, so as a developer do you think it is easier to
| block porn at OS level and your router or you think that is
| safer that some regulation that only some websites will
| follow is more effective ?
|
| I read about some proposal for adult website to scan your
| face before granting access and other idiotic schemes,
| where the super obvious KISS solution is have Android, iOS,
| Windows, Ubuntu etc have an idiot proof way for a parent to
| setup a child account, this child account will set some
| cookie or whatever flag you want so websites can refuse to
| serve content to them. Also the big tech could use their
| combined energy to have a blacklist of bad websites that do
| not respect the rules like maybe advertisers.
|
| TLDR as a parent do not wait for the goverment to protect
| your child from porn, open Google and figure it out,
| munk-a wrote:
| There are a plethora of tools a concerned parent can deploy
| currently to limit web exposure - the main difficulty in
| doing so is more of a social pressure than a technical one
| and the salves provided by this bill are trivial to
| circumvent for a determined teen.
| busterarm wrote:
| Wanting the state to play the role of mother and father is
| a very reasonable fear in this era.
| squigz wrote:
| That's fair. And as another commenter pointed out, this is
| probably your responsibility as a parent. Of course, we
| also let the government tell us we can't let our kids work,
| so clearly there's a line we draw.
|
| So I ask, why is it the government's responsibility in this
| specific case?
| gosub100 wrote:
| Is there a documented syndrome that children or adults
| contract from pornography? Do you have any evidence of harm
| other than your feelings?
| kelnos wrote:
| Is it, though? I found and enjoyed a good amount of porn on
| BBSes and the early internet when I was a teen, and I
| turned out fine.
|
| Porn absolutely has serious problems associated with it
| (both on the production and consumption sides), but teens
| getting exposed to porn is just not a big deal. It can
| _turn_ into a big deal, but that 's what, y'know...
| _parenting_... is for.
| willcipriano wrote:
| What side would you describe as the "fearless" side? They
| both seem fearful to me just in regards to different things.
| RobRivera wrote:
| There are no sides - there are nuanced and diverse issues
| and varying approaches which optimize for different values
| and to use words like 'us','them','side' is detrimental to
| the political process and enables those who yield narrative
| control over media uncharacteristic influence in a
| democracy.
| suoduandao3 wrote:
| centrists are probably generally less fearful as retreating
| to one extreme of a polarized dynamic is a common fear
| response. But I think the point is more, everyone is
| partially motivated by fear, sometimes governments use that
| fear as a lever.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Not about sides. Some people are just afraid of things.
| Afraid everyone is out to steal their kids. Afraid of war.
| Afraid of immigrants. Afraid of not enough immigrants. This
| just appeals to those people.
| chongli wrote:
| Base? This was a senate private member's bill. Senators in
| Canada are appointed, not elected, and they serve for life.
| The senator who introduced the bill, Julie Miville-Duchene,
| is a member of the independent senators group, a non-partisan
| group of 39 senators.
|
| It was voted against by the government. It's only getting
| traction with support from opposition parties. It might pass
| the house of commons without government support due to a
| minority parliament. All this despite the fact that the
| opposition spans the gamut from far left to far right.
| gspencley wrote:
| Yeah and let's also take a moment to consider that the current
| government here in Canada is not conservative.
|
| I say this in the most non-partisan way possible, just as a
| freedom loving Canadian: "Fuck Trudeau"
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| I mean, imagine how much worse it would be if Poilievre was
| the PM ;)
| canadiantim wrote:
| Atleast Poilievre would be on a shorter leash than Trudeau
| munk-a wrote:
| Unfortunately if Poilievre actually did get into the PM
| office it'd be on the back of a CPC majority - so he'd
| have a lot more freedom to act than Trudeau's current
| minority government.
| canadiantim wrote:
| We'll see. Could also be a Harper-like minority, getting
| support from the bloc. Trudeau also has a very supportive
| NDP right now, so Trudeau does have a lot of freedom
| currently.
| munk-a wrote:
| I'll never say never but the current state of the CPC is
| so departed from mainstream Canadian politics that it's
| far more likely that BQ would side with LPC... and the
| NDP and Greens would basically have to have a melt-down
| to side with the CPC.
|
| I think it's almost vanishingly unlikely that the CPC
| form government _unless_ they actually achieve a majority
| share of seats.
| scj wrote:
| > "The bill, which is the brainchild of Senator Julie
| Miville-Duchene, is not a government bill. In fact,
| government ministers voted against it. Instead, the bill is
| backed by the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP with a smattering
| of votes from backbench Liberal MPs."
|
| Remember, the opposition and the Senate can get bills through
| in a minority parliament.
| gspencley wrote:
| That's a good point but it's worth noting that the NDP is
| backing it, as well as some Liberal MPs. For non-Canadians,
| NDP is our "far left" party. I don't mean that in a
| pejorative sense, just that our Liberal party tends to be
| your "mainstream" moderates and we have a 3rd party for the
| less moderate left-leaning voters. That's what the NDP is.
| So if they're backing this then that can only mean that
| there is bi-partisan support for this.
| pupppet wrote:
| So basically fuck everyone...except Trudeau? This is why I
| can't take the fuck Trudeau crowd seriously. He's their go-
| to bogeyman for everything.
| adra wrote:
| From the article, "In fact, government ministers voted
| against it. Instead, the bill is backed by the Conservatives,
| Bloc and NDP with a smattering of votes from backbench
| Liberal MPs."
|
| Your anger seems to be misplaced in this instance.
| pesfandiar wrote:
| You're right https://openparliament.ca/votes/44-1/609/
| katbyte wrote:
| The current Goverment voted against this and is not the ones
| trying to pass it.
| tapesonthefloor wrote:
| Given how conclusively the article explains that this bill is
| supported by effectively everybody _but_ Trudeau, I'd like to
| take a moment to thank you for unburdening the rest of us so
| effectively with any ongoing need to give precious time or
| thought to anyone wielding that particular two word phrase,
| or, for those of us who have already wasted our time in
| dialogue with folks like you, reaffirming the conclusions
| we'd already drawn. Appreciated.
| vivekd wrote:
| That's what I thought initially too, but reading the article,
| it seems like it's just requiring age verification for
| accessing adult material. If we are concerned about censorship
| - I have to say that ship has long ago sailed. I don't have a
| problem with blocking porn or steps preventing kids from
| accessing porn
| logicchains wrote:
| >I don't have a problem with blocking porn or steps
| preventing kids from accessing porn
|
| It's just the first step; once they have the infrastructure
| for real-ID verification in place, they'll roll it out to
| more and more of the internet until adults have no more
| anonymity online.
| djaro wrote:
| That seems like a slippery slope.
|
| We also require age verification for online gambling, and
| that hasn't had bad consequences either.
| cebert wrote:
| The good old it's for the children position.
| captainkrtek wrote:
| Pick one of:
|
| - National Security
|
| - Protect the kids
| enasterosophes wrote:
| Don't forget:
|
| - Money launderers
|
| - Contraband distributors
| sgift wrote:
| Evil people are out to get YOU or YOUR KIDS. Give us
| access, we protect you!
|
| There. I generalized it. :(
| enasterosophes wrote:
| Ah, when the powers of the Four Horsemen combine!
| munk-a wrote:
| You wouldn't steal a car!
| pookha wrote:
| STAY SAFE!
| barbazoo wrote:
| Except that in this instance I can actually see the merit but
| obviously YMMV. I had access to porn since as far back as I can
| remember. In hindsight I wish something like this had been in
| place.
| nmz wrote:
| I also always had access to it but I never saw the harm in
| it, always knew it was unrealistic, the same way an action
| movie is.
|
| FWIW Instead of protections that will be eventually
| breakable, What I would like is more a mandatory disclaimer
| saying that everything about it is unrealistic and that its
| pure entertainment.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Don't forget that this was once considered pornography:
| https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/woman-ticket-wearing-
| bikini...
|
| Who will watch the watchers?
| barbazoo wrote:
| The populace electing lawmakers.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > Who will watch the watchers?
|
| The voyeurs.
| kredd wrote:
| Also grew up with unrestricted internet access, I recall
| everyone in middle/high school sharing LiveLeak links through
| MSN. Sure, it desensitized us, maybe "survivor bias", but if
| I quickly think of everyone I know, we've all ended up as
| semi-functioning adults.
|
| What I'd rather see governments do -- figure out how to solve
| decreasing attention span in kids. They'll eventually watch
| porn anyways, but tolerating anything that lasts more than 5
| minutes is more important.
| ipaddr wrote:
| If it did, the question is would you still be opposed? Is
| hiding knowledge better than allowing it? I think without
| knowledge you might have the opposite opinion
| rglover wrote:
| Kids will get access if the really want to. I remember
| downloading "that scene" from American Pie over 1mbps using
| KaZaa back in 2001.
|
| The only real solution is as others have suggested here:
| parents being more attentive to what their kids are browsing
| and making an effort to put in safeguards.
|
| Like the article states, this law is an avalanche for abuse
| of power (that guaranteed will take place).
| cpncrunch wrote:
| These days it's even easier with VPN and secure DNS.
| habibur wrote:
| I had been following C-18 closely. Wanted it to fail.
| Facebook/Meta bailed out of the market, deciding to not paying
| anything. The other one was Google which finally settled for
| paying $100m per year to a single institution which will divide
| the money among others.
|
| That's still far less than what Canada was asking. 2% of their
| yearly revenue which was bumped up to 4% after Meta left. But
| Google's $100m is more like 0.5% of their yearly gross revenue in
| Canada.
| vibrolax wrote:
| Yes, and now the government will have another $100m per year to
| bestow on its favored media companies.
| mohsenari wrote:
| Growing up in a country with internet censorship, I can tell it
| is a huge slippery slope not to mention the dangers of having to
| upload government ID to access adult websites. I hope politicians
| come to their senses on this.
| goda90 wrote:
| If they really want to do this without any privacy invasion
| ulterior motives, then someone needs to push an anonymous
| credentials scheme. Have the government give people age
| verification keys. A person uses their key to verify their age
| on a website, but the website won't know who they are, and the
| government won't know they accessed said website(outside any
| other means of tracking internet traffic).
| MzHN wrote:
| In China they already took a step further. The kids were
| using their parents' ID card to play games, so those games
| had to implement face recognition in addition to the ID card.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/9/22567029/tencent-china-
| fac...
| ipaddr wrote:
| I can see a unique dick registry now.
| SenAnder wrote:
| > adult websites
|
| Don't buy their framing - _every_ website with user-uploaded
| content is an "adult website" in the eyes of this law. If one
| of your users uploads a single jpeg of porn/hateful political
| rant/description of self harm, you'll be liable for "not
| implementing adequate measures to prevent minors from being
| exposed to pornography/harmful material/incitement to
| violence".
|
| "Adequate measures" are, of course, a complete loss of
| anonymity, adding your website to the surveillance state
| apparatus.
| 99_00 wrote:
| The bill doesn't say anything about uploading government ID.
|
| It says that it is illegal for a company to to give porn to
| kids. The company can defend it's self against the charge if
| they have a "prescribed age-verification method".
| logicchains wrote:
| >The company can defend it's self against the charge if they
| have a "prescribed age-verification method".
|
| And the prescribed age-verification method is going to be
| government ID.
| 99_00 wrote:
| What do you base that on?
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| On the basis of what the hell else could you reasonably
| use to establish someone's age? A copy of their birth
| certificate?
| retrac wrote:
| What age verification system exists other than government
| ID?
|
| The only way we ever verify someone's age for legal
| purposes, at least here in Canada, is by checking
| government ID. Birth certificate, driver's permit, photo
| ID card, health card. They all have your birth date on
| it. A younger adult may need to show this ID if they look
| particularly young and want to buy cigarettes or alcohol.
|
| Though relevant to the topic, I would note that the same
| young adult may need to show ID to buy pornography on DVD
| or Bluray at a retail store. That's already established
| and I would think few object to that. It's the security
| and privacy issues that arise when we start sending this
| data in a recorded and logged form over the Internet.
| This remains true whether it's a government ID or a
| privately issued ID.
| 99_00 wrote:
| >It's the security and privacy issues that arise when we
| start sending this data in a recorded and logged form
| over the Internet.
|
| That's for consumers and distributors to figure out. The
| lack of trust between consumers and distributors is no
| reason to continue allowing online porn to be exempt from
| long established and agreed upon controls.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think the security and privacy concerns absolutely are
| a reason to continue allowing this sort of thing to skate
| by. At least until the security and privacy concerns can
| be addressed.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The crypto, gambling current implementation in place at
| the moment.
| djaro wrote:
| How else would you verify age?
|
| If I buy alcohol I also need a "government ID"
| kelnos wrote:
| There are blind, privacy-preserving ways that this can be
| done. A third party verifies a government ID and issues
| an age-verification token. The token is passed to the
| porn site, which has a way to verify the token without
| talking to the entity that issued the token.
|
| That way the porn site doesn't know who you are (it just
| knows "this person is old enough to access this
| content"), and the age verification entity doesn't know
| what you used the token to access.
|
| Of course, this scheme is more complicated than building
| an age verification system that involves uploading a
| government ID (or asking a third party directly to verify
| someone's age), so ultimately no one gets any privacy or
| anonymity.
| standardUser wrote:
| > It says that it is illegal for a company to to give porn to
| kids.
|
| No it doesn't. It says "makes available sexually explicit
| material", which means any website or app that allows user-
| generated content.
| hackan wrote:
| This is freakin' nuts!! It should not pass, nor it should have
| reached such state, it is insane!
| twisteriffic wrote:
| Call your nearest Conservative party MP and complain. They're
| the ones pushing this.
| xemoka wrote:
| How the second reading vote went, so you know who to call and
| email, https://openparliament.ca/votes/44-1/609/
|
| And everything said about it and the status in the house:
| https://openparliament.ca/bills/44-1/S-210/
| charles_f wrote:
| What if my MP already voted no? Do you pick random MPs and
| email them?
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > What if my MP already voted no? Do you pick random MPs and
| email them?
|
| Call and tell them you support that decision (and, just as
| importantly, _why_ ).
|
| They'll be receiving pressure from both sides, and it's
| important to demonstrate that people continue to care about
| their opposition.
| charles_f wrote:
| > If someone is using a VPN, they can go in any country, so it
| is going to be bypassing some of that
|
| I love how the initial stated goal of the bill is to prevent
| involuntary access to pornography by children, but they're
| looking at how to prevent circumvention using VPNs.
| redm wrote:
| Protrcting privacy worked out so well with these cookie banners,
| I cant imagine what could go wrong with this...
| 99_00 wrote:
| If you feel that the company you are getting porn from isn't
| respecting your privacy and your privacy is important, don't
| get porn from them.
|
| The bill restricts distribution of porn to kids. It's up to the
| distributor to figure out how to do that.
| mulmen wrote:
| No, it isn't. It's about power. There's nothing a Canadian
| ISP can do to prevent kids from finding porn online. If the
| Canadian government actually cared about this they wouldn't
| use (hopelessly ineffective!) ISP level blocking. They would
| be funding an information campaign on device-level content
| blockers and be funding a browser add-on and block/allow
| list.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Let me make sure I understand your position.
|
| Are you saying that if this bill becomes law, consumption
| of porn among minors will not decrease?
| starburst wrote:
| Isn't it obvious it won't? Unless they go full-on China
| firewall style there will always be website readily
| available that won't enforce that crap and kids will find
| them easily.
| kelnos wrote:
| Not meaningfully. If a kid wants to find porn, they'll
| find porn. These sorts of measures are ultimately
| ineffective at blocking everything, and if there's even
| one thing that slips through, even if only for a little
| while, that's enough.
| mulmen wrote:
| Correct. The Streisand effect suggests it might even
| increase interest.
| twisteriffic wrote:
| > If the Canadian government
|
| This bill wasn't introduced by and isn't supported by the
| current Canadian government. It's supported by the
| Conservatives, who are the opposition.
| mulmen wrote:
| Sorry, Americanism, "government" means "the currently
| elected lawmakers".
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| I worked at a go kart racing track when I was a teen and the
| company installed something called "governors" that would limit
| the speed at which the go karts could go. The governors had a
| remote control which allowed an operator to selectively limit the
| speed of each individual go kart. As a 14 year old, if someone
| did a slight playful bump into another racer, I would govern
| them. It's the first instance of "power" I had over others.
| And.., I abused it for the "good".
|
| This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a
| button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button
| with thoughtless abandon.
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing a democratic pushback
| mechanism in this bill, and I think this is a disaster. This is
| also being said in the context that the most voted petition in
| Canadian history is e-4701, which is a vote of no confidence.
| 99_00 wrote:
| >This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a
| button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button
| with thoughtless abandon.
|
| What's the button in case of this legislation?
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| The button is censorship.
| civicduty wrote:
| It's not censorship, it's age verification. You can still
| access this stuff if you can prove you're an adult. Same as
| how children aren't allowed to buy the same material in
| stores. It's still being published, there's no censorship.
| bccdee wrote:
| Read the article ( `-` )
|
| > The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting
| user access and can therefore be applied to websites
| anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to
| ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible. And what
| about the risk of overblocking? The bill not only
| envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or
| limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits
| it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that
| an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing
| access to "material other than sexually explicit material
| made available by the organization" or limiting access to
| anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect
| of full censorship of lawful content under court order
| based on notices from a government agency.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Explain how this is censorship.
| rstat1 wrote:
| You want an explanation about how a law intended to block
| access to something is censorship?
|
| Really?
| protocolture wrote:
| Explain how it isnt lmao.
|
| It uses a one drop rule to test websites. Once theres a
| teensy bit of adult content, and as has been pointed out
| this covers things like googles unsafe search modes, then
| the requirement is to block first and ask questions
| later.
|
| Requiring people to be licensed or verified to access
| content is as much censorship as blocking it entirely.
| There are valid reasons to not want to be on a
| conservative governments list of porn users. You need to
| expose yourself to risk to access content? Censorship.
| natoliniak wrote:
| > any site or service that makes sexually explicit
| materials available
|
| so basically, the internet.
|
| > Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are
| rendered inaccessible
|
| At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech
| giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets
| to see what sites. So yes, censorship under the cloak of
| "age verification" and "protecting kids". We have heard
| it all before. I'm surprised they didn't somehow stuff
| the "terrorism" angle in there as well.
| 99_00 wrote:
| >At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech
| giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets
| to see what sites.
|
| It hasn't happened with any other censorship bill Canada
| has passed.
|
| This includes laws on pronoun use:
|
| Canada's gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained
|
| >through a process that would start with a complaint and
| progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal.
| If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination
| took place, there would typically be an order for
| monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy
| may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or
| even a publication ban, he says.
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-
| identi...
| happyopossum wrote:
| Requiring an onerous age verification scheme provided by
| government approved vendors is a lot closer to censorship
| than it isn't.
|
| Say you post stuff to your own blog, and sometimes use
| colorful language. A parent decides to report you to the
| regulatory agency, and now you have 20 days to do
| _whatever they demand you do_ to remediate, or else your
| site will be blocked at the ISP level.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| That's not even the half of it.
|
| In order to have age verification, you need identity
| verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity.
| Classic chilling effects. If you're in the closet because
| you come from a religious family or have a religious
| boss, can you risk some random site or government
| bureaucracy getting hacked and outing you? Strong
| anonymity is essential for free expression.
|
| Then the requirement to identify yourself is friction, so
| sites will want to avoid it, which can only be
| accomplished through censorship. Ordinary sites not
| solely focused on X-rated content will be "moderated"
| down to the level of children, even when they have adult
| audiences, because they don't want to be locked behind
| the porn filter.
|
| Instead of having diverse communities tailored to all
| different kinds of people and ideas, you bifurcate the
| world into nerfed risk-averse corporate censorship and
| explicit smut. The only place you're allowed to have an
| adult conversation is Pornhub, which is not exactly known
| for quality intellectual discourse.
| tzs wrote:
| > In order to have age verification, you need identity
| verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity
|
| I don't see any reason age verification _has_ to tie your
| identity to your activity. It should be possible with
| modern cryptographic techniques to make a system whereby
| the service that checks your age doesn 't find out what
| site the check is for, and that site doesn't find out who
| you are.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| There are two possibilities.
|
| One is you get a _unique_ token which can be tied back to
| your identity by someone who compromises the issuing
| service.
|
| The other is you get a _generic_ token or one that
| otherwise can 't be tied back to a specific identity, in
| which case the token leaks and there is no way to trace
| back who is leaking it, creating a generic bypass of the
| whole system.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| The button is: loss of privacy and anonymity for everyone,
| even those who the law is not suppose to be targeting.
| citrusybread wrote:
| does that really shock you though?
|
| e-4701 has less to do with the actual popularity of the parties
| or the system than it does with the fact that we're 8 years in
| with a fairly progressive leader. c.f. the annual anti-Trudeau
| demonstrations that are astroturfed (yellow vests, "freedom
| convoy 2022", united we roll, etc). This system didn't exist
| when Harper was PM or anyone before it; and we're hardly at
| Mulroney level of discontent.
|
| edit: also... the bill in question is opposed by the Liberal
| party at large (the ones who this petition oppose). it's mainly
| being pushed by the Conservatives and the Bloc (which makes for
| an odd union already) as well as the NDP (which pushes it
| completely into nutty territory of voting patterns). and it was
| introduced in the Senate - where most Senators do not have
| party affiliation.
| winter_blue wrote:
| > the most voted petition in Canadian history is e-4701, which
| is a vote of no confidence
|
| Most Liberal Party members voted against this bill (S-210 [1]).
| Support for this bill comes from the remaining parties, ie: (1)
| the Conservative Party, (2) the NDP (ie Canada's semi-socialist
| progressive party), and (3) Bloc Quebocois (Quebec's
| nationalist party).
|
| e-4701 [2] is a petition introduced by a conservative.
| Conservatives in Canada have a vested interest in pushing out
| Justin Trudeau, so there are no surprises there.
|
| [1] https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609
|
| [2]
| https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Peti...
| tzs wrote:
| > This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a
| button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button
| with thoughtless abandon.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Z...
| halfcat wrote:
| Also
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
| some_random wrote:
| SPE was bullshit, Zimbardo directed participants to get the
| outcome he wanted.
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| My local MP voted Nay - I should send him an email to thank him
| for that.
|
| https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=pro...
| grammers wrote:
| When will they ever stop? The moment we (=the people) have fought
| one surveillance law, they (=politicians) simply come up with
| another. Until we are too tired to fight anymore...
| imchillyb wrote:
| That's their _politicians_ strategy. It's a time worn political
| stratagem. Keep pushing the same bill through with a different
| name, different sponsors, and at a time few are paying
| attention.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| You have to win every time, they only need to win once.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| There has to be some sort of punishment for them to stop.
| Otherwise they'll just repeat it. If they find themselves
| consistently primaried or voted out for supporting bills
| they'll get the message.
| goosedragons wrote:
| There's no voting this wacko out. The lady who keeps shoving
| these bills out (or onto other bills) is an unelected senator
| that is there til she's 75 or does some gross misconduct or
| something.
| barbazoo wrote:
| That person obviously knows what they're talking about and are
| much smarter than me but I still think this here is a weasel
| thing to say.
|
| > I think the best way to deal with the issue includes education,
| digital skills, and parental oversight of Internet use including
| the use of personal filters or blocking tools if desired.
|
| That made me actually laugh. Internet access is ubiquitous,
| parental digital literacy is often low, none of those are
| actually helpful suggestions that would help address the symptom.
|
| Imagine if we suggested that for other problems. "I think the
| best way to deal with gun violence includes education, gun
| skills, and parental oversight of gun use including the use of
| safety mechanisms and gun safes if desired."
|
| I appreciate people spending their time fighting for our rights.
| But these arguments here weren't very practical in my opinion.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| > That made me actually laugh. Internet access is ubiquitous,
| parental digital literacy is often low, none of those are
| actually helpful suggestions that would help address the
| symptom.
|
| I think that works both for and against your point though. For
| the very same reason, it's not likely there will ever be a way
| to reliably solve this technologically. So while we may need
| some technological measures, we also need to educate parents
| and kids about this at the same time. Anyone trying to sell a
| technological 'this will solve the porn problem' solution
| should be viewed with a very critical eye.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > For the very same reason, it's not likely there will ever
| be a way to reliably solve this technologically.
|
| How did you arrive at this? Because I'm optimistic and think
| that if the government sets the ground rules, porn
| distributors will find a way to implement it reliably (using
| technology) and continue delivering porn to their consumers.
|
| We get age checked here in Canada all the time when we buy
| booze for instance. Why not enforce it here with something
| like an age verification?
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| Because the internet does not end at the Canadian border,
| and porn companies operating from other countries have no
| reason to implement such systems. And you can't block
| access to them -- VPNs are trivial to access these days.
|
| > We get age checked here in Canada all the time when we
| buy booze for instance. Why not enforce it here with
| something like an age verification?
|
| Because to buy alcohol you have to physically show up at a
| store with a physical ID that needs to pass as real, and
| you need to present yourself passably as an adult. Even
| then, it's not terribly difficult to get around even that
| -- plenty of high-schoolers are able to reliably get
| alcohol with cheap fake ID's because they look old enough
| and the ID is good enough. Online delivery services are
| also not terribly hard to spoof for a dedicated enough
| teenager.
| cherioo wrote:
| Then the next step is to ban VPN. It also doesn't matter
| that the ban is not 100% effective, as long as it deters
| majority of the uses.
|
| Arguing whether or not it CAN be blocked feels pointless.
| The question needs to start from whether it SHOULD be
| blocked or not.
| mulmen wrote:
| You said the quiet part out loud. The next step is
| banning VPNs. For the children of course.
| happyopossum wrote:
| >Why not enforce it here with something like an age
| verification?
|
| While I'd love this technical utopia, the Internet is a
| global construct. All it takes is someone in another
| country to decide they'd like to prey on kids by selling
| them porn, and your age verification goes out the window.
|
| To use your analogy, if the government can't even stop
| _licensed stores_ in fixed physical locations from selling
| alcohol to kids (because it does happen), then how is one
| country going to enforce this in a globally distributed,
| virtual space?
| kelnos wrote:
| We get carded in the US all the time when we buy booze too,
| but that system is still flawed: fake IDs often work, store
| clerks sometimes don't care as much as they should,
| underage people can sometimes get a random adult passing
| through to buy booze for them in exchange for 20 bucks,
| etc.
|
| And it's a lot easier to enforce rules when an interaction
| is in-person. How can you believe that porn blocking on the
| internet would ever actually work? (If blocking online
| TV/movie/music copyright infringement hasn't worked, why
| would you expect something like this to be successful?) All
| it takes is for one site to ignore the rules (porn sites
| based outside of Canada will not care to implement any kind
| of age verification), and for teens to use a VPN or some
| other trick to bypass ISP-level blocking.
|
| Then you have to ban or heavily regulate VPNs. At one point
| do you start realizing that you live in a Chinese-style
| internet censorship state?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| This is also missing the glaring fact that dedicated porn
| distributors are not the only sources of pornographic
| material. There are plenty of users on social media who
| post nsfw content or borderline nsfw content.
|
| So next you end up having everyone dox themselves to the
| site just to 'protect the children'. But then you have
| things like the fediverse and torrents, where obviously
| Canada can't really force much. At that point what are you
| going to do? Cut off global internet access? Start banning
| everything? Start heavily regulating software development
| past even what GDPR does?
| wharvle wrote:
| > That made me actually laugh. Internet access is ubiquitous,
| parental digital literacy is often low, none of those are
| actually helpful suggestions that would help address the
| symptom.
|
| And tools for enforcing any kind of rules on your own are hot
| garbage. Especially any that a normal person could possibly
| hope to figure out.
|
| You either have to cut off the 'net entirely (which is less
| practical with each passing year) or commit to a second job of
| managing this crap.
|
| I'm not a fan of bills like this, but also something's gonna
| have to change, or we'll get... bills like this.
|
| My guess is nothing will change, and this sort of thing is
| what'll happen instead.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > And tools for enforcing any kind of rules on your own are
| hot garbage. Especially any that a normal person could
| possibly hope to figure out.
|
| Online ID check?
| iimblack wrote:
| I don't think equating kids watching porn with gun violence
| makes sense. One has a much greater and more permanent effect
| so the reaction should be stronger. The other isn't, in my
| opinion, a big deal and the way the government is trying to
| deal with it has much farther reaching effects than the issue
| warrants.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think in the end we should just stop caring so much about
| this stuff. Yes, educate children, with a frank discussion,
| about porn and why it can be a problem.
|
| But if a teenager really wants to find porn, they're going to
| find porn, and... so what? I downloaded low-quality porn JPEGs
| from BBSes as a teen in the early/mid-90s, and then found so
| much more porn on the internet in the mid/late-90s, and I
| turned out ok. Sure, some people end up addicted and/or with
| unhealthy views on sex and intimacy because of porn, but
| Draconian blocking schemes (that ultimately don't work) aren't
| the answer.
|
| Maybe parents should actually _parent_ their children. Install
| parental controls where possible (which I know are far from
| perfect), but otherwise, maybe give your kids some measure of
| trust. This particular thing isn 't like worrying about a child
| predator luring your kid out to meet in person after finding
| them online; there's very little harm in a kid seeing some porn
| and then a parent finding out about it and disciplining the
| kid, if that's what they want to do. When I broke the rules as
| a kid, I got TV or Nintendo privileges taken away for a time;
| parents can take away a teen's internet-connected devices as
| punishment.
| bawolff wrote:
| I was originally going to say - wouldn't this be pointless when
| stuff is hosted elsewhere in the world.
|
| Then i remembered that pornhub is a canadian company. So maybe
| not as pointless.
| tamimio wrote:
| "Terrorism" and "protect the kids!" are the most used boogeyman
| by governments in the last two decades or so to further violate
| private citizens privacy rights, freedom rights, and further
| monitoring and censoring communications, and the accusation is
| ready if you dare to stand against it.
| dmix wrote:
| John Jonik comic from years ago (2010?)
|
| https://i.imgur.com/BDqwk99.jpg
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
|
| Making these arguments is evidence of bad faith.
| boh wrote:
| In the words of Winston Churchill: "Never let a good crisis go
| to waste".
| rixthefox wrote:
| The one question I want to ask these government officials is
| "Where are the parents?"
|
| If underage children are accessing explicit content, it is the
| parents, not the websites that are at fault. Why are you handing
| children devices that are not parental locked to only permit
| applications that have been approved by the parent?
|
| If the parent fails to properly vet the apps they allow their
| children to use then it is the parent that needs to be
| questioned. Pushing this requirement onto websites and services
| is moving the goal posts. If the parents are too technically
| inept or unwilling to police their children's devices then they
| should not be handing them to their children.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Attributing blame to parents for anything in 2023, especially
| their internet or device usage, is incredibly faux pas.
| rixthefox wrote:
| I expect people in 2023 to understand parental controls.
| jstarfish wrote:
| We can't even successfully curtail adverse behavior in the
| enterprise, with budgetary spends for DLP and
| communications monitoring measured in the millions.
|
| Parents don't stand a chance. You could be running a
| fucking kiosk with only Minecraft on it. If it still has an
| internet connection, kids will be harassed, bullied and
| solicited.
|
| It's the kids who taught me about the existence and purpose
| of Finstagram accounts.
|
| The only effective parental control is unplugging them from
| the internet. But you can't do that, because our lives are
| inextricable from it now.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Which parental controls would, say, allow a kid to visit
| /r/roblox but not /r/nsfw? Best I can tell, Firefox
| literally does not have any parental controls built in, and
| they have a note that extensions to provide it are easily
| bypassed.
|
| It seems reasonable to me to at least start requiring sites
| and commercial software vendors to build a system that
| makes parental controls possible. And if a commercial site
| like reddit is going to have child focused content like a
| Roblox forum, then it should be easily separated from porn
| without requiring parents to set up a MITM proxy with
| complicated filtering rules.
|
| There are simple privacy and (adult) autonomy preserving
| ways filtering or access control could be done, but after
| 30 years it still seems to be an impossible task. Chuck-E-
| Cheese doesn't have a porn theatre in the back where an
| employee just asks if you're 18 and accepts any 7 year old
| saying yes.
| Eumenes wrote:
| reddit is a big no no for children. its full of porn,
| politically charged topics, and predators. you can also
| use wildcards in a dns sinkhole to target keywords
| perhaps.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| I don't disagree, but also I don't think it's
| unreasonable that a site like that which also hosts
| children's forums is going to have parents wanting
| regulation.
|
| Pornhub doesn't have a part of the website for minor
| teenagers or Minecraft. Neopets doesn't have a porn or
| gore section. Even _4chan_ separates their SFW and NSFW
| boards onto different sites (though obviously even their
| SFW boards are not child friendly and don 't pretend to
| be).
|
| You can't do anything at the DNS level for reddit (short
| of blocking it all) because it's all one site. And it
| uses TLS, so you'd need to MITM to do partial filtering,
| which is beyond the capability of most people. I assume
| Instagram and tiktok are similar/even harder to filter.
|
| Porn sites at least used to ask for credit cards. Now
| they just ask yes/no are you 18, and they have children's
| sections. They should really be working to clean up their
| act in a privacy/autonomy friendly way (e.g. through
| labeling and partnering with browsers) before they're
| forced into these kinds of laws. Or stop targeting
| children as a market and ban anyone that hints that they
| are under 18.
| mulmen wrote:
| Don't get distracted by the red herring. This isn't about
| protecting kids. It's about power and control.
| apantel wrote:
| It's _always_ about power and control.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> "Where are the parents?"_
|
| Blaming the government for whatever their child does. It seems
| most parents, they have outsourced the primary education of
| their kids to the government and tiktok.
|
| I told one such parent that the government is only in charge of
| educating your child to get a job, not teaching him basic
| behavior, values and life lessons, and that parent said "no, I
| pay taxes, I expect the government to teach him everything".
| Nuff said.
| dingnuts wrote:
| Why is this surprising? It's a society where the government
| is expected to step in and take care of you at every turn,
| from birth to death. That's what welfare is for, and free
| health care, and food stamps, government housing, government
| education, subsidized early child care, all the way to
| assisted death.
|
| If the goal is to design a society where the government is
| responsible for everything, why does the population need to
| be responsible?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Family structure is devolving away from two stable parents, so
| the state is required to step in.
| amtamt wrote:
| Where are "proper parental control" implemented?
| nvy wrote:
| >The one question I want to ask these government officials is
| "Where are the parents?"
|
| To be clear, this bill originated outside the government. The
| Canadian Conservative Party do not currently form the
| government. They are ideologically-driven religious
| fundamentalists who don't care "where the parents are". For
| them it's "porn == bad" and "government oversight == bad except
| if it's on an issue that my ideology happens to align with".
| tzs wrote:
| Internet is getting pretty easy to find access to. We may be
| past the point where parents can limit their kids to only
| accessing the internet through devices that the parents
| control.
| spacemanspiff01 wrote:
| What not just have site that are serve explicit things advertise
| that. Have a large scale Blocklist, and if you serve explicit
| content, then you need to be on there.
|
| Then have a option when people sign up for internet to block all
| the IPs associated with explicit stuff.
|
| Adults and parents can choose "yes or no" when they pay for
| internet and then be done with it.
|
| If children are still getting access, then their either
| technically savvy, which nothing will stop. Or an adult in their
| life is allowing unblocked internet.
|
| Just make ip filtering easy and default so that parents can set
| it up without having to understand anything. It should be a
| required thing when you request internet access "do you want to
| filter out explicit content"
|
| Some sites that have dual content may have to have separate IP
| addresses for non-explicit and explicit/non explicit. But that is
| relatively easy. And if they do not care, then they will by
| default end up on explicit list.
| speak_plainly wrote:
| It was only a matter of time before a certain class of people
| figured out how to use the internet and subsequently ruin it. I'm
| more surprised it lasted this long.
| jerlendds wrote:
| Why are so many media organizations and news outlets quiet on
| this? I've been searching around for any hits of S-210 and it
| seems there's remarkably few! If you're Canadian let's spread the
| word!
| dade_ wrote:
| Trudeau is subsidizing most of Canadian media. Who knows what
| Pierre will do, but I'll take a bet that it could be a cost
| saving measure to stop handouts to 'fake news' MSM.
|
| Justin seems to be aiming for a supernova exit...
| https://338canada.com/
| adamomada wrote:
| They get paid 60 million bucks a year (for a decade at least)
| to stfu about government business
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-14 23:01 UTC)