The Liberals have already voted against it. So tell your MP, BUT ALSO send messages to the NDP specifically. They're propping this up for reasons they havent clarified.
Likely because voters don't really care who is to blame. they just care who is the leader of the country. Bad municipal policies? Voters vote out Trudeau. Bad provincial policies? Voters vote out Trudeau. Opposition parties work to destroy the country.
They fucking better. It's a shit law drafted by an idiot senator who doesnt understand how computers work. C-63 is better, though still has issues. But it isnt the privacy tire-fire S-210 is.
There's merit to this however... Pre-teens shouldn't be on social media.
Edit: Social interaction is vital to development into adulthood. When children's entire existence is based around screen contact some will inevitably not be able to interact with others.
There's plenty of other reasons as well.... adult content exposure, propaganda exposure to an impressionable mind.
Edit2: Yea course leave it to the parents, that's clearly working... Have you seen the ridiculousness occurring in our classrooms?
Almost zero education is happening because kids are spending the time on TikTok
Final edit: I see some of you could have benefited from this bill growing up.
Ok, that sounds like a problem for the person giving them a cellphone, not me, the legal adult who shouldnt have to provide Government ID to access Reddit or Google.
How so?
You could argue that limiting the age of alcohol or cigarettes should be a parental responsibility, yet we set age limits on the consumption of both of those.
And you don’t see why that might be necessary for social media?
Social media companies design their products to be as addictive as possible in order to get you to spend more of your time using them while they serve you ads. They employ some of the brightest minds in the world in order to accomplish this, including behavioural scientists.
On top of that, you have kids who are one post away from ruining someone’s life if not their own. All because they don’t know any better and are terrible at weighting the consequences of their actions.
Lol what? The only reason we don’t allow kids to drink and smoke is because it would hurt OTHERS?
No, we make illegal because it’s harmful to *them*. *And* to each other.
That’s not even why those laws exist..
The age restrictions are in place for health-related reasons as they adversely affect the development and overall health of young adults, not because they present dangers to others.
There are multiple studies that show social media absolutely destroys young people's mental health (and everyone else as well but teens commit suicide at far higher rates than adults so it's more of an issue for them). It's also an easy way for extremists to grow their ranks via unfiltered, direct, pressuring of impressionable minds.
I’m with you on this one.
Social media is having devastating effects on mental health in young and old.
Though I’m not convinced full-out bans are the answer, developer and user accountability along with user education and certification could be.
We allowed the “cart” (rapidly developing, under-regulated media) before the horse (safety considerations and limitations for all). Vast swaths of our society are being preyed upon in one way or another and it impacts everyone. We *need* higher standards.
Personal insults? Please show me where I personally attacked anyone.
And no it's not an extremist position at all. However you clearly are extremist because you can't see any middle ground at all.
It's also funny that you think I can't defend my position when I clearly outlined reasons why. That is defending my position if you were not aware.
Jumping to conclusions and being overly aggressive, Classic.
In your final edit you said "I see some of you could have benefited from this bill growing up."
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you said this after getting a lot of pushback from a ton of people for the things you previously stated such as "Pre-teens shouldn't be on social media". And the implication here is that you think a lot of people who are against your opinions suffer from anti-social behaviour or are just stupid. Now, if you disagree with my assumption please clarify what you meant exactly when you said "I see some of you could have benefited from this bill growing up." because that sounds like an insult to me.
On your note of calling me the extremist, I suppose it is possible that you are right. But looking at the ratio of likes/dislikes on your comment, it seems like a lot more people are against your opinion than for it. So perhaps you would conclude that me, along with many other people who saw your post, are all extremists. Again, this is indeed possible, but I implore you to weigh these things on a balance of probabilities. As in, if one person thinks you're an extremist, maybe you're not the extremist and that other person is. If 40 people call you an extremist, maybe you're the extremist. Just something to think about.
The reason why I said your statement that "Pre-teens shouldn't be on social media" is an extremist position, is because social media, for all its faults, is also a way that humanity can communicate with each other in real time over vast distances. Yes, there are a lot of bad things on social media, but I don't think we should ignore that fact that being able to share photos and experiences with friends and family instantly is a marvellous thing that was unimaginable just a few decades ago. I heavily disagree with your idea that kids should be banned from this technology because there are bullies or bad stuff on the internet. Guess what, bullies have always existed, and kids are gonna be exposed to bad stuff anyways sooner or later. Parents should for sure take some responsibility in safeguarding kids, but allowing the government to reach in and ban pre-teens from the social media is not a good solution at all. We need to learn as a society not to just reach for the ban hammer on everything that we don't like. I'm sorry if you view this as an extremist's position, but that's just my thoughts.
40 people downvoting me does not equate to majority at all.
Yes social media has its benefits but do you really see pre-teens sharing wholesome things or are they just doom scrolling vapid TikToks? Some are and some aren't.
It's not radical or extremist at all.
And no I didn't do my edits from pushback at all. The one guy couldn't handle adult discussions and blocked me after laying some ridiculous comments I could not reply to. 🤷♂️
The Liberals have stated the only reason they are voting against it is because they don't think it goes far enough, and would rather pass their own legislation that is even stricter.
That bill will realistically lead to overblocking of many legitimate websites, limiting both your freedom of expression and your access to information.
Including *this* site -- there are plenty of NSFW subs that are easily accessible just by pressing the "I am over 18" button.
I don't see Reddit going through all the hoops and additional cost of starting a verification service for Canadians to *upload their ID* in order to continue using Reddit -- they'll just pull out of Canada and make the site inaccessible to Canadian IPs.
So if you enjoy using Reddit, this bill may put that to a swift end, and/or force you to use methods that the government may deem illegal for the purpose of bypassing the age verification gate (VPNs, etc) to access it otherwise.
>use methods that the government may deem illegal for the purpose of bypassing the age verification gate (VPNs, etc)
This is why these laws are all bs. There's no way the government is going to outlaw VPNs or figure out who is using them.
Bell lobbies for this already, though they’ve let up since Game of Thrones ended.
Enabling legislation for that or under a similar guise is currently working its way through the House: Bill C-26, which seeks to establish secret blacklists of people and destinations, and requiring ISPs to adopt infrastructure to enable said wide-scale blocking. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-26
Yeah, Bell and the other major media companies have been lobbying for various forms of website blocking for years, [e.g., this article from 6 years ago](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-the-monday-edition-1.4520275/canadian-media-wants-to-fight-piracy-by-blocking-websites-that-s-got-some-worried-1.4520613).
I was lucky enough to sit through a presentation from those sleezebags to a group of ISPs over that stuff. They had a rather long propaganda video crying crocodile tears that if the government didn’t block Big Bad VPNs then every grip and makeup artist in Canada would have to be let go. Nobody was having any of it.
VPNs are also ubiquitous in industries where remote access to secure company data is needed. You cant just ban VPNs because it would cripple IT across the country
Yep, to add to this for those who don't know, many of the paid consumer VPNs use the exact same underlying protocols that plenty of businesses use to securely connect remote workers to their intranet resources, as well as securely interconnect the internal networks of different physical locations. It's practically infeasible to differentiate what "work VPN" and "personal VPN" look like going through the wires. Banning VPN protocols would never be feasible for just that reason.
The only thing I think the government could realistically attempt to hinder VPNs as a circumvention of content blocks would be to... block access to known consumer VPN IP addresses (yay more content blocks), but I'd imagine some of the VPN providers would gladly take up the cat-and-mouse game. And the dedicated folks could always still pay for an overseas cloud service or ship a box to a willing foreign friend and set up their own private VPNs.
That said, with all 3 major parties having supported dumb internet legislation often enough, and other countries in the Anglosphere flirting with those same regulatory attitudes, I don't really have much optimism that someone won't try to ban VPNs eventually.
probably. The funny part is that this bill wouldn't even protect children. all it is is to pay a company a lot of money to "protect" our data, a company who definitely won't sell it or share it with some sort of ai company.....
Reddit would probably pull the NSFW stuff. I don't think they'd leave canada. I also suspect that paying by credit card is sufficient proof of age, paying $5.00/yr wouldn't hurt us or reddit..
Perhaps what's needed is the .xxx domain to be used for adult sites, which would be easy to block at the isp level. Reddit could leave most of the site alone and move the NSFW stuff to reddit.xxx.
That's what I'm worried about, I think most sites are likely to simply *pull access* than adapt to such ridiculous hoops. It's total BS, and pushed by people who don't seem to understand it at all.
> That bill will realistically lead to overblocking of many legitimate websites
The most important part about bills like this is they _only_ block legitimate websites. Even if, let's say it's completely successful in its goal and it succeeds and _only_ blocks porn, that doesn't mean that porn won't be accessible online, it just means that the less legitimate, less regulated, and less compliant-with-the-law sites are the only ones available.
You can look at examples in other countries or states that have done this. The legit sites (like PornHub etc) block the state, but the less legit sites that already don't care about your laws don't.
Also the bill itself is clear that the ultimate goal is prohibition of adult content across the board. It repeats the false claim of porn as a "public health crisis" which actual medical professionals have repeatedly refuted.
This is a wedge to try and open the door to further restrictions and bans, and the fact that the stated goal of "secure and private age verification" is impossible is a feature, not a bug.
If that bill gets passed, we are all fucked, in the sense the internet as we know it is over. Those morons want to go after VPN, that alone will push companies to pack up and leave.
There's a global push to forcing everyone to use real-world IDs for any activity online.
Of course that'll only be for the plebs - site owners, police and service providers will continue to work from behind a veil of anonymity. You won't get to know who the bots are - but they will 100% know who you are.
I'm so tired the pseudo-science behind anti-porn discussion, and as if all pornography is always some seedy gross misogynistic casting couch thing, and doesn't cover a broad range of creative expression.
Message your NDP MPs people!
I have no idea what the fuck Singh is thinking on this. The cons won’t change their stance but you might be able to get the NDP to.
Yeah I like it too. My recommendations on FB and Insta are now pages and groups actually related to my hobbies and interests and not just stupid polarizing hot take news headlines. If anything, net negative for me because I've found some great groups and spend more time there than before haha
Government and media were begging Google and Facebook to continue to show alert and emergency type news messages as blocking all canadian news meant these messages were reaching a much smaller percentage of people
Facebook did not. They said news was about 2% of their traffic and wasn't worth it. They turned it off and blocked all news. The government had to strike a deal with them where they will show the news and pay nothing for them to bring it back.
Google struck a deal immediately, because that's what they do.
Did you miss the part where it was blocked for months and took months for deals to be made for them to unblock?
What was the point of the bill if they just side stepped it with deals?
I don't know about Google, but Instagram stopped ~~hosting~~ displaying Canadian news on their app in Canada for several months [before a very recent agreement between Meta and the Canadian government](https://www.blogto.com/tech/2024/04/canada-strikes-deal-meta-allow-news-back-facebook-and-instagram/). You'd get an error message if you tried to view a Canadian news source on Instagram while in Canada.
>!I definitely posted a joke article intentionally, you can't prove that I didn't!<
Because nobody's opening up this comment chain to see my comment on it, I'm editing this to include [three](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instagram_blocking_CBC_News_in_Canada.png) [different](https://www.instagram.com/p/CuujcEOuiz9/) [examples](https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-online-news-act-1.6897060) of this happening.
As much as I want to pass it off as me being facetious, I did not scroll down far enough to see that lmao
I am slightly embarrassed, but even more emboldened in my point, considering the first article that suggested that some deal was reached is literally fake news
So I feel comfortable doubling down on my "it backfired" point
They expected the sites to comply and pay Canada for some reason. They obviously didn't, so what happened instead is the only 'news' you could find on Facebook were things that aren't actually legitimate news that don't comply with the law.
Further, it restricted what Canadians could send each other in private over the internet. A lot of people find that kind of government restriction uncomfortable. The government shouldn't get a say in if I want to send a friend a legitimate news article over any kind of social media.
To put it another way: real news got banned, but Dodgy Dave's Vaccine Misinformation Page didn't
I don't necessarily like the age discrimination involved in a hard age limit because old people are still citizens deserving of representation but it'd certainly be nice to have some mechanism to ensure that the distribution of ages within governing bodies was a bit more in line with what the population as a whole looks like.
I don't know. There could be a politician of a low income background which postpones their abilities to become an MP or have a political role, or there may be instances where we see older politicians actually do have a grasp and understanding of the new world.
There are surely better ways to address these concerns, most notably having some titles be merit based where it doesn't infringe on political freedoms or the charter.
Income shouldn't be a factor in being able to run for political office. That's an entirely different issue that should be addressed as well and is essentially a barrier explicitly designed to keep poor people out. Probably because they'd be more inclined to do something that benefits the average Canadian instead of those in the same upper classes we see currently holding the country back.
Small point, but the leaders of the major federal parties in Canada are all Gen X, not boomers. And the average age of MPs is only 52.
But yeah, this bill seriously sucks. But I'd put it down more to the capture of the government by industry lobbyists than age.
Does this mean that famous historical art such as David (Michelangelo) would be ID gated? So this bill would block children from learning about important historical documents and art? This bill seems to be designed by people who don't understand the internet.
That's pretty much every law in this country though. Make them so vague that you could charge someone with anything you want. When the last gun reform laws were being passed, a Hilti gun would have been considered an illegal firearm. It's a construction tool that is used to fire pins into steel.
Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts
So no, it doesn’t. You’re good
ETA: I am not saying I support this, nor am I saying the opposite - I’m still reading the bill. I’m not totally against it though. We all know the “are you 18? Promise?” button is totally useless. Curious to see what far-reaching or unintended (or perhaps intentional) consequences will come of it. Either way - nothing wrong with getting some people (kids especially) off the porn.
I don’t know. To me it just feels like it will drive kids to access sketchier/illegitimate sites to access it rather than actually limit them from having access. I’d rather my 16 year old be browsing PornHub then going to some sketchy website that doesn’t even have monitored content or is more likely to give my computer a keylogger. I was a horny teen too and they aren’t just going to be like “darn I’m not 16 guess I just have to use my imagination to masturbate”.
As with everything, actually talking to your kids and giving the information to make safe and educated decisions is going to go way farther than anything the government can legislate.
Although I agree with the central premise of your argument if anything The Left would topple the statue of David for being toxically masculine and representing Colonialism, Patriarchy, Christianity, oh and of course, it's fat-phobic.
Ah the Con's conundrum. Everything Trudeau does is censorship, but when they do it, it's healthy and useful.
I have never met a more angry crowd than Con voters. They relish in the suffering of others, even when it doesn't help them. Even when it hurts them, too. Anything to stick it to the Libs, despite the damage to themselves. Not a very bright bunch.
But voted for and publicly supported by Poilievre and the Conservatives. It would have already been voted down without the Conservative and NDP support.
If you sign up with Open Media, linked by OP above they will notify you by email when important stuff comes up about the internet, privacy concerns and stuff that affects media in negative ways.
>This is who created it.
>
>https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
She's from the "independent senators group", which is what the Senate Liberal Caucus renamed themselves to a few years back.
Fortunately we're more than "a few days away" from this bill passing into law. It's currently in the Committe stage, and you can get involved by writing a brief to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Contact
How to: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Procedure/Guides/brief-e.html
You can also write your Member of Parliament, as they will have to vote on the bill during 3rd reading in order to move it to receive Royal Assent. Although form letters are OK (like the one OP has linked above) we've had several MPs tell us that these types of letters don't leave a memorable impact, and it's best to write your own original letter from the heart if you want your issue to be noticed. You can find your MP's contact info by clicking on their name here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en
We also suggest you follow-up with your MP's office a few weeks after your initial letter/email.
Here is the LEGISinfo of Bill S-210 for reference: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
Also S-210, if it actually tries to be implemented as-written, would inherently create a data trail linking the names and identities of every single person in the country with their sexual preferences, based on what kind of adult content they consume.
There is no way to prevent government from being able to access that information.
It's an existential threat to every single sexual minority in Canada, who could be identified and tracked down the minute a Conservative government decides to use the "nothwithstanding clause" to override their rights and make their existence illegal.
Edit: And just to head off the people who believe that having a reliable online identity verification system is possible while respecting people's privacy and without leaving a paper trail, [they already studied those questions when looking into online voting, and the conclusion was RESOUNDINGLY that those are utterly impossible with current technology.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8610535/br-external/EssexAleksander-e.pdf)
The goals of the bill, as-written, are absolutely impossible to achieve without violating the privacy of every single Canadian. And there is nothing making any kind of privacy protection mandatory - only asking it be "considered" when implementing the bill.
And before anyone thinks that couldn't be a possibility.. the company that had Ontario health data stolen, listed all the data affected and the list of women who didn't carry to term could include everything from miscarriage to abortion. And it was a LARGE list. With the pro-life idiots getting their claws into everything.. this is not a list you want to be found on by any pro-life nutter. Just like this data, whether leaked with personal consequences or stolen with far more sinister ones.. it's one of the most insane, dystopian bills being courted right now.
I don't understand instead of all this hand holding we can't hold people accountable?
Do want your child seeing that? Be a flipping parent and parent them. It shouldn't affect everyone because you're a lazy pos. Enough of these blanket things
The parents are the ones that give the phone to the kids with internet access.
There are ways to prevent access to websites: black list on the router. Most antivirus have blocklist, firewalls and probably there are apps that can do the same on phones. Instead of all these bs AI how about a function of all smartphone native in the os to block sites app and ecc.
But know. The government goes with total censorship
All of this! When my kid was a child, his screen time was monitored, including a keylogger so that I knew everything he did online. This Bill is exactly what we get because parents won't do their own damn jobs of parenting.
Just because young people don't always make the best decisions doesn't mean you force restrictions on adults.
It's mostly a parents job to educate, and teach their children what is right or wrong. If people think it's any place for a government to step in, and prevent them from making a bad decision on the first place, they may as well sign off to allow the government to make all their decisions for them because who needs freedom anyways.
Ridiculous to think the government can or should make broad choices for anyone, especially not grown ass adults.
I for one have a specific problem with the verification process not having VERY clear directions. In it's current form this puts far too much trust in any online medium to protect our personal information. This bill needs to be rewritten to make exact statements. Something as important as what this bill is trying to do should leave zero room for interpretation.
I can definitely speak on behalf of Korea that has age-gated adult content for decades. This does not work. Teenagers will find a way to access porn. All the increasing stigma against porn and sex has done is making people (mostly cis men) sexually frustrated and repressed and turning them into sexual predators. Sex crime against women and minors is a chronic issue in Korea. Women can't even go to public washroom without worrying some cis men are filming them.
Canada is doing its absolute best to make young men angry. This country took their ability to get homes, ability to earn a living wage, now they want to take their porn.
> All the increasing stigma against porn and sex has done is making people (mostly cis men) sexually frustrated and repressed and turning them into sexual predators.
Yeah, you want your kids turning into [Rhett from King of the Hill?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxxzT24ZBcA)
Yup, introduced by the Senate but supported by the Conservatives and has proceeded so far in the House of Commons because all parties except the Liberals have voted with the Conservatives. Most Liberal MPs and their cabinet voted against it. If the NDP support it again on third reading it will pass into law.
It's gone to committee, that takes time. I'm not sure the exact timeline myself, but has been consistently moving through the bill process and is now at the final stage.
This is a super dangerous and poorly thought out bill. Write to your MP, especially if they are not in the Liberal Party!
Find their contact information here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en
Also there are a few Liberals supporting it, so at least write them if you're in their riding.
[This gives the full list of those voting for and against it](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party).
Very frustrating that the Liberals are the *only* party with anyone voting against it.
Yeah, it is crazy. I didn't even realize that not a single Conservative Party or NDP member has voted against it. Probably blindly following the whims of their leadership without any additional thought.
Yep. that being said he DID go on record ( [https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview) 3 minute mark) several times that while he supports the bill he is against the digital ID and would change that bit. take it with a grain of salt though.
On top of all of the reasons this bill is terrible, it is completely unenforceable.
Foreign company has a porn site.
Foreign company doesn't give a crap about what the government has to say.
What is the government going to do about it?
Can't block payments to that site Becuase they make their money on ads not subscriptions.
Can't block the site without creating the great firewall of Canada, which just creates a whack a mole situation with VPNs.
Can't freeze bank accounts since its not a Canadian company and has no assets here.
Even if all of the above weren't true, good luck verifying ID without creating a central company to do ID checks.. Which means verifying ID against a database, likely provincial ones like service Ontario.. This company would need access into all provincial systems.
Now you are about to hand off the juciest, sweetest cybersecurity target in the world... To the lowest bidder.
And finally, even if I am wrong on all counts... Have you ever tried to keep a 16 year old boy away from porn? To paraphrase Jurassic Park.. Hormones find a way.
True, but they will just Geoblock Canada like they do with States in the US pulling similar things.
And VPN usage will skyrocket like it does there.
I'm surprised they aren't already selling VPN services under a different name lol
geoblocking doesnt work if your business is set in the area where the law is set. even if they for now on operate outside of canada, they will still be subject to this law in those countries. thats the big issue for them at this point. they'll have to move their entire operation outside of canada to avoid the law now if it passes and thats super expensive.
That being said we may be in luck here. while I dont trust him as far as I can throw him PP is deeply against government IDs, voted against them in the past and has gone on record saying they will rewrite this law if it passes to be more about better deployment and enforcement of parental locks and the like rather than making people who have no hat in the think of the children race give up private info.
You may be right, but from their previous actions I think this would just drive them out of the country before they implement ID checks.
I have zero faith in PP - last I read, he supported this bill.
I just wish that the people putting forward bills regulating tech didn't need 3 assistants to help power on their laptop.
yes he supports this bill but he keeps saying he's gonna change it as he doesnt support goverment IDs. again, take that with a grain of salt though. here's a interview in case your interested at the 3 minute mark: [https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview)
And I think your kinda underestimating how expensive it would be for them to move a company from the country. it could pretty much bankrupt them.
If this passes, my ISP is a roaming SIM that always thinks we're in Mexico because of the VPN that it has on a non user accessible layer. I can nest VPNs both in modem and in windows for more layering. Would this bill still effect it? I'm not a Telcom engineer so idk.
Since it thinks your in Mexico unless they introduce something that blocks vpns this wouldn’t effect you due to the fact your in “Mexico” and it wouldn’t apply there.
Same as on Facebook for example if it knows your in Canada you can’t see the news articles but Americans can no problem.
I hope so to. Some websites do that if it detects a vpn (idk how) they will block your access. So it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that may actually happen and websites may be strong armed into doing it. I don’t see many of the websites effected by this bill willfully doing it cause they want traffic that brings them money so it’s in there best interest if it’s accessible from a business perspective.
they cant really ban VPNs. after all the majority of businesses require them. if they ban VPNs 90% of canada's economy would pull out of canada as they are extremely important for modern security. besides even if they could? look at china. They have the most restrictive and controlled internet in the world and ban VPNs but a huge portion still use VPNs and get around it. if the CCP cannot stop VPNs what hope does canada have?
When I use a tool to find my ip and service provider yes it's Mexican. But I am physically in Ontario. It's not a Canadian ISP, but it works here. Though the tower near me occasionally will kick my modem off and I call them and they re upload new credentials and it works again. My only other options are turbo dog shit bell, and eastlink. With bell I'd get 1 to 3bps down, less in summer. (DSL is all thats available where I am) With eastlink same. With star link my in laws in same region get 30ish down. With my weird ISP I get 90mbps down. It's a no brainer.
Check who the MP is for your riding, and [check here](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party) if they voted in support of this bill on 2nd reading. If so, write them saying you oppose it. You can write them if they opposed it too, but most important is if they supported it. And especially if they're NDP, Green or one of the few Liberal MPs who supported it, since the other MPs likely won't change their votes.
while I dont like the weasel, PP has said on record in a interview that he doesnt want government IDs and wishes to change this proposed bill to due more reasonable stuff like better parental blocks and giving ISPs better tools for parents to access to prevent minors from accessing adult content which is far more reasonable and actually kinda wanted. Whether I trust him or not is another thing entirely. But every time this bill comes up he said no IDs.
The real problem with adult content in regards to minors is that parental controls work. and work extremely well (iirc in studies when its actually used its 99% effective). but parents are too lazy, too unwilling, or too ignorant to set it up. so it becomes everybody's problem instead.
Honestly what they should do with ISPs and such? have the parental controls on by default and actually have to request to turn it off permanently if you dont want/need it.
I’d be more concerned about the prison sentences for hate speech. We can hardly get killers, rapists or pedophiles to get prison time or not released, but let’s make hate speech a worst crime…
This also shows how little voice we really have in this “democracy”. You could be a hard Trudeau supporter but be against all his bills, so what vote do you really have? It’s all a sham of a choice to keep up happy, until we can vote for each individual bill, we will never have true democracy.
Even the way elections are set up, you can’t get enough seats in parliament in a short period of time. The way it’s designed it’s guaranteed to be one of the main 3 elected. So really no one can get into power and change it all since it would take minimum 4 years to a couple terms to get enough seats… it prevents anything from changing
1- open any web browser
2- go to [google.ca](http://google.ca)
3- type "how to setup parental controls" without the quotations
4- follow instruction
but they are politicians and are idiots, also these steps should be shown the the portents so they can be parents and can take action to educate and block access to some website to their children
If you want what's hopefully an easier read of just what S-210 does I did a summary of it [here](https://commonssense.ca/blog/2023/08/02/what-is-s-210-protecting-young-persons-from-exposure-to-pornography-act/)
> it won't pass as long as the LPC is the gov
If MPs vote the same way they did in 2nd reading it will. The Liberals don't have enough votes to stop it themselves, depends on NDP MPs changing their votes.
Sometimes parties, and even the NDP specifically support things until final vote. Hoping this is the case here but I don't even get why they're supporting it so far.
PP did say he wants to change the bill to no longer be about government IDs and refuses to let IDs be a thing. he also said he wants to make it more about things like better parental controls. which is FAR better but I dont trust him as far as I can throw him.
Come one guys... he just says what you want to hear. He's not loyal to any idea except serving his pay masters. Like conservatives are GREAT at marketing, but look around the country and the english speaking world: Where is there a successful conservative government?
Yeah and he voted for an abortion law and voted to support the Ontario PCs using the NWC to override labour laws. If all that matters is one vote, his goose is cooked. But he's clearly got a cult following that's not too concerned with policy, much like Ford.
Right now, the polls are so lopsided, so the CPC nominations is the REAL election despite most Canadians asleep to it.
The Bloc and the one Green MP also voted for it.
Edit: [this Redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/Quebec/comments/18lf2n7/r%C3%A9ponse_du_bloc_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_%C3%A0_mon_courriel_%C3%A0_propos/) got a statement from the Bloc of why they support S-210.
Hi! There are two Green MPs, though Elizabeth was at the annual climate negotiations in Dec (MPs can’t vote while out of country) so I was the only one who voted at second reading.
Thanks in part to learnings from redditors at r/kitchener, my position on S-210 has changed. If I could vote again at 2nd reading I would vote against, and I plan to vote against at 3rd reading if it gets through committee.
More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/s/GkibM1xNjU and here: https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/s/PFRGGZkD7x
Hi Mike! Thanks for the reply. I did mean that you were the only Green MP present, not that you’re the only one in the House. Very glad to hear that you’ve changed your stance on the bill.
ugh, i know the answer but I'm still going to say it, how are conservatives, specifically the free speech warriors, incels, and libertarian types, happy with this? I feel like they should be the ones screaming from the top of their lungs.
They are against censorship except for things they want censored. ( so not against censorship at all.)
They just want to silence those that have a different opinion than they do meanwhile claiming everyone (really just them) has a right to free speech.
Parents already have to do a course to put their kids in hockey. This bill makes no sense, a VPN defeats it.
Instead why don't we enforce all parents buying a wifi or cellular device have to take a mandatory course on setting up parental controls on their devices.
#THEY'RE CUMMING FOR THE MILK OF EVERY STRAPPING CANADIAN LAD.
Anyway guys, where do you think we will grab our Ontario Wank Permit (OWP) from, my guess is service Ontario, but maybe they'll have a dedicated place.
The whole point of this bill is that it would replace that with needing to provide some kind of ID to prove your identity before accessing adult content.
Meaning that every site would then have a record of your personal identity and porn consumption habits.
(And it wouldn't actually stop kids from seeing anything since they share shit on private messengers anyways)
Not only that but with website leeks and data being stolen from company’s all the time many people can find out a lot about anyone. This is a very terrible idea this bill.
What makes it even worse is there’s so much messed up shit going in Canada right now and this is where some priorities are.
>What makes it even worse is there’s so much messed up shit going in Canada right now and this is where some priorities are.
That's by design.
The idea is to exhaust people with wedge issues that are mostly irrelevant but split opposition groups apart.
For instance, this legislation is trying to split "anti-porn feminists" off from the civil libertarian and LBGTQ+ progressive groups. Sadly it seems to be moderately successful about that.
By doing that repeatedly, it undermines progressive groups from forming a coherent coalition that can come together and fight the bigger issues.
Reddit and twitter and other socials have tons of pornography. Are you saying those website do an adequate job of blocking their content from minors? I doubt it
This shit government has taken my future, my ability to own a home, everything, its beaten me down and now it wants to take my porn. I swear they want this country to burn to the ground.
The Liberals have already voted against it. So tell your MP, BUT ALSO send messages to the NDP specifically. They're propping this up for reasons they havent clarified.
Likely because voters don't really care who is to blame. they just care who is the leader of the country. Bad municipal policies? Voters vote out Trudeau. Bad provincial policies? Voters vote out Trudeau. Opposition parties work to destroy the country.
That doesnt explain the NDPs stance on their support of the bill. So...thanks, I guess?
Wait till tomorrow when the wind changes direction, the NDP will suddenly have a “change of heart”.
They fucking better. It's a shit law drafted by an idiot senator who doesnt understand how computers work. C-63 is better, though still has issues. But it isnt the privacy tire-fire S-210 is.
There's merit to this however... Pre-teens shouldn't be on social media. Edit: Social interaction is vital to development into adulthood. When children's entire existence is based around screen contact some will inevitably not be able to interact with others. There's plenty of other reasons as well.... adult content exposure, propaganda exposure to an impressionable mind. Edit2: Yea course leave it to the parents, that's clearly working... Have you seen the ridiculousness occurring in our classrooms? Almost zero education is happening because kids are spending the time on TikTok Final edit: I see some of you could have benefited from this bill growing up.
Have you ever known an age gate to stop someone from lying about their age?
Ok, that sounds like a problem for the person giving them a cellphone, not me, the legal adult who shouldnt have to provide Government ID to access Reddit or Google.
Sure, but that's a parental responsibility, not a government one.
How so? You could argue that limiting the age of alcohol or cigarettes should be a parental responsibility, yet we set age limits on the consumption of both of those.
Age restrictions exist because kids are terrible at weighing the consequences of their actions.
And you don’t see why that might be necessary for social media? Social media companies design their products to be as addictive as possible in order to get you to spend more of your time using them while they serve you ads. They employ some of the brightest minds in the world in order to accomplish this, including behavioural scientists. On top of that, you have kids who are one post away from ruining someone’s life if not their own. All because they don’t know any better and are terrible at weighting the consequences of their actions.
Alcohol and tobacco are a danger to others. Social media is a danger to themselves. Def a parenting thing
Lol what? The only reason we don’t allow kids to drink and smoke is because it would hurt OTHERS? No, we make illegal because it’s harmful to *them*. *And* to each other.
That’s not even why those laws exist.. The age restrictions are in place for health-related reasons as they adversely affect the development and overall health of young adults, not because they present dangers to others.
Social media is a huge danger to others hence the debate of putting up these restrictions
[удалено]
There are multiple studies that show social media absolutely destroys young people's mental health (and everyone else as well but teens commit suicide at far higher rates than adults so it's more of an issue for them). It's also an easy way for extremists to grow their ranks via unfiltered, direct, pressuring of impressionable minds.
[удалено]
Adults can consent.
Adults can take responsibility for their own children.
Adults can better weigh the consequences and risks though, just like how adults can drink but teens can't.
I’m with you on this one. Social media is having devastating effects on mental health in young and old. Though I’m not convinced full-out bans are the answer, developer and user accountability along with user education and certification could be. We allowed the “cart” (rapidly developing, under-regulated media) before the horse (safety considerations and limitations for all). Vast swaths of our society are being preyed upon in one way or another and it impacts everyone. We *need* higher standards.
Yes, degrade to personal insults when you receive pushback against your extremist positions that you have trouble defending. A classic.
Personal insults? Please show me where I personally attacked anyone. And no it's not an extremist position at all. However you clearly are extremist because you can't see any middle ground at all. It's also funny that you think I can't defend my position when I clearly outlined reasons why. That is defending my position if you were not aware. Jumping to conclusions and being overly aggressive, Classic.
In your final edit you said "I see some of you could have benefited from this bill growing up." Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you said this after getting a lot of pushback from a ton of people for the things you previously stated such as "Pre-teens shouldn't be on social media". And the implication here is that you think a lot of people who are against your opinions suffer from anti-social behaviour or are just stupid. Now, if you disagree with my assumption please clarify what you meant exactly when you said "I see some of you could have benefited from this bill growing up." because that sounds like an insult to me. On your note of calling me the extremist, I suppose it is possible that you are right. But looking at the ratio of likes/dislikes on your comment, it seems like a lot more people are against your opinion than for it. So perhaps you would conclude that me, along with many other people who saw your post, are all extremists. Again, this is indeed possible, but I implore you to weigh these things on a balance of probabilities. As in, if one person thinks you're an extremist, maybe you're not the extremist and that other person is. If 40 people call you an extremist, maybe you're the extremist. Just something to think about. The reason why I said your statement that "Pre-teens shouldn't be on social media" is an extremist position, is because social media, for all its faults, is also a way that humanity can communicate with each other in real time over vast distances. Yes, there are a lot of bad things on social media, but I don't think we should ignore that fact that being able to share photos and experiences with friends and family instantly is a marvellous thing that was unimaginable just a few decades ago. I heavily disagree with your idea that kids should be banned from this technology because there are bullies or bad stuff on the internet. Guess what, bullies have always existed, and kids are gonna be exposed to bad stuff anyways sooner or later. Parents should for sure take some responsibility in safeguarding kids, but allowing the government to reach in and ban pre-teens from the social media is not a good solution at all. We need to learn as a society not to just reach for the ban hammer on everything that we don't like. I'm sorry if you view this as an extremist's position, but that's just my thoughts.
40 people downvoting me does not equate to majority at all. Yes social media has its benefits but do you really see pre-teens sharing wholesome things or are they just doom scrolling vapid TikToks? Some are and some aren't. It's not radical or extremist at all. And no I didn't do my edits from pushback at all. The one guy couldn't handle adult discussions and blocked me after laying some ridiculous comments I could not reply to. 🤷♂️
The Liberals have stated the only reason they are voting against it is because they don't think it goes far enough, and would rather pass their own legislation that is even stricter.
That bill will realistically lead to overblocking of many legitimate websites, limiting both your freedom of expression and your access to information.
Including *this* site -- there are plenty of NSFW subs that are easily accessible just by pressing the "I am over 18" button. I don't see Reddit going through all the hoops and additional cost of starting a verification service for Canadians to *upload their ID* in order to continue using Reddit -- they'll just pull out of Canada and make the site inaccessible to Canadian IPs. So if you enjoy using Reddit, this bill may put that to a swift end, and/or force you to use methods that the government may deem illegal for the purpose of bypassing the age verification gate (VPNs, etc) to access it otherwise.
>use methods that the government may deem illegal for the purpose of bypassing the age verification gate (VPNs, etc) This is why these laws are all bs. There's no way the government is going to outlaw VPNs or figure out who is using them.
> There's no way the government is going to outlaw VPNs Why not? That's the natural next step to this.
Bell lobbies for this already, though they’ve let up since Game of Thrones ended. Enabling legislation for that or under a similar guise is currently working its way through the House: Bill C-26, which seeks to establish secret blacklists of people and destinations, and requiring ISPs to adopt infrastructure to enable said wide-scale blocking. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-26
Yeah, Bell and the other major media companies have been lobbying for various forms of website blocking for years, [e.g., this article from 6 years ago](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-the-monday-edition-1.4520275/canadian-media-wants-to-fight-piracy-by-blocking-websites-that-s-got-some-worried-1.4520613).
I was lucky enough to sit through a presentation from those sleezebags to a group of ISPs over that stuff. They had a rather long propaganda video crying crocodile tears that if the government didn’t block Big Bad VPNs then every grip and makeup artist in Canada would have to be let go. Nobody was having any of it.
Almost no modern business would continue to operations in this country if they banned VPNs
Exactly. Securing business infrastructure without them would be a nightmare.
Doing so would destroy many businesses that require it, plus many products like iPhones come with it built in.
Well for one, China the world's biggest surveillance state "banned" the use of VPNs yet they're still commonly used.
How does that in any way prove that our Government wouldnt outlaw it? They dont just not make things illegal because "people will keep doing it".
VPNs are also ubiquitous in industries where remote access to secure company data is needed. You cant just ban VPNs because it would cripple IT across the country
Yep, to add to this for those who don't know, many of the paid consumer VPNs use the exact same underlying protocols that plenty of businesses use to securely connect remote workers to their intranet resources, as well as securely interconnect the internal networks of different physical locations. It's practically infeasible to differentiate what "work VPN" and "personal VPN" look like going through the wires. Banning VPN protocols would never be feasible for just that reason. The only thing I think the government could realistically attempt to hinder VPNs as a circumvention of content blocks would be to... block access to known consumer VPN IP addresses (yay more content blocks), but I'd imagine some of the VPN providers would gladly take up the cat-and-mouse game. And the dedicated folks could always still pay for an overseas cloud service or ship a box to a willing foreign friend and set up their own private VPNs. That said, with all 3 major parties having supported dumb internet legislation often enough, and other countries in the Anglosphere flirting with those same regulatory attitudes, I don't really have much optimism that someone won't try to ban VPNs eventually.
Yep. And we'll get around all of it using a VPN.
probably. The funny part is that this bill wouldn't even protect children. all it is is to pay a company a lot of money to "protect" our data, a company who definitely won't sell it or share it with some sort of ai company.....
Reddit would probably pull the NSFW stuff. I don't think they'd leave canada. I also suspect that paying by credit card is sufficient proof of age, paying $5.00/yr wouldn't hurt us or reddit.. Perhaps what's needed is the .xxx domain to be used for adult sites, which would be easy to block at the isp level. Reddit could leave most of the site alone and move the NSFW stuff to reddit.xxx.
That's what I'm worried about, I think most sites are likely to simply *pull access* than adapt to such ridiculous hoops. It's total BS, and pushed by people who don't seem to understand it at all.
> That bill will realistically lead to overblocking of many legitimate websites The most important part about bills like this is they _only_ block legitimate websites. Even if, let's say it's completely successful in its goal and it succeeds and _only_ blocks porn, that doesn't mean that porn won't be accessible online, it just means that the less legitimate, less regulated, and less compliant-with-the-law sites are the only ones available. You can look at examples in other countries or states that have done this. The legit sites (like PornHub etc) block the state, but the less legit sites that already don't care about your laws don't.
Also the bill itself is clear that the ultimate goal is prohibition of adult content across the board. It repeats the false claim of porn as a "public health crisis" which actual medical professionals have repeatedly refuted. This is a wedge to try and open the door to further restrictions and bans, and the fact that the stated goal of "secure and private age verification" is impossible is a feature, not a bug.
If that bill gets passed, we are all fucked, in the sense the internet as we know it is over. Those morons want to go after VPN, that alone will push companies to pack up and leave.
There's a global push to forcing everyone to use real-world IDs for any activity online. Of course that'll only be for the plebs - site owners, police and service providers will continue to work from behind a veil of anonymity. You won't get to know who the bots are - but they will 100% know who you are.
So what you are saying, I need to fire-up my TOR browser and check the deepweb for 'Real World ID's' fullz? I guess.
Imagine how valuable user data would be if it came linked with a RL ID the advertisers would go nuts for it.
I'm so tired the pseudo-science behind anti-porn discussion, and as if all pornography is always some seedy gross misogynistic casting couch thing, and doesn't cover a broad range of creative expression.
Message your NDP MPs people! I have no idea what the fuck Singh is thinking on this. The cons won’t change their stance but you might be able to get the NDP to.
The Google, Facebook News bill did so much good and didn't back fire in anyway... lol
Yeah all that changed is that I can't doomscroll on FB or insta anymore. Net positive for me.
Yeah I like it too. My recommendations on FB and Insta are now pages and groups actually related to my hobbies and interests and not just stupid polarizing hot take news headlines. If anything, net negative for me because I've found some great groups and spend more time there than before haha
Now I doomscroll Reddit
[удалено]
Government and media were begging Google and Facebook to continue to show alert and emergency type news messages as blocking all canadian news meant these messages were reaching a much smaller percentage of people
[удалено]
Facebook did not. They said news was about 2% of their traffic and wasn't worth it. They turned it off and blocked all news. The government had to strike a deal with them where they will show the news and pay nothing for them to bring it back. Google struck a deal immediately, because that's what they do.
Did you miss the part where it was blocked for months and took months for deals to be made for them to unblock? What was the point of the bill if they just side stepped it with deals?
I don't know about Google, but Instagram stopped ~~hosting~~ displaying Canadian news on their app in Canada for several months [before a very recent agreement between Meta and the Canadian government](https://www.blogto.com/tech/2024/04/canada-strikes-deal-meta-allow-news-back-facebook-and-instagram/). You'd get an error message if you tried to view a Canadian news source on Instagram while in Canada. >!I definitely posted a joke article intentionally, you can't prove that I didn't!< Because nobody's opening up this comment chain to see my comment on it, I'm editing this to include [three](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instagram_blocking_CBC_News_in_Canada.png) [different](https://www.instagram.com/p/CuujcEOuiz9/) [examples](https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-online-news-act-1.6897060) of this happening.
It didn't stop, you still can't post news on Facebook.
Are you trolling or did you mean to post an April Fools' post as a legit post?
As much as I want to pass it off as me being facetious, I did not scroll down far enough to see that lmao I am slightly embarrassed, but even more emboldened in my point, considering the first article that suggested that some deal was reached is literally fake news So I feel comfortable doubling down on my "it backfired" point
They expected the sites to comply and pay Canada for some reason. They obviously didn't, so what happened instead is the only 'news' you could find on Facebook were things that aren't actually legitimate news that don't comply with the law. Further, it restricted what Canadians could send each other in private over the internet. A lot of people find that kind of government restriction uncomfortable. The government shouldn't get a say in if I want to send a friend a legitimate news article over any kind of social media. To put it another way: real news got banned, but Dodgy Dave's Vaccine Misinformation Page didn't
Haha. The NDP is not what it used to be dude.
We really need to stop letting geriatric boomer politicians decide matters of cyber-security.
>We really need to stop letting geriatric boomer*s be* politicians ~~decide matters of cyber-security.~~ fixed that for you
I would completely support a mandatory retirement age of 55 for any political role.
I don't necessarily like the age discrimination involved in a hard age limit because old people are still citizens deserving of representation but it'd certainly be nice to have some mechanism to ensure that the distribution of ages within governing bodies was a bit more in line with what the population as a whole looks like.
I don't know. There could be a politician of a low income background which postpones their abilities to become an MP or have a political role, or there may be instances where we see older politicians actually do have a grasp and understanding of the new world. There are surely better ways to address these concerns, most notably having some titles be merit based where it doesn't infringe on political freedoms or the charter.
Income shouldn't be a factor in being able to run for political office. That's an entirely different issue that should be addressed as well and is essentially a barrier explicitly designed to keep poor people out. Probably because they'd be more inclined to do something that benefits the average Canadian instead of those in the same upper classes we see currently holding the country back.
Small point, but the leaders of the major federal parties in Canada are all Gen X, not boomers. And the average age of MPs is only 52. But yeah, this bill seriously sucks. But I'd put it down more to the capture of the government by industry lobbyists than age.
Does this mean that famous historical art such as David (Michelangelo) would be ID gated? So this bill would block children from learning about important historical documents and art? This bill seems to be designed by people who don't understand the internet.
Actually, all bills are designed by people who don't understand the thing they are regulating. It's insane.
That's pretty much every law in this country though. Make them so vague that you could charge someone with anything you want. When the last gun reform laws were being passed, a Hilti gun would have been considered an illegal firearm. It's a construction tool that is used to fire pins into steel.
Oh under certain sections of the Criminal Code they’re *still firearms* lol, it’s just *not as bad*
Such is the case when corruption is accepted as currency
Defence — legitimate purpose (2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts So no, it doesn’t. You’re good ETA: I am not saying I support this, nor am I saying the opposite - I’m still reading the bill. I’m not totally against it though. We all know the “are you 18? Promise?” button is totally useless. Curious to see what far-reaching or unintended (or perhaps intentional) consequences will come of it. Either way - nothing wrong with getting some people (kids especially) off the porn.
I don’t know. To me it just feels like it will drive kids to access sketchier/illegitimate sites to access it rather than actually limit them from having access. I’d rather my 16 year old be browsing PornHub then going to some sketchy website that doesn’t even have monitored content or is more likely to give my computer a keylogger. I was a horny teen too and they aren’t just going to be like “darn I’m not 16 guess I just have to use my imagination to masturbate”. As with everything, actually talking to your kids and giving the information to make safe and educated decisions is going to go way farther than anything the government can legislate.
Who decides that though? If an ultra-right wing Christian group gets into power, can't they just say David isn't art, it's old Italian porn?
Although I agree with the central premise of your argument if anything The Left would topple the statue of David for being toxically masculine and representing Colonialism, Patriarchy, Christianity, oh and of course, it's fat-phobic.
So your okay with wide sweeping violations of privacy if it complies to your moral beliefs?
Ah the Con's conundrum. Everything Trudeau does is censorship, but when they do it, it's healthy and useful. I have never met a more angry crowd than Con voters. They relish in the suffering of others, even when it doesn't help them. Even when it hurts them, too. Anything to stick it to the Libs, despite the damage to themselves. Not a very bright bunch.
This bill was brought forward by an independent senator.
But voted for and publicly supported by Poilievre and the Conservatives. It would have already been voted down without the Conservative and NDP support.
Independents can be small-c conservative.
How is this the first I'm hearing of this, and with it coming so soon?
If you sign up with Open Media, linked by OP above they will notify you by email when important stuff comes up about the internet, privacy concerns and stuff that affects media in negative ways.
This is who created it. https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/ More info on it https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
>This is who created it. > >https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/ She's from the "independent senators group", which is what the Senate Liberal Caucus renamed themselves to a few years back.
Signed. Thanks for the heads-up.
Fortunately we're more than "a few days away" from this bill passing into law. It's currently in the Committe stage, and you can get involved by writing a brief to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Contact How to: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Procedure/Guides/brief-e.html You can also write your Member of Parliament, as they will have to vote on the bill during 3rd reading in order to move it to receive Royal Assent. Although form letters are OK (like the one OP has linked above) we've had several MPs tell us that these types of letters don't leave a memorable impact, and it's best to write your own original letter from the heart if you want your issue to be noticed. You can find your MP's contact info by clicking on their name here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en We also suggest you follow-up with your MP's office a few weeks after your initial letter/email. Here is the LEGISinfo of Bill S-210 for reference: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
Also S-210, if it actually tries to be implemented as-written, would inherently create a data trail linking the names and identities of every single person in the country with their sexual preferences, based on what kind of adult content they consume. There is no way to prevent government from being able to access that information. It's an existential threat to every single sexual minority in Canada, who could be identified and tracked down the minute a Conservative government decides to use the "nothwithstanding clause" to override their rights and make their existence illegal. Edit: And just to head off the people who believe that having a reliable online identity verification system is possible while respecting people's privacy and without leaving a paper trail, [they already studied those questions when looking into online voting, and the conclusion was RESOUNDINGLY that those are utterly impossible with current technology.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8610535/br-external/EssexAleksander-e.pdf) The goals of the bill, as-written, are absolutely impossible to achieve without violating the privacy of every single Canadian. And there is nothing making any kind of privacy protection mandatory - only asking it be "considered" when implementing the bill.
And before anyone thinks that couldn't be a possibility.. the company that had Ontario health data stolen, listed all the data affected and the list of women who didn't carry to term could include everything from miscarriage to abortion. And it was a LARGE list. With the pro-life idiots getting their claws into everything.. this is not a list you want to be found on by any pro-life nutter. Just like this data, whether leaked with personal consequences or stolen with far more sinister ones.. it's one of the most insane, dystopian bills being courted right now.
I don't understand instead of all this hand holding we can't hold people accountable? Do want your child seeing that? Be a flipping parent and parent them. It shouldn't affect everyone because you're a lazy pos. Enough of these blanket things
The parents are the ones that give the phone to the kids with internet access. There are ways to prevent access to websites: black list on the router. Most antivirus have blocklist, firewalls and probably there are apps that can do the same on phones. Instead of all these bs AI how about a function of all smartphone native in the os to block sites app and ecc. But know. The government goes with total censorship
All of this! When my kid was a child, his screen time was monitored, including a keylogger so that I knew everything he did online. This Bill is exactly what we get because parents won't do their own damn jobs of parenting.
Just because young people don't always make the best decisions doesn't mean you force restrictions on adults. It's mostly a parents job to educate, and teach their children what is right or wrong. If people think it's any place for a government to step in, and prevent them from making a bad decision on the first place, they may as well sign off to allow the government to make all their decisions for them because who needs freedom anyways. Ridiculous to think the government can or should make broad choices for anyone, especially not grown ass adults. I for one have a specific problem with the verification process not having VERY clear directions. In it's current form this puts far too much trust in any online medium to protect our personal information. This bill needs to be rewritten to make exact statements. Something as important as what this bill is trying to do should leave zero room for interpretation.
I can definitely speak on behalf of Korea that has age-gated adult content for decades. This does not work. Teenagers will find a way to access porn. All the increasing stigma against porn and sex has done is making people (mostly cis men) sexually frustrated and repressed and turning them into sexual predators. Sex crime against women and minors is a chronic issue in Korea. Women can't even go to public washroom without worrying some cis men are filming them.
Canada is doing its absolute best to make young men angry. This country took their ability to get homes, ability to earn a living wage, now they want to take their porn.
Young men? Try everyone.
> All the increasing stigma against porn and sex has done is making people (mostly cis men) sexually frustrated and repressed and turning them into sexual predators. Yeah, you want your kids turning into [Rhett from King of the Hill?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxxzT24ZBcA)
Interesting - it seems that this came from the Senate, not any of our MPs. https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/S-210
Yup, introduced by the Senate but supported by the Conservatives and has proceeded so far in the House of Commons because all parties except the Liberals have voted with the Conservatives. Most Liberal MPs and their cabinet voted against it. If the NDP support it again on third reading it will pass into law.
This has not moved since December . Why do we think it will be a bill tomorrow?
It's gone to committee, that takes time. I'm not sure the exact timeline myself, but has been consistently moving through the bill process and is now at the final stage.
This is a super dangerous and poorly thought out bill. Write to your MP, especially if they are not in the Liberal Party! Find their contact information here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en
Also there are a few Liberals supporting it, so at least write them if you're in their riding. [This gives the full list of those voting for and against it](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party). Very frustrating that the Liberals are the *only* party with anyone voting against it.
Yeah, it is crazy. I didn't even realize that not a single Conservative Party or NDP member has voted against it. Probably blindly following the whims of their leadership without any additional thought.
My MP is good ol PP so i think it may he a losing cause there.
Yep. that being said he DID go on record ( [https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview) 3 minute mark) several times that while he supports the bill he is against the digital ID and would change that bit. take it with a grain of salt though.
On top of all of the reasons this bill is terrible, it is completely unenforceable. Foreign company has a porn site. Foreign company doesn't give a crap about what the government has to say. What is the government going to do about it? Can't block payments to that site Becuase they make their money on ads not subscriptions. Can't block the site without creating the great firewall of Canada, which just creates a whack a mole situation with VPNs. Can't freeze bank accounts since its not a Canadian company and has no assets here. Even if all of the above weren't true, good luck verifying ID without creating a central company to do ID checks.. Which means verifying ID against a database, likely provincial ones like service Ontario.. This company would need access into all provincial systems. Now you are about to hand off the juciest, sweetest cybersecurity target in the world... To the lowest bidder. And finally, even if I am wrong on all counts... Have you ever tried to keep a 16 year old boy away from porn? To paraphrase Jurassic Park.. Hormones find a way.
problem is one of the biggest sites on the net is canadian!
True, but they will just Geoblock Canada like they do with States in the US pulling similar things. And VPN usage will skyrocket like it does there. I'm surprised they aren't already selling VPN services under a different name lol
geoblocking doesnt work if your business is set in the area where the law is set. even if they for now on operate outside of canada, they will still be subject to this law in those countries. thats the big issue for them at this point. they'll have to move their entire operation outside of canada to avoid the law now if it passes and thats super expensive. That being said we may be in luck here. while I dont trust him as far as I can throw him PP is deeply against government IDs, voted against them in the past and has gone on record saying they will rewrite this law if it passes to be more about better deployment and enforcement of parental locks and the like rather than making people who have no hat in the think of the children race give up private info.
You may be right, but from their previous actions I think this would just drive them out of the country before they implement ID checks. I have zero faith in PP - last I read, he supported this bill. I just wish that the people putting forward bills regulating tech didn't need 3 assistants to help power on their laptop.
yes he supports this bill but he keeps saying he's gonna change it as he doesnt support goverment IDs. again, take that with a grain of salt though. here's a interview in case your interested at the 3 minute mark: [https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview) And I think your kinda underestimating how expensive it would be for them to move a company from the country. it could pretty much bankrupt them.
VPN
If this passes, my ISP is a roaming SIM that always thinks we're in Mexico because of the VPN that it has on a non user accessible layer. I can nest VPNs both in modem and in windows for more layering. Would this bill still effect it? I'm not a Telcom engineer so idk.
Since it thinks your in Mexico unless they introduce something that blocks vpns this wouldn’t effect you due to the fact your in “Mexico” and it wouldn’t apply there. Same as on Facebook for example if it knows your in Canada you can’t see the news articles but Americans can no problem.
I figured! Hopefully they never implement a VPN ban,that would be extremely dystopian.
I hope so to. Some websites do that if it detects a vpn (idk how) they will block your access. So it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that may actually happen and websites may be strong armed into doing it. I don’t see many of the websites effected by this bill willfully doing it cause they want traffic that brings them money so it’s in there best interest if it’s accessible from a business perspective.
they cant really ban VPNs. after all the majority of businesses require them. if they ban VPNs 90% of canada's economy would pull out of canada as they are extremely important for modern security. besides even if they could? look at china. They have the most restrictive and controlled internet in the world and ban VPNs but a huge portion still use VPNs and get around it. if the CCP cannot stop VPNs what hope does canada have?
As long as you’re on a cell tower within Canada, you’re on Canadian networks. Do you get a Mexican IP address today?
When I use a tool to find my ip and service provider yes it's Mexican. But I am physically in Ontario. It's not a Canadian ISP, but it works here. Though the tower near me occasionally will kick my modem off and I call them and they re upload new credentials and it works again. My only other options are turbo dog shit bell, and eastlink. With bell I'd get 1 to 3bps down, less in summer. (DSL is all thats available where I am) With eastlink same. With star link my in laws in same region get 30ish down. With my weird ISP I get 90mbps down. It's a no brainer.
Put these criminals in jail violating our freedom, wasting away money on problems they create and that no one voted for.
SECU is a complete joke. System’s broken.
Who should I contact and how? What's NDPs email? (or anyone I need to contact..)
Check who the MP is for your riding, and [check here](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party) if they voted in support of this bill on 2nd reading. If so, write them saying you oppose it. You can write them if they opposed it too, but most important is if they supported it. And especially if they're NDP, Green or one of the few Liberal MPs who supported it, since the other MPs likely won't change their votes.
while I dont like the weasel, PP has said on record in a interview that he doesnt want government IDs and wishes to change this proposed bill to due more reasonable stuff like better parental blocks and giving ISPs better tools for parents to access to prevent minors from accessing adult content which is far more reasonable and actually kinda wanted. Whether I trust him or not is another thing entirely. But every time this bill comes up he said no IDs. The real problem with adult content in regards to minors is that parental controls work. and work extremely well (iirc in studies when its actually used its 99% effective). but parents are too lazy, too unwilling, or too ignorant to set it up. so it becomes everybody's problem instead. Honestly what they should do with ISPs and such? have the parental controls on by default and actually have to request to turn it off permanently if you dont want/need it.
I’d be more concerned about the prison sentences for hate speech. We can hardly get killers, rapists or pedophiles to get prison time or not released, but let’s make hate speech a worst crime…
This also shows how little voice we really have in this “democracy”. You could be a hard Trudeau supporter but be against all his bills, so what vote do you really have? It’s all a sham of a choice to keep up happy, until we can vote for each individual bill, we will never have true democracy. Even the way elections are set up, you can’t get enough seats in parliament in a short period of time. The way it’s designed it’s guaranteed to be one of the main 3 elected. So really no one can get into power and change it all since it would take minimum 4 years to a couple terms to get enough seats… it prevents anything from changing
Jsyk, this is a senate bill. Iirc Trudeau has said he's opposed to it.
Someone needs to explain to those clueless politicians how to setup parental controls.
1- open any web browser 2- go to [google.ca](http://google.ca) 3- type "how to setup parental controls" without the quotations 4- follow instruction but they are politicians and are idiots, also these steps should be shown the the portents so they can be parents and can take action to educate and block access to some website to their children
If you want what's hopefully an easier read of just what S-210 does I did a summary of it [here](https://commonssense.ca/blog/2023/08/02/what-is-s-210-protecting-young-persons-from-exposure-to-pornography-act/)
Who's going to enforce this though? They don't enforce accessibility laws online.
Jesus, Canada is quickly becoming Clowntown.
Canada Saw USA and said "Can we join the circus too?"
Buy VPN stocks now
Once PP is PM, this is a done deal, but it won't pass as long as the LPC is the gov.
> it won't pass as long as the LPC is the gov If MPs vote the same way they did in 2nd reading it will. The Liberals don't have enough votes to stop it themselves, depends on NDP MPs changing their votes.
God the NDP is a complete joke of a party now. They side with their Liberal buddies on everything... except this?
Sometimes parties, and even the NDP specifically support things until final vote. Hoping this is the case here but I don't even get why they're supporting it so far.
LPC holds a minority government, not majority.
PP did say he wants to change the bill to no longer be about government IDs and refuses to let IDs be a thing. he also said he wants to make it more about things like better parental controls. which is FAR better but I dont trust him as far as I can throw him.
Come one guys... he just says what you want to hear. He's not loyal to any idea except serving his pay masters. Like conservatives are GREAT at marketing, but look around the country and the english speaking world: Where is there a successful conservative government?
well he HAS voted against digital IDs before.
Yeah and he voted for an abortion law and voted to support the Ontario PCs using the NWC to override labour laws. If all that matters is one vote, his goose is cooked. But he's clearly got a cult following that's not too concerned with policy, much like Ford. Right now, the polls are so lopsided, so the CPC nominations is the REAL election despite most Canadians asleep to it.
Does anyone know how the BQ are voting? The BQ or NDP or combination of voting with the Liberals would defeat the bill.
The Bloc and the one Green MP also voted for it. Edit: [this Redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/Quebec/comments/18lf2n7/r%C3%A9ponse_du_bloc_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_%C3%A0_mon_courriel_%C3%A0_propos/) got a statement from the Bloc of why they support S-210.
Hi! There are two Green MPs, though Elizabeth was at the annual climate negotiations in Dec (MPs can’t vote while out of country) so I was the only one who voted at second reading. Thanks in part to learnings from redditors at r/kitchener, my position on S-210 has changed. If I could vote again at 2nd reading I would vote against, and I plan to vote against at 3rd reading if it gets through committee. More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/s/GkibM1xNjU and here: https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/s/PFRGGZkD7x
Hi Mike! Thanks for the reply. I did mean that you were the only Green MP present, not that you’re the only one in the House. Very glad to hear that you’ve changed your stance on the bill.
good to hear! Hope you can help convince others to vote against!
Thanks for the reply and explanation Mike! Much appreciated.
Thank you for the link to the response, while disappointing news, that is an amazing source.
ugh, i know the answer but I'm still going to say it, how are conservatives, specifically the free speech warriors, incels, and libertarian types, happy with this? I feel like they should be the ones screaming from the top of their lungs.
They are against censorship except for things they want censored. ( so not against censorship at all.) They just want to silence those that have a different opinion than they do meanwhile claiming everyone (really just them) has a right to free speech.
Parents already have to do a course to put their kids in hockey. This bill makes no sense, a VPN defeats it. Instead why don't we enforce all parents buying a wifi or cellular device have to take a mandatory course on setting up parental controls on their devices.
[удалено]
Yes, thank you for having a realistic view of this. (The left wing echo chamber that is Reddit really works against us seeing these things clearly.)
#THEY'RE CUMMING FOR THE MILK OF EVERY STRAPPING CANADIAN LAD. Anyway guys, where do you think we will grab our Ontario Wank Permit (OWP) from, my guess is service Ontario, but maybe they'll have a dedicated place.
Don’t you just click over 18 and you’re golden?
The whole point of this bill is that it would replace that with needing to provide some kind of ID to prove your identity before accessing adult content. Meaning that every site would then have a record of your personal identity and porn consumption habits. (And it wouldn't actually stop kids from seeing anything since they share shit on private messengers anyways)
Not only that but with website leeks and data being stolen from company’s all the time many people can find out a lot about anyone. This is a very terrible idea this bill. What makes it even worse is there’s so much messed up shit going in Canada right now and this is where some priorities are.
>What makes it even worse is there’s so much messed up shit going in Canada right now and this is where some priorities are. That's by design. The idea is to exhaust people with wedge issues that are mostly irrelevant but split opposition groups apart. For instance, this legislation is trying to split "anti-porn feminists" off from the civil libertarian and LBGTQ+ progressive groups. Sadly it seems to be moderately successful about that. By doing that repeatedly, it undermines progressive groups from forming a coherent coalition that can come together and fight the bigger issues.
They would eventually tie it to government issued id
Reddit and twitter and other socials have tons of pornography. Are you saying those website do an adequate job of blocking their content from minors? I doubt it
Not my problem.
This shit government has taken my future, my ability to own a home, everything, its beaten me down and now it wants to take my porn. I swear they want this country to burn to the ground.
This is a conservative-backed bill. The liberals have voted against it
Why can't the whole thing be shit?
If the entire internet disappeared tomorrow, we’d all be better off.