this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
125 points (99.2% liked)

Canada

9439 readers
1241 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The House of Commons is days from passing Bill S-210, a dangerously broad age verification bill that would put an age lock on most of Canada's Internet and threaten every Canadian’s privacy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 48 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

UPDATE October 16, 2024: Bill S-210 is set for FINAL vote in the House this November—with ZERO fixes in sight! This is our LAST CHANCE!

Little late.

The bill hasn't passed third reading yet; hopefully it will die with the upcoming election.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Cons have been pushing this bill and others like it for ages, so expect to see more of it.

What disappoints me the most is that the other parties (Green, NDP, PQ) are all backing it. It's garbage - even if you support a nanny state, it's garbage. The only real purpose of this bill is to eventually ban pornography entirely.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All the parties are colluding together again? They must have been called up to Ottawa again for another "Solidarity Meeting"

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Seems the libs are the only ones opposed to it based on what I read. It fucking sucks

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We're gonna elect the fuckwit greaser, and this dog of a bill will be gently pushed along. They've successfully made us hate the best non-conservative we've had in a while, and their 9-year quest is complete. Our best chance is a minority-cheesedick gov, but even then the opposition will be a feckless post-justin red party.

We're doomed, Mr Harry.

[–] cadekat@pawb.social 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I guess it was filibustered last time it came up. I'm hoping it will die as well, but I won't count on it.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Seems like the cons are all about it so I doubt it will die. Just more erosion of privacy

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

And there's also Bill C-63 that may fuck us up too..

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I briefly skimmed a few parts of it, nothing really popping out at me. What's potentially bad about it?

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That would put the burden of verifying the identity of users on the website operator before they can participate. Personally, I know I don't want to have the responsibility of handling PII just so that a stranger on the Internet can participate on a public forum where there could be harassment when I think we're doing a good enough job by moderating the platform with a decent set of rules.

And this kind of requirement doesn't really consider the nature of a federated platform such as the fediverse, as I couldn't vouch for the identity of remote instance users if we get audited.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Fair enough. When you put it like that it does in fact sound like a bit of a nightmare....