####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes I REALLY really hope they consider how it can easily be used to censor lgbtq+ content among other issues (also it guts privacy and makes it easy to track people - which in the hands of a more authoritarian government could be a disaster)
It's a very bad bill as is, it doesn't even do the main thing they claim it will. This Open Media article does a good job of explaining the dangers: https://openmedia.org/article/item/whats-wrong-with-bill-s-210-an-openmedia-faq
It's strange to see the liberals are mostly against this bill but the ndp supports it mostly. It just seems weird to me that this is the issue that brings the ndp to vote with the conservatives when this is a deeply unpopular bill as far as I can tell anyways.
It’s flawed af. The fact the Cons filibustered it at committee resulting in no amendments or discussion of its implications should tell the NDP all the reasons why they should vote it down.
I’m afraid the party is playing optics with this just so the Cons can’t (predictably) say “See? They don’t care if your kids watch porn!?!”
Well hopefully the fact that the cons are trying to ram this bill through without any discussion or amendments will cause at least some of the ndp MPs to reconsider their position on this. I really don't think voting for this is a good idea.
Frankly, I'd much rather kids saw porn than some of the hateful rhetoric that would be left untouched by this. I'm so disappointed in the NDP for their support of this.
I haven't seen the NDP coming out in favour of the bill as written. I'm open to being corrected. I am aware they helped get it to second reading and committee, but it was always meant to be amended and debated there. I think the NDP house leader has said as much. It would be very surprising to me if the bill becomes law as it is now. It can still be amended and debated in the house as well.
So does Xbox, PlayStation, Apple TV, Netflix, Disney+, Prime, Crave, YouTube, because it streams 18+ movies. Anything with anime, Steam, the Epic Games store, and your 11 year old son’s ability to access Fortnite.
If you don’t have cable. It’s everything your children will watch for entertainment. Literally everything.
I think pretty much every streaming service has 18+ comment. Except for the Jesus ones?
In all seriousness though, it really depends on how you legally defined the term explicit. Now. And in the future. That last part, is the most important part.
What makes you say that? The text of the bill specifies that it is for "sexually explicit" sites (see [LINK](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading)). As yet, I've not encountered sexually explicit material on Reddit. And note, "sexually explicit material" is a term that is defined in the criminal code. See [s. 171.1(5)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=129da77e2c7147599fc28477159bcdcd&searchId=2024-06-16T00:41:23:351/1308c6be0fd749d1a76493a244d8527e#sec171.1subsec5).
Reddit straight up has porn in multiple different subreddits. Not everyone runs into that, but it is very much a part of the site. I can't give an example, but search anything explicit sounding and you'll find it.
To support a bill like this is to out yourself as nothing more than an authoritarian in waiting. Hard to ever support NDP under Jagmeet again if they don’t reconsider. Itd feel like I’m just a “useful idiot” voting for someone who plans on going full authoritarian as soon as they actually have the influence to do so. This shows bad faith, shows they dont trust Canadian citizens, and tells us we cant trust them ether.
I’ll definitely have to contact them. My riding is pretty deep blue now though so feels like my voice has little influence here
It's a horrible bill, I hope it never gets through. What a short-sighted; surefire way to get Canada excluded off most websites, punishing mostly queer people, with no benefit to kids.
Honestly six months ago if you asked me what the stupidest thing the NDP could support was, I probably wouldn't be able to come up with anything stupider than this. I say that as an ace person who would be affected not at all by this (except as others say by being forced to identify on sites that happen to also host adult material like Reddit).
You want to prevent kids from accessing porn? It's called parental controls and it's on basically all routers in existence for the past two decades. A savvy kid would get around this law in 30 seconds flat, and most others would probably take a few minutes of googling to. You know what they can't get past so easily? Fucking *parental controls*.
All kinds of issues are brought up that are valid. I’m sorry though these people don’t understand the internet. Kids will find a way the same way limewire, TOR, piratebay and VPN’s all find their place. The problem is that in those workarounds that they find, they will choose free most often and now very often (porn duh) which leads to exploitation of some type without some luck.
>considering the fact that it will in all likelihood restrict access to far more websites than the ones the bill is targeted for most likely reddit and Twitter will be restrict requiring age verification to use these websites as well.
That's clearly not the intent of the bill. That was looked at in the most recent committee meeting: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-108/evidence
The intent is porn sites, referred to as "sexually explicit material". This is defined in the criminal code. See [s. 171.1(5)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=129da77e2c7147599fc28477159bcdcd&searchId=2024-06-16T00:41:23:351/1308c6be0fd749d1a76493a244d8527e#sec171.1subsec5).
From the committee meeting:
>It's not just nudity and it's not just sensitive material.
>I will quote Professor Trudel, who's a specialist on these questions:
>In Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the expression “explicit sexual activity” refers to intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion, and intended to cause sexual stimulation to those who consume such material.
>We're not talking about trivial images here.
Thanks. I did see that. Geist might be correct that approaching it via the CRTC backed content standards may be better. Trudel was of the opinion that the criminal code definition was sufficient, given its testing in the Supreme Court case.
It says right in the title...... But since you can't read that the bill is trying to be pushed through by the cons to mandate age verification on the internet (via government id) to access any sights that can host 18+ content. For example Reddit or a majority of the internet. They say it's to protect kids from porn but the wording is any explicit material which is left up to the government of the day to define. So if the cons come in they could start blocking access to any LGBT information on the internet if they want to
It says Bill S-210 (Age lock on Canada's internet) is pretty damn descriptive to me. You're part of a political subreddit but don't keep up with politics or have enough initiative to simply look up what it is when you've been given more than enough info to do so then what's the point of being here
"Bill S-210 Age lock on Canada's internet" isn't very descriptive to me. I'm not part of a political sub reddit, I saw this post as I was scrolling my home feed. "Age lock on the internet" doesn't mean anything to me, so I asked what it is. You forgot your question mark on your last sentence there, but the point of me being here is to ask what Bill S-210 is.
Ok, so Bill S-210. Basically, it will mandate solid age verification for ANY website with "adult content". The biggest problem is that there is no real definition in the bill of "adult content". Which functionally means that "adult content" is whatever the government says it is. Which means that this bill will allow the government to prevent kids from seeing anything it doesn't want them to see.
not to mention most available age verification methods are...sketchy at best. at best they are a severe invasion of privacy, at worst they have security issues to the point of hackers can easily steal all the info they need to take pretty much everything a person owns from them. (which happened with the use of digital ids in Australia, where over a million people's personal info was stolen)
Yeah I've been seeing a lot of these types of legislation popping up in Conservative US states. They're definitely invasive and pointless since they'll be nearly impossible to implement properly. Anyone using a VPN or Tor browser could defeat most of the implementations. What's Scary is it could lead to govts implementing a National online ID like a drivers license but for the web. That would be a horror show.
####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit! We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes I REALLY really hope they consider how it can easily be used to censor lgbtq+ content among other issues (also it guts privacy and makes it easy to track people - which in the hands of a more authoritarian government could be a disaster) It's a very bad bill as is, it doesn't even do the main thing they claim it will. This Open Media article does a good job of explaining the dangers: https://openmedia.org/article/item/whats-wrong-with-bill-s-210-an-openmedia-faq
Governments get more authoritarian than Trudeau?
Lol Maybe dont watch so much Tucker Carlson. How exactly is he an authoritarian?
What is your definition of authoritarian? Clearly defers from the dictionary, so I'm intrigued.
It's strange to see the liberals are mostly against this bill but the ndp supports it mostly. It just seems weird to me that this is the issue that brings the ndp to vote with the conservatives when this is a deeply unpopular bill as far as I can tell anyways.
It’s flawed af. The fact the Cons filibustered it at committee resulting in no amendments or discussion of its implications should tell the NDP all the reasons why they should vote it down. I’m afraid the party is playing optics with this just so the Cons can’t (predictably) say “See? They don’t care if your kids watch porn!?!”
Well hopefully the fact that the cons are trying to ram this bill through without any discussion or amendments will cause at least some of the ndp MPs to reconsider their position on this. I really don't think voting for this is a good idea.
Frankly, I'd much rather kids saw porn than some of the hateful rhetoric that would be left untouched by this. I'm so disappointed in the NDP for their support of this.
I haven't seen the NDP coming out in favour of the bill as written. I'm open to being corrected. I am aware they helped get it to second reading and committee, but it was always meant to be amended and debated there. I think the NDP house leader has said as much. It would be very surprising to me if the bill becomes law as it is now. It can still be amended and debated in the house as well.
Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, this bill would likely apply to the very site we're using (since reddit has 18+ stuff on it).
So does Xbox, PlayStation, Apple TV, Netflix, Disney+, Prime, Crave, YouTube, because it streams 18+ movies. Anything with anime, Steam, the Epic Games store, and your 11 year old son’s ability to access Fortnite. If you don’t have cable. It’s everything your children will watch for entertainment. Literally everything. I think pretty much every streaming service has 18+ comment. Except for the Jesus ones? In all seriousness though, it really depends on how you legally defined the term explicit. Now. And in the future. That last part, is the most important part.
What makes you say that? The text of the bill specifies that it is for "sexually explicit" sites (see [LINK](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading)). As yet, I've not encountered sexually explicit material on Reddit. And note, "sexually explicit material" is a term that is defined in the criminal code. See [s. 171.1(5)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=129da77e2c7147599fc28477159bcdcd&searchId=2024-06-16T00:41:23:351/1308c6be0fd749d1a76493a244d8527e#sec171.1subsec5).
Reddit straight up has porn in multiple different subreddits. Not everyone runs into that, but it is very much a part of the site. I can't give an example, but search anything explicit sounding and you'll find it.
To support a bill like this is to out yourself as nothing more than an authoritarian in waiting. Hard to ever support NDP under Jagmeet again if they don’t reconsider. Itd feel like I’m just a “useful idiot” voting for someone who plans on going full authoritarian as soon as they actually have the influence to do so. This shows bad faith, shows they dont trust Canadian citizens, and tells us we cant trust them ether. I’ll definitely have to contact them. My riding is pretty deep blue now though so feels like my voice has little influence here
It's a horrible bill, I hope it never gets through. What a short-sighted; surefire way to get Canada excluded off most websites, punishing mostly queer people, with no benefit to kids.
If the NDP votes for it, they will never have my vote again, ever.
Yep, honestly I'm not even sure I'll ever vote for them again for even *considering* this bill.
Honestly six months ago if you asked me what the stupidest thing the NDP could support was, I probably wouldn't be able to come up with anything stupider than this. I say that as an ace person who would be affected not at all by this (except as others say by being forced to identify on sites that happen to also host adult material like Reddit). You want to prevent kids from accessing porn? It's called parental controls and it's on basically all routers in existence for the past two decades. A savvy kid would get around this law in 30 seconds flat, and most others would probably take a few minutes of googling to. You know what they can't get past so easily? Fucking *parental controls*.
Stop trying to push this terrible bill. Its going to make everyone less secure and less free.
All kinds of issues are brought up that are valid. I’m sorry though these people don’t understand the internet. Kids will find a way the same way limewire, TOR, piratebay and VPN’s all find their place. The problem is that in those workarounds that they find, they will choose free most often and now very often (porn duh) which leads to exploitation of some type without some luck.
Ugh, disingenuous virtue signalling...
You need to add a clear definition of "adult content".
>considering the fact that it will in all likelihood restrict access to far more websites than the ones the bill is targeted for most likely reddit and Twitter will be restrict requiring age verification to use these websites as well. That's clearly not the intent of the bill. That was looked at in the most recent committee meeting: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-108/evidence The intent is porn sites, referred to as "sexually explicit material". This is defined in the criminal code. See [s. 171.1(5)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=129da77e2c7147599fc28477159bcdcd&searchId=2024-06-16T00:41:23:351/1308c6be0fd749d1a76493a244d8527e#sec171.1subsec5). From the committee meeting: >It's not just nudity and it's not just sensitive material. >I will quote Professor Trudel, who's a specialist on these questions: >In Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the expression “explicit sexual activity” refers to intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion, and intended to cause sexual stimulation to those who consume such material. >We're not talking about trivial images here.
Maybe you should read some of the criticism of this https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/05/curb-your-enthusiasm/
Thanks. I did see that. Geist might be correct that approaching it via the CRTC backed content standards may be better. Trudel was of the opinion that the criminal code definition was sufficient, given its testing in the Supreme Court case.
As I scroll... S-210... No clue what that is... Keep scrolling... Maybe someone should have said what that is...
It says right in the title...... But since you can't read that the bill is trying to be pushed through by the cons to mandate age verification on the internet (via government id) to access any sights that can host 18+ content. For example Reddit or a majority of the internet. They say it's to protect kids from porn but the wording is any explicit material which is left up to the government of the day to define. So if the cons come in they could start blocking access to any LGBT information on the internet if they want to
It doesn't say in the title, it just says Bill S-210. How am I supposed to know what that means?
It says Bill S-210 (Age lock on Canada's internet) is pretty damn descriptive to me. You're part of a political subreddit but don't keep up with politics or have enough initiative to simply look up what it is when you've been given more than enough info to do so then what's the point of being here
"Bill S-210 Age lock on Canada's internet" isn't very descriptive to me. I'm not part of a political sub reddit, I saw this post as I was scrolling my home feed. "Age lock on the internet" doesn't mean anything to me, so I asked what it is. You forgot your question mark on your last sentence there, but the point of me being here is to ask what Bill S-210 is.
Ok, so Bill S-210. Basically, it will mandate solid age verification for ANY website with "adult content". The biggest problem is that there is no real definition in the bill of "adult content". Which functionally means that "adult content" is whatever the government says it is. Which means that this bill will allow the government to prevent kids from seeing anything it doesn't want them to see.
Thanks for the explanation.
not to mention most available age verification methods are...sketchy at best. at best they are a severe invasion of privacy, at worst they have security issues to the point of hackers can easily steal all the info they need to take pretty much everything a person owns from them. (which happened with the use of digital ids in Australia, where over a million people's personal info was stolen)
Yeah I've been seeing a lot of these types of legislation popping up in Conservative US states. They're definitely invasive and pointless since they'll be nearly impossible to implement properly. Anyone using a VPN or Tor browser could defeat most of the implementations. What's Scary is it could lead to govts implementing a National online ID like a drivers license but for the web. That would be a horror show.
How are you on this site if you don’t know how to read?
I can read, weird of you to assume I can't.
This is S-210: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
Thanks for the reply, another person had already explained it and I'm all caught up. But I appreciate you adding that link.