Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New Canadian 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison


Kittens Are Jerks

Recommended Posts

Just now, OverSword said:

There was no need to respond to the rest since:

 

It wasn't an opinion, and it wasn't cherry-picked data, except insofar as all data is cherry-picked.

0/2. 

Reading will help you, I hope.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)

Alrighty then :rolleyes:  Nothing in that paper proved causality, so one causing the other is opinion or speculation.  You know what they say about opinions.

 

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Alrighty then :rolleyes:  Nothing in that paper proved causality, so one causing the other is opinion or speculation.  You know what they say about opinions.

 

Uh, I actually do think I know this one. "the opinion of someone backed up by data and analysis is worth more than the opinion of someone who has recently been proven to neither read nor count"?

At least, that's what my dad always said.

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Uh, I actually do think I know this one. "the opinion of someone backed up by data and analysis is worth more than the opinion of someone who has recently been proven to neither read nor count"?

At least, that's what my dad always said.

A few years ago Seattle discovered that a majority of the people ticketed for failure to pay fare on the light rail were African Americans.  In your mind do the numbers prove the people checking the fares are racist? I'll give you a hint, when the fare ambassadors get on the train a certain group tends to disembark with great haste.   Numbers mean something but they don't mean everything, especially when it comes to peoples behavior.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, OverSword said:

A few years ago Seattle discovered that a majority of the people ticketed for failure to pay fare on the light rail were African Americans.  In your mind do the numbers prove the people checking the fares are racist? I'll give you a hint, when the fare ambassadors get on the train a certain group tends to disembark with great haste.   Numbers mean something but they don't mean everything, especially when it comes to peoples behavior.

Nope, the numbers don't prove that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Nope, the numbers don't prove that.

The City of Seattle begs to differ.  They cited that as the reason they stopped checking fares for a couple of years.  And that's what happens when you get idealists with preconceptions assuming numbers correlate for the results they are searching for such as the paper you are  putting your faith in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2024 at 5:44 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Incredible how delicate some people south of the 49th are when their freedom fetish is under the spotlight. They are too delicate to be Canadians as they don't seem equipped to handle the fact that freedom is not absolute. They extol their right to free speech, whilst selfishly failing to understand that even this fundamental freedom needs to be curbed to protect against those whose speech incites violence.

i know. it's a miracle western civilization survived to this point with all that dangerous freedom. i must admit, though, that i sometimes wonder if i have it all wrong and those freedom-loving freaks understand something that i don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

i know. it's a miracle western civilization survived to this point with all that dangerous freedom. i must admit, though, that i sometimes wonder if i have it all wrong and those freedom-loving freaks understand something that i don't.

A miracle indeed.

What some freedom-loving freaks understand is that unbridled freedom gives them licence to attack with impunity. No doubt many wish they were around during the 'dangerous freedom' ages — you know, when other freedom-loving freaks could call for the extermination of Jews, the enslavement of Africans, or the burning of witches without fear of someone slapping a piece of duct tape over their mouths.  What fun times those must have been.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

A miracle indeed.

What some freedom-loving freaks understand is that unbridled freedom gives them licence to attack with impunity. No doubt many wish they were around during the 'dangerous freedom' ages — you know, when other freedom-loving freaks could call for the extermination of Jews, the enslavement of Africans, or the burning of witches without fear of someone slapping a piece of duct tape over their mouths.  What fun times those must have been.

Thou shall not suffer a witch to live 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2024 at 12:20 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Freedom of speech is not the sacred cow you think it is.

I’m sure the people of North Korea will whole heartedly agree with you on that..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

A miracle indeed.

What some freedom-loving freaks understand is that unbridled freedom gives them licence to attack with impunity. No doubt many wish they were around during the 'dangerous freedom' ages — you know, when other freedom-loving freaks could call for the extermination of Jews, the enslavement of Africans, or the burning of witches without fear of someone slapping a piece of duct tape over their mouths.  What fun times those must have been.

and yet that same freedom somehow resulted in our ability to demand which moderate amount of freedom is necessary and which is not. i guess good things can come from bad. those elder fools were tricked into fighting and dying for extreme freedoms so that we can type about moderate and non-absolute freedoms from our comfy chairs. can you imagine them dying for moderate rights? no, they must be lied to so that we can achieve our modern goals. i just hope we have nothing left needing to fight for. western societies aren't nationalistic, so we only have our ideals. i don't see people fighting and dying for your right to tell them what to do. no matter. all enemies other than internet bullies have been vanquished. this is the last war.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2024 at 7:33 PM, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

I’m sure the people of North Korea will whole heartedly agree with you on that..

And I'm sure it would take a lot more than merely supporting the tracking and removal of online extremist hate speech for me to become Kim Jong Un's gal pal. But who knows, he might find me cute enough to overlook that minor detail.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

And I'm sure it would take a lot more than merely supporting the tracking and removal of online extremist hate speech for me to become Kim Jong Un's gal pal. But who knows, he might find me cute enough to overlook that minor detail.

yet by the time you wanted to take a stand against a kim jong un type regime, would you have more ability or less to do so given your thoughts on freedom?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DayoOlabisi said:

yet by the time you wanted to take a stand against a kim jong un type regime, would you have more ability or less to do so given your thoughts on freedom?

It is important to understand that addressing hate speech on digital platforms does not mean having to place further limits on free speech. What it does mean, however, is keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous like an incitement to hostility or violence. And that, at the end of the day is what the proposed legislation aims to achieve.

Think about it. Is the removal of harmful online content really a threat to freedom? Is allowing individuals/groups to file hate speech complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission also such threat? And will targeting only the most egregious and clear forms of hate speech cause the sky to fall? As much as I value my rights to free speech, I have no issue with any efforts designed to mitigate the proliferation of dangerous, extremist views. Why anyone else would is beyond me.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

It is important to understand that addressing hate speech on digital platforms does not mean having to place further limits on free speech. What it does mean, however, is keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous like an incitement to hostility or violence. And that, at the end of the day is what the proposed legislation aims to achieve.

Think about it. Is the removal of harmful online content really a threat to freedom? Is allowing individuals/groups to file hate speech complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission also such threat? And will targeting only the most egregious and clear forms of hate speech cause the sky to fall? As much as I value my rights to free speech, I have no issue with any efforts designed to mitigate the proliferation of dangerous, extremist views. Why anyone else would is beyond me.

the frame through which you are looking at this is where you differ (and i propose, err). you keep asking "isn't removing hate a good thing"? that is not the issue. if you had a magic removing-hate-speech machine that had no negative consequences and only positive benefits, do you think you'd see such opposition?

i propose this is a better way to look at it:

does this bill have potential benefits? does it have potential negative consequences? is it positive on net?

now i think it's safe to say based upon your posts that your answers would be "yes, yes/maybe, and yes", respectively. instead of imagining that other people don't care about harm or care too much about freedom, why not imagine that someone else's answers might be "maybe, yes, no" or "yes, yes, no" etc. now when you consider those answers you can see that people simply disagree on the mechanics of the strategy. once you do that, you might consider that others might have greater or less perspective than you do. and then you might consider those ramifications. with respect, i don't think you are doing that currently. i think you are disregarding any opposition because you have already made up your mind. (and to be blunt i think there are politicians that are counting on you to do so)

the other thing to consider are alternative solutions. if you think this is so important, perhaps it is important enough for you to consider alternatives that might find more support among your opposition. perhaps that is a worthy investment if the end result is so important to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

the frame through which you are looking at this is where you differ (and i propose, err). you keep asking "isn't removing hate a good thing"? that is not the issue. if you had a magic removing-hate-speech machine that had no negative consequences and only positive benefits, do you think you'd see such opposition?

i propose this is a better way to look at it:

does this bill have potential benefits? does it have potential negative consequences? is it positive on net?

now i think it's safe to say based upon your posts that your answers would be "yes, yes/maybe, and yes", respectively. instead of imagining that other people don't care about harm or care too much about freedom, why not imagine that someone else's answers might be "maybe, yes, no" or "yes, yes, no" etc. now when you consider those answers you can see that people simply disagree on the mechanics of the strategy. once you do that, you might consider that others might have greater or less perspective than you do. and then you might consider those ramifications. with respect, i don't think you are doing that currently. i think you are disregarding any opposition because you have already made up your mind. (and to be blunt i think there are politicians that are counting on you to do so)

Where you err is in your assumption that I've not considered both the positive and negative consequences of such legislation, nor the viewpoints of those who are in opposition to it. My opinions are not always fixed. If someone were to present a compelling argument against this legislation and why the methods it's proposing would be ineffective and/or possibly an egregious violation to freedom of speech, I would be open to it. But all I've read and heard thus far are concerns so exaggerated and far fetched, they have no basis in reality.

15 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

the other thing to consider are alternative solutions. if you think this is so important, perhaps it is important enough for you to consider alternatives that might find more support among your opposition. perhaps that is a worthy investment if the end result is so important to you.

There is nothing wrong with alternative solutions or compromise as long as they're done for improvement, not appeasement.

The reality is that no matter how much you bend or shape this legislation (or any other legislation for that matter), there will always be some opposition to it. Indeed, the leader of the Opposition party blasted the legislation before he even read it. I suspect that some of the individuals here who oppose it, have also done the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Where you err is in your assumption that I've not considered both the positive and negative consequences of such legislation, nor the viewpoints of those who are in opposition to it. My opinions are not always fixed. If someone were to present a compelling argument against this legislation and why the methods it's proposing would be ineffective and/or possibly an egregious violation to freedom of speech, I would be open to it. But all I've read and heard thus far are concerns so exaggerated and far fetched, they have no basis in reality.

There is nothing wrong with alternative solutions or compromise as long as they're done for improvement, not appeasement.

The reality is that no matter how much you bend or shape this legislation (or any other legislation for that matter), there will always be some opposition to it. Indeed, the leader of the Opposition party blasted the legislation before he even read it. I suspect that some of the individuals here who oppose it, have also done the same.

if i'm to be generous, for example, i could equally weight the problem this legislation proposes to solve with say, the problems and causes that Jonathan Haidt cites. let's say the problem of online hate/incitement is as globally detrimental to kids as simply being too online. how does this legislation solve the problem on net vs. a realistic alternative that addresses both problems?

i'm not sure i erred in thinking that you did not consider both positive and negative consequences citing that i estimated your answers to my question would be "yes, yes/maybe, and yes". this shows that i assumed you understood some amount of negative consequences but thought that on net it would still be a positive. was i wrong about that?

Edited by DayoOlabisi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

if i'm to be generous, for example, i could equally weight the problem this legislation proposes to solve with say, the problems and causes that Jonathan Haidt cites. let's say the problem of online hate/incitement is as globally detrimental to kids as simply being too online. how does this legislation solve the problem on net vs. a realistic alternative that addresses both problems?

It doesn't. Although it acknowledges the extent to which adults and children are online, it focuses exclusively on preventing predators, extremists and others who pose a danger to them and others. But you've raised an important subject — the issue of kids being too online. I tend to agree with most of Haidt's criticisms of social media and the negative impact it's having, especially on children. It would be interesting to discuss what countries around the world are doing to address this issue, be it through education and/or legislation (and whether legislation is appropriate/necessary or an over-step on the part of government).

China, for example,  has introduced some very strict measures to control how minors use the internet. Just last August, it issued Guidelines for the Establishment of Minors’ Modes for the Mobile Internet, a cross-platform, cross-device, government-led parental control system.

https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/kid-mode-guidelines/

The rules very specific. As briefly summarized in the article below: kids under eight, for instance, can only use smart devices for 40 minutes every day and only consume content about “elementary education, hobbies and interests, and liberal arts education”; when they turn eight, they graduate to 60 minutes of screen time and “entertainment content with positive guidance.”

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/08/09/1077567/china-children-screen-time-regulation/

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

It doesn't. Although it acknowledges the extent to which adults and children are online, it focuses exclusively on preventing predators, extremists and others who pose a danger to them and others. But you've raised an important subject — the issue of kids being too online. I tend to agree with most of Haidt's criticisms of social media and the negative impact it's having, especially on children. It would be interesting to discuss what countries around the world are doing to address this issue, be it through education and/or legislation (and whether legislation is appropriate/necessary or an over-step on the part of government).

China, for example,  has introduced some very strict measures to control how minors use the internet. Just last August, it issued Guidelines for the Establishment of Minors’ Modes for the Mobile Internet, a cross-platform, cross-device, government-led parental control system.

https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/kid-mode-guidelines/

The rules very specific. As briefly summarized in the article below: kids under eight, for instance, can only use smart devices for 40 minutes every day and only consume content about “elementary education, hobbies and interests, and liberal arts education”; when they turn eight, they graduate to 60 minutes of screen time and “entertainment content with positive guidance.”

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/08/09/1077567/china-children-screen-time-regulation/

Any thoughts?

yes, thank you. you see i wonder what the effect on predatory, hateful, bullying, harassment, incitement online would be in an environment where the exposure is limited. could actions taken to solve the problem of being too online effectively solve the other problems? if you read/listen to enough of haidt's thoughts on it (though he doesn't explicitly make this specific comparison), he essentially makes that case. predatory, harrassing etc. behavior moved online to where the kids were. presumably it would follow them back were they to rejoin us in the physical realm (lol). however, we tend to have customs, rules and laws to address those actions. i propose that regulations addressing the general online access for children would significantly effect all problems that occur online without having the detrimental effects ripe for abuse or lawfare.

now, i'm not completely sold on haidt's diagnosis. he does have some rigorous data backing up his stance and i agree with much of it. but in terms of policy, i tend to disagree (again because of indirect effects). as a personal policy, i do support haidt's strategies in general, but not necessarily on the public policy level. however, i'm much more likely to support something along the lines of what he proposes than any legislation that encroaches more upon the gray areas of free speech in general, ambiguous, relativistic terms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

yes, thank you. you see i wonder what the effect on predatory, hateful, bullying, harassment, incitement online would be in an environment where the exposure is limited. could actions taken to solve the problem of being too online effectively solve the other problems? if you read/listen to enough of haidt's thoughts on it (though he doesn't explicitly make this specific comparison), he essentially makes that case. predatory, harrassing etc. behavior moved online to where the kids were. presumably it would follow them back were they to rejoin us in the physical realm (lol). however, we tend to have customs, rules and laws to address those actions. i propose that regulations addressing the general online access for children would significantly effect all problems that occur online without having the detrimental effects ripe for abuse or lawfare.

I need to think about this more and will reply when I have more time to do so, but my first thought in reading what you wrote, is that by having predators and others of their ilk online, would that not make them that much easier to track?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I need to think about this more and will reply when I have more time to do so, but my first thought in reading what you wrote, is that by having predators and others of their ilk online, would that not make them that much easier to track?

in some ways easier. in other ways harder. that goes for access to children as well. in some ways they can more easily access children, but have a barrier to physical access that must be overcome. in all cases, children being less online would give them less interaction with the bad stuff online. we need to continue to be vigilant about real world dangers as well. in fact, our technology can and does help with that. i can track my children wherever they are (because they have their phones). in the past i would not have that ability. the converse is that they have access to their phones more. it's all a trade-off which is why i believe we should empower people to act in their own perceived interests because best practices will win out and a diversity of approaches will rigorous enforce that. that approach is the opposite of legislation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

in some ways easier. in other ways harder. that goes for access to children as well. in some ways they can more easily access children, but have a barrier to physical access that must be overcome. in all cases, children being less online would give them less interaction with the bad stuff online. we need to continue to be vigilant about real world dangers as well. in fact, our technology can and does help with that. i can track my children wherever they are (because they have their phones). in the past i would not have that ability. the converse is that they have access to their phones more. it's all a trade-off which is why i believe we should empower people to act in their own perceived interests because best practices will win out and a diversity of approaches will rigorous enforce that. that approach is the opposite of legislation.

I agree with most of what you've stated, but believe some legislation is necessary. I'm not in favour of government mandating how much time children can and should spend online, but do think that they, along with social media services, have a duty to protect children from online harm. I would also argue that both parents and schools have a duty to educate children, and parents especially, have a responsibility to both regulate the time their kids spend online and to ensure appropriate parental controls are in place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/22/2024 at 4:59 PM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I agree with most of what you've stated, but believe some legislation is necessary. I'm not in favour of government mandating how much time children can and should spend online, but do think that they, along with social media services, have a duty to protect children from online harm. I would also argue that both parents and schools have a duty to educate children, and parents especially, have a responsibility to both regulate the time their kids spend online and to ensure appropriate parental controls are in place.

thought you might enjoy this conversation between Tyler Cowen and Jonathan Haidt where they address these issues and their criticisms

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

thought you might enjoy this conversation between Tyler Cowen and Jonathan Haidt where they address these issues and their criticisms

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.