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

2 hours ago, Myles said:

Unbelievable that the Democrats will support this.

Where are the Democrats supporting this bill?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Not true. The Online Harms Act focuses on seven categories of harmful content:

 

  •     Content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor
  •     Content used to bully a child
  •     Content that induces a child to harm themselves
  •     Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
  •     Content that incites violence
  •     Content that foments hatred, and
  •     Intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

The rules are clear, and no political party can play with them as they see fit.

The primary criticism of the Act is the 24-hour take-down requirement. Privacy experts and civil liberties groups argue that this short window of time might encourage companies to take an overly cautious approach, resulting in suppression of free speech.

Points 5 and 6 are too vague and could be applied and construed in many different ways depending upon a government agenda 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

What a lame answer, hypocrite. So guns are more important than children, right?

To libertarians anything is acceptable as long as anyone can do anything. The entire philosophy is utterly stupid and backwards. These are the same crap bags who insist Nazis have free reign to hate speech. Because dat ebil gibbermint. 

Then we've got the brain dead 2Aers who regurgitate the same failed BS over and again. 

Only in America. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZFZ4h54B8o3eW4r29nR_

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

The Left focuses on the results of the illegal use of guns, whereas those of us on the Right focus on the benefits of the legal use of guns.
I watched a video today by a woman who was at home with her three children when a man began kicking in her front door. The Mom retrieved her firearm and called 911, and when the assailant entered her home she gave him a lesson in Home Protection. The police arrived some time later. 
Incidents similar to that one in which children’s lives are protected occur more often than school shootings.

And yet the outdated backwards laws arm criminals at the same time. 

Gives people something to do yeah? Kill each other and make the NRA rich. Stay classy America. 

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

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

My favorite manipulative phrase, "It's for the children" :rolleyes:

Are you implying that this has no effect on suicide through online bullying or that it simply does not happen? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Years ago when I first posted a thread about this legislation many Canadians here largely thought I was being stupid for worrying this is an attack on free speech and a weapon for the government to use against unpopular opinion.  If you don't fight this Canada, then you deserve this.

Has that changed? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Are you implying that this has no effect on suicide through online bullying or that it simply does not happen? 

If the bullying is online we should ban the internet, no?

If it's mostly on Instagram, we should ban Instagram, right? The 99.9% of people using it correctly have to make the sacrifice for the common good, right? 

99.9% of guns, and gun owners, are never involved in a shooting...

 

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

13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

If the bullying is online we should ban the internet, no?

If it's mostly on Instagram, we should ban Instagram, right? The 99.9% of people using it correctly have to make the sacrifice for the common good, right? 

Who is talking about banning anything? This is a preventative measure to meet a new threat brought on by a new technology. 

From the OP:

Bill C-63 aims to force social-media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful, to strengthen the reporting of *** Blocked ***ography and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online.

It's personal responsibility which of isn't upheld would end in charges. Who's banning what? 

Limiting pornography and abuse is a good thing, particularly where age limits are not an issue wouldn't you say? 

13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

99.9% of guns, and gun owners, are never involved in a shooting...

Does that figure include criminals with guns? 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Years ago when I first posted a thread about this legislation many Canadians here largely thought I was being stupid for worrying this is an attack on free speech and a weapon for the government to use against unpopular opinion.  If you don't fight this Canada, then you deserve this.

This is why I in general have and will boycot the Unexplained Mysteries forums: because some moderator unjustly accused me of one or another (and because various ass-kissing other posters supported that moderator).

 

Not my loss.

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

33 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

If the bullying is online we should ban the internet, no?

If it's mostly on Instagram, we should ban Instagram, right? The 99.9% of people using it correctly have to make the sacrifice for the common good, right? 

99.9% of guns, and gun owners, are never involved in a shooting...

 

331.9million pop.

33,190 involved in a shooting.

Kinda backfired on you.

Edited by Hankenhunter
Spelling
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ell said:

This is why I in general have and will boycot the Unexplained Mysteries forums: because some moderator unjustly accused me of one or another (and because various ass-kissing other posters supported that moderator).

 

Not my loss.

Write a goodbye letter 

That works I hear. 

:w00t: :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ell said:

This is why I in general have and will boycot the Unexplained Mysteries forums: because some moderator unjustly accused me of one or another (and because various ass-kissing other posters supported that moderator).

 

Not my loss.

Why are you here then? Just to biatch at the Admin?

 

339d60ed-7346-4ee6-af0e-a2d3c7837a0f-1686281543785.jpg

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

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

 

The federal government tabled its long-awaited online harms bill on Monday which is already shaping up to become a delicate political battle over freedom of expression on the internet, while also aiming to provide more protections for children.

...

There is some really messed up stuff happening on the internet which is sort of a Wild West™ of our modern times. A paradise for toxic sadists where they can molest and gaslight people without fearing any consequences.

If everybody would just walk away from platforms that have no protection for victims of discrimination and abuse the internet would be 'empty'. The issue is with children really and on instagram there are some messed up folks who prey on vulnerable kidz already on the path to anorexia, or even suicide. There has to be a solution and some form of protection.

Life in prison is the standard approach trying to deter people but that alone won't really do much to improve things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

There is some really messed up stuff happening on the internet which is sort of a Wild West™ of our modern times. A paradise for toxic sadists where they can molest and gaslight people without fearing any consequences.

If everybody would just walk away from platforms that have no protection for victims of discrimination and abuse the internet would be 'empty'. The issue is with children really and on instagram there are some messed up folks who prey on vulnerable kidz already on the path to anorexia, or even suicide. There has to be a solution and some form of protection.

Life in prison is the standard approach trying to deter people but that alone won't really do much to improve things.

Pandora's  box was opened. The age of logic has passed. The age of raw emotion has begun. When will it end?

Probably when we have a huge Solar flare that melts all the servers world wide. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

... The age of logic has passed. ...

oh darn! I missed it?! LOL

Let's face it humanity is and always has been 95% emotions and response to triggers. That has not changed. It is just more visible now I think because the digital world 'has it on your permanent record'

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more visible now because in the 1920s, the worst that could happen was you got written about in the local newspaper. Today everyone posts everything to everybody. Some secretary in Des Moines tells an off joke and the entire internet hears about it.

And today people get offended, not at obvious jabs, but at PERCEIVED insults. It's not about what you've done, but about how a person you may have not even known was watching, felt you ment with your action. Feelings taking over from truth and facts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

oh darn! I missed it?! LOL

Let's face it humanity is and always has been 95% emotions and response to triggers. That has not changed. It is just more visible now I think because the digital world 'has it on your permanent record'

Yes, we're an emotional species (thanks ego) but never in human history has everyone had a voice that reaches around the world. Just like fear has become the biggest wide spread political tool being used on other countries(see Putin, Trump, Un, et al) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

There is some really messed up stuff happening on the internet which is sort of a Wild West™ of our modern times. A paradise for toxic sadists where they can molest and gaslight people without fearing any consequences.

If everybody would just walk away from platforms that have no protection for victims of discrimination and abuse the internet would be 'empty'. The issue is with children really and on instagram there are some messed up folks who prey on vulnerable kidz already on the path to anorexia, or even suicide. There has to be a solution and some form of protection.

Life in prison is the standard approach trying to deter people but that alone won't really do much to improve things.

All that's true, but at the same time, I don't want to defend myself from life in prison if I make a wise crack at the wrong person.

I'd just like what it targets described in greater detail. I think everyone should be able to agree that's a good idea.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Who is talking about banning anything? This is a preventative measure to meet a new threat brought on by a new technology. 

From the OP:

Bill C-63 aims to force social-media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful, to strengthen the reporting of *** Blocked ***ography and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online.

It's personal responsibility which of isn't upheld would end in charges. Who's banning what? 

Limiting pornography and abuse is a good thing, particularly where age limits are not an issue wouldn't you say? 

 

I was drawing a parallel. Where if we are taking something, such as the right to bear arms, from everyone, due to a tiny fraction of bad guys. Then isn't it hypocritical to not ban an internet platform if it is used by bad guys, even if almost everyone uses it correctly?

Answer... It is.

Regardless, I'd favor protecting kids, I simply want the specific language saying that in the bill/law. So it can't be used to censor political opponents and opposing social/political viewpoints. 

Doesnt that "personal responsibility" arguement equally apply to guns?

Quote

Does that figure include criminals with guns?

I believe it does. There is an estimated 400 million guns in the US, and over 100 million gun owners. 

Roughly 120,000 people per year get shot (injured or killed). So that's roughly 0.1% of the gun owning population. Though to be more fair, some of those are multiple people shot by a single weapon. But still around 0.1% I'd say.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I was drawing a parallel. Where if we are taking something, such as the right to bear arms, from everyone, due to a tiny fraction of bad guys. Then isn't it hypocritical to not ban an internet platform if it is used by bad guys, even if almost everyone uses it correctly?

Answer... It is.

Regardless, I'd favor protecting kids, I simply want the specific language saying that in the bill/law. So it can't be used to censor political opponents and opposing social/political viewpoints. 

Doesnt that "personal responsibility" arguement equally apply to guns?

I believe it does. There is an estimated 400 million guns in the US, and over 100 million gun owners. 

Roughly 120,000 people per year get shot (injured or killed). So that's roughly 0.1% of the gun owning population. Though to be more fair, some of those are multiple people shot by a single weapon. But still around 0.1% I'd say.

Your math is just a wee bit off. Besides that, you're from Oregon. The op, and content are Canadian. It won't affect you at all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

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

The federal government tabled its long-awaited online harms bill on Monday which is already shaping up to become a delicate political battle over freedom of expression on the internet, while also aiming to provide more protections for children.

Bill C-63 aims to force social-media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful, to strengthen the reporting of *** Blocked ***ography and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-harmful-online-content

Additional news source with more information:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-online-harms-bill-would-force-major-online-services-to-quickly-take-down-harmful-sexual-content-1.6783426

Government of Canada press release:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2024/02/government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-combat-harmful-content-online-including-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children.html

Thats the most disgusting proposed legislation I have ever seen in Canada.

Its amounts to an Enabling Act, as the government can misuse it to lock up the political opposition and their supporters for life. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Not true. The Online Harms Act focuses on seven categories of harmful content:

 

  •     Content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor
  •     Content used to bully a child
  •     Content that induces a child to harm themselves
  •     Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
  •     Content that incites violence
  •     Content that foments hatred, and
  •     Intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

The rules are clear, and no political party can play with them as they see fit.

The primary criticism of the Act is the 24-hour take-down requirement. Privacy experts and civil liberties groups argue that this short window of time might encourage companies to take an overly cautious approach, resulting in suppression of free speech.

Content that foments hatred?

If you are against gender identity politics and immigration you could be accused of fomenting hate, and thats you disappeared for life. Of course Trump and Musk could never go to Canada. This is ridiculous, this is a move by a wannabe dictator.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

...

I'd just like what it targets described in greater detail. ...

That is the problem exactly because what pushes one over the edge might not even register on the 'insult-scale' for someone else. As all communication is subjective and a matter of the specific dynamics of those participating. To define that so it can't be exploited... really difficult

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

That is the problem exactly because what pushes one over the edge might not even register on the 'insult-scale' for someone else. As all communication is subjective and a matter of the specific dynamics of those participating. To define that so it can't be exploited... really difficult

But not impossible. Besides, there's all kinds of examples from the U.S, and Canada to draw from on what does or doesn't promote, constitute, or share online hate, racism, bullying etc. There will be growing pains, but in the end it will be a good thing. Something had to be done, because the problem is growing exponentially. 

Edited by Hankenhunter
Spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to New Canadian 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison

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.