13 ms·
Canadian internet bill S-210 is a step closer to becoming law
- tempest_ 3y agoIn 2023 I can't believe they are still naming bills like this "Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography" Every time a bill gets a moniker like that I assume it is hiding some major government over reach.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoThey're appealing to their "fear" base. A certain segment of the voting population lives in fear (no thanks to the politicians who stoke this fear) of ... well everything.
- cibcin 3y agoNot wanting your children to be influenced by pornography at a formative age is a very reasonable fear in this era.
- some_random 3y agoConsider parenting your children instead of demanding the government do it for you.
- nibnic 3y ago[flagged]
- adra 3y agoYeah, I mean why does the government get to tell me how I raise my kids? I wanna put them to work, drive heavy machinery, and marry them off to 90 year old "founders" all I like so stay outta my business.
- some_random 3y agoOh I'm sorry you're totally right, we need to ban working, driving heavy machinery, and marriage to protect your children. Because that's what this is all actually about right? Sock puppet guy has made that quite clear, his goal is to ban all porn.
- kelnos 3y agoThe difference is that in the cases you mention, the government is protecting kids from bad actions that parents might take. Requiring age verification won't stop a parent from giving a kid access to porn. And, frankly, if a parent wants to show a teen porn as a way to educate them about what can be bad about it and what the dangers are, that's a private matter between the parent and the teen.
- naremu 3y agoI assumed this is what parental controls are invented for, but all too many parents don't seem to even have the knowledge to activate those in the first place. Maybe they should learn how they work instead of supporting a thin veil of totalitarianism.
- pfisch 3y agoTikTok and instagram are full of things that are porn or are almost porn. Same with Reddit. It is unrealistic to lock your kids out of all social media.
- standardUser 3y agoI sometimes forget that we consider simple nudity to be "porn". We shouldn't.
- munk-a 3y agoIt's absolutely ridiculous that we consider nudity to be nsfw - but TikTok and Instagram have a fair amount of content on them that are intentionally as close to nsfw as you can get without getting banned. I agree with your literal point - but there's actual porn on social media.
- vezycash 3y agoI've seen actual porn on Twitter. I don't have an instagram account many porn models put links to their IG profiles.
- pfisch 3y agoAll of this and worse is on tiktok. https://www.reddit.com/r/tiktokthots/ https://www.reddit.com/r/tiktokthots/
- simion314 3y ago>It is unrealistic to lock your kids out of all social media. Really? so the state blocks porn, but then that social media will have people that use bad language so the state needs to also protect your kids from bad language, maybe people say on those social media that Santa or Jesus does not exist so state should protect them again and ban this stuff too. Do not allow your child on social media that is for adults. I am sure PlayStation offer social feature for children with strong moderation, so find similar social media that is targeted for children.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoJust don't allow your children to access these porn websites then. It really is that easy. ;)
- nibnic 3y ago[flagged]
- simion314 3y ago>Not wanting your children to be influenced by pornography at a formative age is a very reasonable fear in this era. I agree, so as a developer do you think it is easier to block porn at OS level and your router or you think that is safer that some regulation that only some websites will follow is more effective ? I read about some proposal for adult website to scan your face before granting access and other idiotic schemes, where the super obvious KISS solution is have Android, iOS, Windows, Ubuntu etc have an idiot proof way for a parent to setup a child account, this child account will set some cookie or whatever flag you want so websites can refuse to serve content to them. Also the big tech could use their combined energy to have a blacklist of bad websites that do not respect the rules like maybe advertisers. TLDR as a parent do not wait for the goverment to protect your child from porn, open Google and figure it out,
- nibnic 3y ago[flagged]
- some_random 3y agoIt would be so much easier for people to ignore you if you just stated your values up front you know? Maybe next time you could even use your real account instead of multiple sock puppets.
- nextaltaccount 3y ago[flagged]
- simion314 3y agoI agree with defensive in depth but that is contradicting priovacy if I need to show my face or ID card to a porn website, or how otehrs claim that reddit and TikTok is almost porn I should show my ID to all social media. As I said a parent should not allow the child to access social media that is targeting adults. The OS can put a flag and the websites can reject those connections, no need for destroying privacy. Not all porn is women exploration, there are this days this OnlyFans women that are exploiting men but who should decide what is and what is not exploitation. There is also CGI or AI porn, there are nude and artworks that religious extremists complain about. You can't stop porn so better don't wait for that day and setup your child devices if they need one properly.
- munk-a 3y agoThere are a plethora of tools a concerned parent can deploy currently to limit web exposure - the main difficulty in doing so is more of a social pressure than a technical one and the salves provided by this bill are trivial to circumvent for a determined teen.
- busterarm 3y agoWanting the state to play the role of mother and father is a very reasonable fear in this era.
- squigz 3y agoThat's fair. And as another commenter pointed out, this is probably your responsibility as a parent. Of course, we also let the government tell us we can't let our kids work, so clearly there's a line we draw. So I ask, why is it the government's responsibility in this specific case?
- gosub100 3y agoIs there a documented syndrome that children or adults contract from pornography? Do you have any evidence of harm other than your feelings?
- jstarfish 3y ago[dead]
- kelnos 3y agoIs it, though? I found and enjoyed a good amount of porn on BBSes and the early internet when I was a teen, and I turned out fine. Porn absolutely has serious problems associated with it (both on the production and consumption sides), but teens getting exposed to porn is just not a big deal. It can turn into a big deal, but that's what, y'know... parenting... is for.
- willcipriano 3y agoWhat side would you describe as the "fearless" side? They both seem fearful to me just in regards to different things.
- suoduandao3 3y agocentrists are probably generally less fearful as retreating to one extreme of a polarized dynamic is a common fear response. But I think the point is more, everyone is partially motivated by fear, sometimes governments use that fear as a lever.
- RobRivera 3y agoThere are no sides - there are nuanced and diverse issues and varying approaches which optimize for different values and to use words like 'us','them','side' is detrimental to the political process and enables those who yield narrative control over media uncharacteristic influence in a democracy.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoNot about sides. Some people are just afraid of things. Afraid everyone is out to steal their kids. Afraid of war. Afraid of immigrants. Afraid of not enough immigrants. This just appeals to those people.
- chongli 3y agoBase? This was a senate private member's bill. Senators in Canada are appointed, not elected, and they serve for life. The senator who introduced the bill, Julie Miville-Duchêne, is a member of the independent senators group, a non-partisan group of 39 senators. It was voted against by the government. It's only getting traction with support from opposition parties. It might pass the house of commons without government support due to a minority parliament. All this despite the fact that the opposition spans the gamut from far left to far right.
- gspencley 3y agoYeah and let's also take a moment to consider that the current government here in Canada is not conservative. I say this in the most non-partisan way possible, just as a freedom loving Canadian: "Fuck Trudeau"
- loloquwowndueo 3y agoI mean, imagine how much worse it would be if Poilievre was the PM ;)
- canadiantim 3y agoAtleast Poilievre would be on a shorter leash than Trudeau
- munk-a 3y agoUnfortunately if Poilievre actually did get into the PM office it'd be on the back of a CPC majority - so he'd have a lot more freedom to act than Trudeau's current minority government.
- canadiantim 3y agoWe'll see. Could also be a Harper-like minority, getting support from the bloc. Trudeau also has a very supportive NDP right now, so Trudeau does have a lot of freedom currently.
- munk-a 3y agoI'll never say never but the current state of the CPC is so departed from mainstream Canadian politics that it's far more likely that BQ would side with LPC... and the NDP and Greens would basically have to have a melt-down to side with the CPC. I think it's almost vanishingly unlikely that the CPC form government unless they actually achieve a majority share of seats.
- scj 3y ago
- vivekd 3y agoThat's what I thought initially too, but reading the article, it seems like it's just requiring age verification for accessing adult material. If we are concerned about censorship - I have to say that ship has long ago sailed. I don't have a problem with blocking porn or steps preventing kids from accessing porn
- logicchains 3y ago>I don't have a problem with blocking porn or steps preventing kids from accessing porn It's just the first step; once they have the infrastructure for real-ID verification in place, they'll roll it out to more and more of the internet until adults have no more anonymity online.
- djaro 3y agoThat seems like a slippery slope. We also require age verification for online gambling, and that hasn't had bad consequences either.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cebert 3y agoThe good old it’s for the children position.
- captainkrtek 3y agoPick one of: - National Security - Protect the kids
- enasterosophes 3y agoDon't forget: - Money launderers - Contraband distributors
- sgift 3y agoEvil people are out to get YOU or YOUR KIDS. Give us access, we protect you! There. I generalized it. :(
- enasterosophes 3y agoAh, when the powers of the Four Horsemen combine!
- munk-a 3y agoYou wouldn't steal a car!
- pookha 3y agoSTAY SAFE!
- barbazoo 3y agoExcept that in this instance I can actually see the merit but obviously YMMV. I had access to porn since as far back as I can remember. In hindsight I wish something like this had been in place.
- nmz 3y ago
- habibur 3y agoI had been following C-18 closely. Wanted it to fail. Facebook/Meta bailed out of the market, deciding to not paying anything. The other one was Google which finally settled for paying $100m per year to a single institution which will divide the money among others. That's still far less than what Canada was asking. 2% of their yearly revenue which was bumped up to 4% after Meta left. But Google's $100m is more like 0.5% of their yearly gross revenue in Canada.
- vibrolax 3y agoYes, and now the government will have another $100m per year to bestow on its favored media companies.
- mohsenari 3y agoGrowing up in a country with internet censorship, I can tell it is a huge slippery slope not to mention the dangers of having to upload government ID to access adult websites. I hope politicians come to their senses on this.
- cibcin 3y ago[flagged]
- jsbg 3y agodid you read the article? the law would be broad enough to require privacy-invading age verification systems for search engines
- nibnic 3y ago[flagged]
- some_random 3y agoYeah I'll bet there are a lot of porn addicts if you define that to mean "goes to a porn site, ever"
- cwillu 3y agoTwo new alt accounts in what, 5 minutes?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- munk-a 3y agoThis sentiment is really playing to the "the guilty have nothing to hide" line of reasoning and that's a scary place to be.
- stickfigure 3y ago
- cibcin 3y ago[flagged]
- jsbg 3y agothe "blogger" is a well-known professor of law specializing in telecommunications issues
- cibcin 3y ago[flagged]
- Fin_Code 3y agoThis is not about verifying ages. This is about the government tracking people so they can use information against them in the future. Any kid that wants to bypass this will use a vpn or submit false documents.
- cibcin 3y ago[flagged]
- rkagerer 3y agoMicheal Geist is a very well known figure in Canada, and has built a solid reputation raising awareness of important privacy issues. He's testified in parliamentary advisory committees and CRTC hearings. The way you keep referring to him as "this blogger", unfairly makes it sound like some rando on the web wrote it.
- BowBun 3y agoYes, because cross-party consensus from politicians is always an indicator of good change! /s I think 'this blogger' (see other comments) is well-informed and up-to-date on their stuff, so they probably have a more well-informed opinion than who I'm replying to. These kinds of solutions are so short-sighted because a) kids will get around it and b) in 5 years we'll have someone come along trying to ban another set of websites, and then another. This has and continues to happen all over the world and throughout history. When you give people or institutions the ability to censor information, given enough time, that authority will be wielded against you.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hackan 3y agoThis is freakin' nuts!! It should not pass, nor it should have reached such state, it is insane!
- twisteriffic 3y agoCall your nearest Conservative party MP and complain. They're the ones pushing this.
- xemoka 3y agoHow the second reading vote went, so you know who to call and email, https://openparliament.ca/votes/44-1/609/ https://openparliament.ca/votes/44-1/609/ And everything said about it and the status in the house: https://openparliament.ca/bills/44-1/S-210/ https://openparliament.ca/bills/44-1/S-210/
- civicduty 3y ago[flagged]
- xemoka 3y agoGreat, I'm super happy you're using this opportunity to engage in the political system! Goal achieved. I hope you find lively debate with the members who disagree with this bill, for both of our sakes.
- charles_f 3y agoWhat if my MP already voted no? Do you pick random MPs and email them?
- chimeracoder 3y ago> What if my MP already voted no? Do you pick random MPs and email them? Call and tell them you support that decision (and, just as importantly, why). They'll be receiving pressure from both sides, and it's important to demonstrate that people continue to care about their opposition.
- redm 3y agoProtrcting privacy worked out so well with these cookie banners, I cant imagine what could go wrong with this…
- 99_00 3y agoIf you feel that the company you are getting porn from isn't respecting your privacy and your privacy is important, don't get porn from them. The bill restricts distribution of porn to kids. It's up to the distributor to figure out how to do that.
- mulmen 3y agoNo, it isn’t. It’s about power. There’s nothing a Canadian ISP can do to prevent kids from finding porn online. If the Canadian government actually cared about this they wouldn’t use (hopelessly ineffective!) ISP level blocking. They would be funding an information campaign on device-level content blockers and be funding a browser add-on and block/allow list.
- 99_00 3y agoLet me make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that if this bill becomes law, consumption of porn among minors will not decrease?
- starburst 3y agoIsn't it obvious it won't? Unless they go full-on China firewall style there will always be website readily available that won't enforce that crap and kids will find them easily.
- 99_00 3y agoThe sites would be more difficult to find than they are now. Making it more difficult means it will happen less often.
- 3y ago
- TriangleEdge 3y agoI worked at a go kart racing track when I was a teen and the company installed something called "governors" that would limit the speed at which the go karts could go. The governors had a remote control which allowed an operator to selectively limit the speed of each individual go kart. As a 14 year old, if someone did a slight playful bump into another racer, I would govern them. It's the first instance of "power" I had over others. And.., I abused it for the "good". This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button with thoughtless abandon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing a democratic pushback mechanism in this bill, and I think this is a disaster. This is also being said in the context that the most voted petition in Canadian history is e-4701, which is a vote of no confidence.
- 99_00 3y ago>This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button with thoughtless abandon. What's the button in case of this legislation?
- TriangleEdge 3y agoThe button is censorship.
- civicduty 3y agoIt's not censorship, it's age verification. You can still access this stuff if you can prove you're an adult. Same as how children aren't allowed to buy the same material in stores. It's still being published, there's no censorship.
- bccdee 3y agoRead the article ( `–` ) > The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting user access and can therefore be applied to websites anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible. And what about the risk of overblocking? The bill not only envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing access to “material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization” or limiting access to anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect of full censorship of lawful content under court order based on notices from a government agency.
- nextaltaccount 3y ago[flagged]
- _whiteCaps_ 3y agoMy local MP voted Nay - I should send him an email to thank him for that. https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=province-territory https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=pro...
- grammers 3y agoWhen will they ever stop? The moment we (=the people) have fought one surveillance law, they (=politicians) simply come up with another. Until we are too tired to fight anymore...
- imchillyb 3y agoThat’s their _politicians_ strategy. It’s a time worn political stratagem. Keep pushing the same bill through with a different name, different sponsors, and at a time few are paying attention.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoYou have to win every time, they only need to win once.
- Nasrudith 3y agoThere has to be some sort of punishment for them to stop. Otherwise they'll just repeat it. If they find themselves consistently primaried or voted out for supporting bills they'll get the message.
- goosedragons 3y agoThere's no voting this wacko out. The lady who keeps shoving these bills out (or onto other bills) is an unelected senator that is there til she's 75 or does some gross misconduct or something.
- notnullorvoid 3y agoI think blame may lie more on lobbyists than politicians. Though the fact that politicians haven't fixed the problems with lobbying doesn't look so good either.
- barbazoo 3y agoThat person obviously knows what they're talking about and are much smarter than me but I still think this here is a weasel thing to say. > I think the best way to deal with the issue includes education, digital skills, and parental oversight of Internet use including the use of personal filters or blocking tools if desired. That made me actually laugh. Internet access is ubiquitous, parental digital literacy is often low, none of those are actually helpful suggestions that would help address the symptom. Imagine if we suggested that for other problems. "I think the best way to deal with gun violence includes education, gun skills, and parental oversight of gun use including the use of safety mechanisms and gun safes if desired." I appreciate people spending their time fighting for our rights. But these arguments here weren't very practical in my opinion.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago> That made me actually laugh. Internet access is ubiquitous, parental digital literacy is often low, none of those are actually helpful suggestions that would help address the symptom. I think that works both for and against your point though. For the very same reason, it's not likely there will ever be a way to reliably solve this technologically. So while we may need some technological measures, we also need to educate parents and kids about this at the same time. Anyone trying to sell a technological 'this will solve the porn problem' solution should be viewed with a very critical eye.
- barbazoo 3y ago> For the very same reason, it's not likely there will ever be a way to reliably solve this technologically. How did you arrive at this? Because I'm optimistic and think that if the government sets the ground rules, porn distributors will find a way to implement it reliably (using technology) and continue delivering porn to their consumers. We get age checked here in Canada all the time when we buy booze for instance. Why not enforce it here with something like an age verification?
- genocidicbunny 3y agoBecause the internet does not end at the Canadian border, and porn companies operating from other countries have no reason to implement such systems. And you can't block access to them -- VPNs are trivial to access these days. > We get age checked here in Canada all the time when we buy booze for instance. Why not enforce it here with something like an age verification? Because to buy alcohol you have to physically show up at a store with a physical ID that needs to pass as real, and you need to present yourself passably as an adult. Even then, it's not terribly difficult to get around even that -- plenty of high-schoolers are able to reliably get alcohol with cheap fake ID's because they look old enough and the ID is good enough. Online delivery services are also not terribly hard to spoof for a dedicated enough teenager.
- bawolff 3y agoI was originally going to say - wouldn't this be pointless when stuff is hosted elsewhere in the world. Then i remembered that pornhub is a canadian company. So maybe not as pointless.
- tamimio 3y ago“Terrorism” and “protect the kids!” are the most used boogeyman by governments in the last two decades or so to further violate private citizens privacy rights, freedom rights, and further monitoring and censoring communications, and the accusation is ready if you dare to stand against it.
- dmix 3y agoJohn Jonik comic from years ago (2010?) https://i.imgur.com/BDqwk99.jpg https://i.imgur.com/BDqwk99.jpg
- matheusmoreira 3y agoYes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Making these arguments is evidence of bad faith.
- boh 3y agoIn the words of Winston Churchill: "Never let a good crisis go to waste".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rixthefox 3y agoThe one question I want to ask these government officials is "Where are the parents?" If underage children are accessing explicit content, it is the parents, not the websites that are at fault. Why are you handing children devices that are not parental locked to only permit applications that have been approved by the parent? If the parent fails to properly vet the apps they allow their children to use then it is the parent that needs to be questioned. Pushing this requirement onto websites and services is moving the goal posts. If the parents are too technically inept or unwilling to police their children's devices then they should not be handing them to their children.
- Eumenes 3y agoAttributing blame to parents for anything in 2023, especially their internet or device usage, is incredibly faux pas.
- rixthefox 3y agoI expect people in 2023 to understand parental controls.
- jstarfish 3y agoWe can't even successfully curtail adverse behavior in the enterprise, with budgetary spends for DLP and communications monitoring measured in the millions. Parents don't stand a chance. You could be running a fucking kiosk with only Minecraft on it. If it still has an internet connection, kids will be harassed, bullied and solicited. It's the kids who taught me about the existence and purpose of Finstagram accounts. The only effective parental control is unplugging them from the internet. But you can't do that, because our lives are inextricable from it now.
- ndriscoll 3y agoWhich parental controls would, say, allow a kid to visit /r/roblox but not /r/nsfw? Best I can tell, Firefox literally does not have any parental controls built in, and they have a note that extensions to provide it are easily bypassed. It seems reasonable to me to at least start requiring sites and commercial software vendors to build a system that makes parental controls possible. And if a commercial site like reddit is going to have child focused content like a Roblox forum, then it should be easily separated from porn without requiring parents to set up a MITM proxy with complicated filtering rules. There are simple privacy and (adult) autonomy preserving ways filtering or access control could be done, but after 30 years it still seems to be an impossible task. Chuck-E-Cheese doesn't have a porn theatre in the back where an employee just asks if you're 18 and accepts any 7 year old saying yes.
- spacemanspiff01 3y agoWhat not just have site that are serve explicit things advertise that. Have a large scale Blocklist, and if you serve explicit content, then you need to be on there. Then have a option when people sign up for internet to block all the IPs associated with explicit stuff. Adults and parents can choose "yes or no" when they pay for internet and then be done with it. If children are still getting access, then their either technically savvy, which nothing will stop. Or an adult in their life is allowing unblocked internet. Just make ip filtering easy and default so that parents can set it up without having to understand anything. It should be a required thing when you request internet access "do you want to filter out explicit content" Some sites that have dual content may have to have separate IP addresses for non-explicit and explicit/non explicit. But that is relatively easy. And if they do not care, then they will by default end up on explicit list.
- ndriscoll 3y agoA couple problems with that are that people will disagree on what is inappropriate for children (e.g. drugs, nudity, sex, simulated violence, real violence, simulated gore, real gore, foul language, educational material that's sexual in nature, hate speech, advertising), and parents may want unfiltered or differently filtered access for themselves while blocking it on a device/profile the child uses. I imagine a huge firewall list is probably also technically challenging for ISPs unless there's some convention for IPs (like even/odd LSB). But you can just have the site serve a content labels header. Specify what the content is, with a standard for topics which may be commonly considered inappropriate for children, and let parents configure controls at the OS level, which the browser should respect. This lets you even provide the info at the level of individual resources (so e.g. wikipedia could label images or pages with topics like nudity or violence, and parents could opt to allow/block topics). You could also have a coarse header indicating that the site does not want minors to access it, and that could be an option for the browser to block.
- 20after4 3y agoI don't like any form of censorship / filtering but this is by far the most reasonable way to do it if it must be done.
- brutalized 3y ago[dead]
- speak_plainly 3y agoIt was only a matter of time before a certain class of people figured out how to use the internet and subsequently ruin it. I'm more surprised it lasted this long.
- jerlendds 3y agoWhy are so many media organizations and news outlets quiet on this? I've been searching around for any hits of S-210 and it seems there's remarkably few! If you're Canadian let's spread the word!
- dade_ 3y agoTrudeau is subsidizing most of Canadian media. Who knows what Pierre will do, but I’ll take a bet that it could be a cost saving measure to stop handouts to ‘fake news’ MSM. Justin seems to be aiming for a supernova exit… https://338canada.com/ https://338canada.com/
- Kbelicius 3y ago> Trudeau is subsidizing most of Canadian media. Considering that this bill is coming from the opposition how is this relevant?
- adamomada 3y agoThey get paid 60 million bucks a year (for a decade at least) to stfu about government business
- ayakang31415 3y agoKorea already has laws that are similar to the bill S-210, and it is extremely frustrating when I am visiting there. Every website that I want to use without any tracking is blocked by the South Korean government, thus I have to use VPN to use certain websites otherwise unavailable.
- kazinator 3y agoThere is another problem there: since the legislation would apply to so many kinds of sites it would have the effect of cutting off young people from services they rely on. Sites which don't mainly host explicit content. It could have life-long economic repercussions for disadvantaged youth. Very evil and stupid, these conservative shits.
- nojvek 3y ago> Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act. It also says senators were afraid to vote against the bill. Can someone explain to me why children looking at porn is a massively evil thing. Why that control should be in the hands of governments and not something a parent should decide for their kid. Somehow looking at genitals at age 17 is an abomination but at 18 it is totally fine. Showing half naked men and women in billboards is totally fine, but no tits dicks or vaginas. What is so wrong with tits dicks and vaginas that we have to “protect” the children against them? All teens have a subset of tits, dicks and vaginas so it’s not like they are unaware of their existence.
- moduspol 3y agoI don't have strong feelings either way, but I think in practice, the vast majority of parents would choose to have their kids not view it, yet do not have a practical way to enforce that choice.