4 ms·

It'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 sam

It'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 ago
Read 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.
- 99_00 3y ago
  Explain how this is censorship.
  - rstat1 3y ago
    You want an explanation about how a law intended to block access to something is censorship? Really?
    - 99_00 3y ago
      I guess your right, it is censorship. And so are laws against tobacco advertising. As are laws in Canada against hate speech, harrasment missgendering and Holocaust denial. I guess censorship gets a bad wrap.
      - bccdee 3y ago
        It's silly to contrast a narrow restriction on speech like "you can be charged for making statements which constitute harassment" or "this specific product cannot be advertised in certain ways" with a massive restriction on speech like "any website that does not check users' IDs can be blocked at an ISP level if it is found to have content on it which is not appropriate for children." If you like free speech, am I "free" to "speak" loud screams directly into your ear? Am I free to speak lies to you about the safety features in my airplane, when you're buying tickets? Free speech absolutism is a childish position; what crosses a line is subjective. I think any reasonable person would agree that this internet blocking regime crosses a line and unfairly stifles people's ability to communicate. Not every public space should be obliged to be child-appropriate; obscenity laws are best left in the 20th century.
        99_00 3y ago
        When a kid can walk into a 18+ movie showing at a theater or buy a porn magazine from the corner store without proof of age you'll have an argument. Until then you're advocating for the continuation of a a special exemption for online porn sites, which are worse than adult movies and magazines because they are known and habitual hosts of child sexual abuse materials, non-consensual porn, child and adult sex trafficking victims.
        bccdee 3y ago
        Corner stores don't track your ID and purchases. Come on. We all know that any information you enter into a website will be used to create a profile on you. The fact that these profiles will be attached to very personal information about people's sexualities should be very troubling to you. This is a huge privacy violation. On top of that, it's not just porn websites that this will apply to. It's any website featuring explicit material that could be "harmful to children." That includes most discussions of sex. You're going to have to register your ID to even have an R-rated conversation online. That'll have a huge chilling effect on free speech. Children's internet access can easily be controlled by parents with readily-available tools. The problem here is parental negligence. There are plenty of ways the government can push parents into using these tools, and none of them are damaging privacy or free speech. And don't bring child sex abuse material into this. If you're concerned about CSAM on porn sites, you should be advocating that the government investigate that. Not that they institute draconian ID-checking laws. Unless you think CSAM is only a problem when it's viewed by someone under 18?
  - protocolture 3y ago
    Explain how it isnt lmao. It uses a one drop rule to test websites. Once theres a teensy bit of adult content, and as has been pointed out this covers things like googles unsafe search modes, then the requirement is to block first and ask questions later. Requiring people to be licensed or verified to access content is as much censorship as blocking it entirely. There are valid reasons to not want to be on a conservative governments list of porn users. You need to expose yourself to risk to access content? Censorship.
    - 99_00 3y ago
      Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You expect that once this is law, that a single adult picture on the site and a complaint to the CRTC will result in a website being blocked or forced to implement age verification? So if someone links to or sneaks in a naked picture in the comment section of a tech site that and makes a complaint, then that site face serious consequences? >googles unsafe search mode That's not a teensy bit of adult content.
natoliniak 3y ago
> any site or service that makes sexually explicit materials available so basically, the internet. > Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. So yes, censorship under the cloak of "age verification" and "protecting kids". We have heard it all before. I'm surprised they didn't somehow stuff the "terrorism" angle in there as well.
- 99_00 3y ago
  >At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. It hasn't happened with any other censorship bill Canada has passed. This includes laws on pronoun use: Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained >through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
  - bccdee 3y ago
    That's not a censorship bill, that's an anti-harassment bill. Harassment is illegal everywhere: I'm not free to follow you around calling you an asshole. I could get charged for that, especially if you're my employee, tenant, or in the presence of other exacerbating factors. Canadian hate law says I'm not free to follow you around making disparaging comments about your race. C-16 expands that to say that I'm not allowed to follow you around disparaging your gender identity. That's it. This bill, conversely, gives the government explicit power to block websites that host content that is not child-appropriate. Completely different.
happyopossum 3y ago
Requiring an onerous age verification scheme provided by government approved vendors is a lot closer to censorship than it isn't. Say you post stuff to your own blog, and sometimes use colorful language. A parent decides to report you to the regulatory agency, and now you have 20 days to do whatever they demand you do to remediate, or else your site will be blocked at the ISP level.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  That's not even the half of it. In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity. Classic chilling effects. If you're in the closet because you come from a religious family or have a religious boss, can you risk some random site or government bureaucracy getting hacked and outing you? Strong anonymity is essential for free expression. Then the requirement to identify yourself is friction, so sites will want to avoid it, which can only be accomplished through censorship. Ordinary sites not solely focused on X-rated content will be "moderated" down to the level of children, even when they have adult audiences, because they don't want to be locked behind the porn filter. Instead of having diverse communities tailored to all different kinds of people and ideas, you bifurcate the world into nerfed risk-averse corporate censorship and explicit smut. The only place you're allowed to have an adult conversation is Pornhub, which is not exactly known for quality intellectual discourse.
  - tzs 3y ago
    > In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity I don't see any reason age verification has to tie your identity to your activity. It should be possible with modern cryptographic techniques to make a system whereby the service that checks your age doesn't find out what site the check is for, and that site doesn't find out who you are.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      There are two possibilities. One is you get a unique token which can be tied back to your identity by someone who compromises the issuing service, so if they get compromised you're screwed. The other is you get a generic token or one that otherwise can't be tied back to a specific identity, in which case the token leaks and there is no way to trace back who is leaking it, creating a generic bypass of the whole system.

bccdee 3y ago

Read 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.

99_00 3y ago
Explain how this is censorship.
- rstat1 3y ago
  You want an explanation about how a law intended to block access to something is censorship? Really?
  - 99_00 3y ago
    I guess your right, it is censorship. And so are laws against tobacco advertising. As are laws in Canada against hate speech, harrasment missgendering and Holocaust denial. I guess censorship gets a bad wrap.
    - bccdee 3y ago
      It's silly to contrast a narrow restriction on speech like "you can be charged for making statements which constitute harassment" or "this specific product cannot be advertised in certain ways" with a massive restriction on speech like "any website that does not check users' IDs can be blocked at an ISP level if it is found to have content on it which is not appropriate for children." If you like free speech, am I "free" to "speak" loud screams directly into your ear? Am I free to speak lies to you about the safety features in my airplane, when you're buying tickets? Free speech absolutism is a childish position; what crosses a line is subjective. I think any reasonable person would agree that this internet blocking regime crosses a line and unfairly stifles people's ability to communicate. Not every public space should be obliged to be child-appropriate; obscenity laws are best left in the 20th century.
      - 99_00 3y ago
        When a kid can walk into a 18+ movie showing at a theater or buy a porn magazine from the corner store without proof of age you'll have an argument. Until then you're advocating for the continuation of a a special exemption for online porn sites, which are worse than adult movies and magazines because they are known and habitual hosts of child sexual abuse materials, non-consensual porn, child and adult sex trafficking victims.
        bccdee 3y ago
        Corner stores don't track your ID and purchases. Come on. We all know that any information you enter into a website will be used to create a profile on you. The fact that these profiles will be attached to very personal information about people's sexualities should be very troubling to you. This is a huge privacy violation. On top of that, it's not just porn websites that this will apply to. It's any website featuring explicit material that could be "harmful to children." That includes most discussions of sex. You're going to have to register your ID to even have an R-rated conversation online. That'll have a huge chilling effect on free speech. Children's internet access can easily be controlled by parents with readily-available tools. The problem here is parental negligence. There are plenty of ways the government can push parents into using these tools, and none of them are damaging privacy or free speech. And don't bring child sex abuse material into this. If you're concerned about CSAM on porn sites, you should be advocating that the government investigate that. Not that they institute draconian ID-checking laws. Unless you think CSAM is only a problem when it's viewed by someone under 18?
- protocolture 3y ago
  Explain how it isnt lmao. It uses a one drop rule to test websites. Once theres a teensy bit of adult content, and as has been pointed out this covers things like googles unsafe search modes, then the requirement is to block first and ask questions later. Requiring people to be licensed or verified to access content is as much censorship as blocking it entirely. There are valid reasons to not want to be on a conservative governments list of porn users. You need to expose yourself to risk to access content? Censorship.
  - 99_00 3y ago
    Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You expect that once this is law, that a single adult picture on the site and a complaint to the CRTC will result in a website being blocked or forced to implement age verification? So if someone links to or sneaks in a naked picture in the comment section of a tech site that and makes a complaint, then that site face serious consequences? >googles unsafe search mode That's not a teensy bit of adult content.

natoliniak 3y ago

> any site or service that makes sexually explicit materials available so basically, the internet. > Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. So yes, censorship under the cloak of "age verification" and "protecting kids". We have heard it all before. I'm surprised they didn't somehow stuff the "terrorism" angle in there as well.

99_00 3y ago
>At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. It hasn't happened with any other censorship bill Canada has passed. This includes laws on pronoun use: Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained >through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
- bccdee 3y ago
  That's not a censorship bill, that's an anti-harassment bill. Harassment is illegal everywhere: I'm not free to follow you around calling you an asshole. I could get charged for that, especially if you're my employee, tenant, or in the presence of other exacerbating factors. Canadian hate law says I'm not free to follow you around making disparaging comments about your race. C-16 expands that to say that I'm not allowed to follow you around disparaging your gender identity. That's it. This bill, conversely, gives the government explicit power to block websites that host content that is not child-appropriate. Completely different.

happyopossum 3y ago

Requiring an onerous age verification scheme provided by government approved vendors is a lot closer to censorship than it isn't. Say you post stuff to your own blog, and sometimes use colorful language. A parent decides to report you to the regulatory agency, and now you have 20 days to do whatever they demand you do to remediate, or else your site will be blocked at the ISP level.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
That's not even the half of it. In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity. Classic chilling effects. If you're in the closet because you come from a religious family or have a religious boss, can you risk some random site or government bureaucracy getting hacked and outing you? Strong anonymity is essential for free expression. Then the requirement to identify yourself is friction, so sites will want to avoid it, which can only be accomplished through censorship. Ordinary sites not solely focused on X-rated content will be "moderated" down to the level of children, even when they have adult audiences, because they don't want to be locked behind the porn filter. Instead of having diverse communities tailored to all different kinds of people and ideas, you bifurcate the world into nerfed risk-averse corporate censorship and explicit smut. The only place you're allowed to have an adult conversation is Pornhub, which is not exactly known for quality intellectual discourse.
- tzs 3y ago
  > In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity I don't see any reason age verification has to tie your identity to your activity. It should be possible with modern cryptographic techniques to make a system whereby the service that checks your age doesn't find out what site the check is for, and that site doesn't find out who you are.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    There are two possibilities. One is you get a unique token which can be tied back to your identity by someone who compromises the issuing service, so if they get compromised you're screwed. The other is you get a generic token or one that otherwise can't be tied back to a specific identity, in which case the token leaks and there is no way to trace back who is leaking it, creating a generic bypass of the whole system.