13 ms·

Ottawa to create regulator to hold platforms accountable for harmful content

68 points by segasaturn 3y ago

mcsniff 3y ago
The Ministry of Truth. A bit hyperbolic, but the West really has fallen.
- segasaturn 3y ago
  Absolute freedom of speech is solely an American tradition. Speech regulation has always been the norm in the west.
  - stackedinserter 3y ago
    That's what Russian Government says all the time. According to them, speech is free in Russia, they just have some reasonable limitations.
  - neom 3y ago
    Canada in fact has quite deep restrictions on speech: https://ccla.org/our-work/fundamental-freedoms/freedom-of-expression https://ccla.org/our-work/fundamental-freedoms/freedom-of-ex... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canad... It's one thing I think we do particularly poorly compared to our friends down South. The Americans' absolute freedom of speech is... quite freeing.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    > an American tradition So also is silencing speech it doesn't like. Easy examples like the book banning taking place in states like florida and the ag-gag laws.
    - AustinDev 3y ago
      Just curious because I've heard the 'book banning in Florida' ad nauseum. I've got a Miami server I can proxy through. Can you send me an Amazon link of a book I can buy in Texas but cannot buy in Florida? I'd like to test this out.
      - BitwiseFool 3y ago
        "Book Banning" is always to be taken with a grain of salt. What typically happens is that a school library is not permitted to have copies of books considered inappropriate for children of a certain age.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
        Ok, try going to this florida school library and check out an encyclopedia or Anne Frank's diary. You can't because they were banned by a government law. You may counter with, this isn't a book ban because you can still buy it on amazon and that the government is supposed to moderate content in schools. But when 'moderation' becomes this absurdly broad, its a ban. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/11/florida-schools-ron-desantis-ban-books-sexual-content https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/11/florida-scho...
        AustinDev 3y ago
        Looking at the press release it appears to me that this is a form of 'Malicious Compliance' it only makes sense in that context. If you are an administrator or librarian and disagree with the law, you would want to 'ban' the most absurd list of books. You do this for two reasons: 1. So they can print the headline in the article you linked 2. So that when the case challenging this law inevitably goes to trial the lawyers can cite the absurd examples on your 'banned book' list. It often times helps to think critically about who benefits from an action when you see something as blatantly ridiculous as a dictionary being 'banned'.
        Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
        Ironically I think this is the point. The government deliberately made the law very general so they could cast a broad net and remove all of the bad-think books through the magic of selected enforcement. The malicious compliance was used to highlight this and the difference between 'protecting the children' and the policing of thoughts and ideas (always the root of censorship).
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Freedom of speech is not the norm in most countries and not the norm historically. It does strongly correlates with democracies in contrast with feudal or monarchic societies where the elites needed to suppress diverging voices. I am not from the US, but the US is just plainly more advanced here. Maybe it is even a reason why it is the most successful nation. Nobody should be proud about the intention to curb freedom of speech because of "hate speech" or comments on the internet. It is just majorly short sighted.
- matrix_overload 3y ago
  Freedom of speech works as a mechanism to maintain decentralized power. If there are multiple sources of power interested in preserving their own shares of power, they end up agreeing on fair mechanisms of resolving conflicts. Like arguing your case in a court vs. sending an assassin, or discussing different viewpoints in a civilized manner rather than waiting than the party-chosen one goes into the extreme, and evokes an equally extreme counteraction. Power in the West has been centralizing for decades now. Information society and low interest rates have been catalyzing this even more. It is inevitable than hard-fought-for freedoms will fall, followed by an economic collapse, splintering, and a slow crystallization of new sources of power over the courses of centuries. Empires fall. History repeats. Humans are humans...
jesusofnazarath 3y ago
[dead]
mistermann 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it It's funny how resistant humans are to learning from history.
sandworm101 3y ago
To their credit, Canadian regulators have in the past gotten stuff done in this area. Back in 2010 Canada was instrumental in getting Facebook to implement basic privacy protections. More often than not, the big online platforms internally know that regulation has to happen. Whichever country first comes up with a standard for "reasonable" in an area tends to see that standard mirrored by other countries struggling with the same issue. The online platforms would love to say that they are already in compliance with the Canadian standard when they inevitably have to negotiate new standards for the US and Europe.
smallbluedot 3y ago
Goddamn my government is absolutely pathetic.
cynicalsecurity 3y ago
That sounds like a very bad idea. Why does it need to be implemented when there are already existing mechanisms in place to hold criminals accountable for their actions?
- matrix_overload 3y ago
  Because a whole generation doesn't care about their financial well-being, affording kids, retirement, or any kind of future plans. They are happy, as long as they have a petty emotion-driven control over what others will be allowed to say or think. And the government is happy to deliver...
  - betaby 3y ago
    While this is true. It's also true that all above and manufacture and conditioned for awhile.
  - iosystem 3y ago
    I'm surprised you're being downvoted when almost all the lack of infrastructure for the future of Canadian youth doesn't just hint at what you're expressing, but instead screams it. Almost all politicians in Canada are landlords, multiple property holders, and have decided that what's best for Canada is increasing immigration, where young-born Canadians are having their wages suppressed because of it. Additionally, they are locked into living with their parents because rent has skyrocketed to absurd levels for just a small studio apartment. All for the benefit of the existing established boomer generation.
    - brailsafe 3y ago
      I'm confused, are you arguing the constraints on their finances and upward mobility due to everything outside their control hints that their circumstances are due to their own vacuity (or whatever parent was on about)? I'd argue it's not worth trying to acquire the things boomers, and subsequently gen-xers and older millennials sought, but it's worth finding a way to secure some other kind of financial security in whatever way that's feasible. It's not worth listening to politicians of any sort who say they'll be able to bring that down to earth in the next 5 years.
TriangleEdge 3y ago
What I didn't see mentioned in this article is what "harm" means in this context. My pessimistic view is that the govt will define harm as they see fit.
- neom 3y ago
  Harmful speech has been fought and settled over a long period of time in Canada, and there is a lot of case law around in it, it's governed by Canada's criminal code. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.ht... It's expected the new bill will be based on this, we won't really know the implications till case law is settled.
  - cperciva 3y ago
    Hate speech has a lot of case law around it. The fact they're inventing a new term "harmful speech" makes me think they're trying to avoid that case law.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      It does sound like a weasel word, like "assault weapon".
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    His plan to me doesn't read as narrowly focused on hate speech.
jjice 3y ago
- Who decides what constitutes "harmful"? Some things will be able to be agreed upon by man, but some won't. - So every platform needs serious moderation teams? I absolutely believe that major platforms should, but what if I have a blog and someone doxxes someone in the comments? Am I responsible now? So we're going to crush independent sites because they can't afford moderation from serious spam? I don't know, this is a tricky subject but I can't see this working well.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> Who decides what constitutes "harmful"? Government. The same people who set speed limits, tell pilots they cannot drink while flying and decide which drugs are too dangerous to sell in vending machines. Don't like it? Vote in someone different. In Canada, that will mean a committee which will take public and industry input, talk to victims and consult with law enforcement. They will set some rules, along with a complaints and appeals process probably headed by an ombudsman of sorts. If Canadians don't like it, they will either tell their government to change things or elect a new one that will. It is almost like someone had designed a system so that a few people could represent the will of the population without everyone having to break out the pitchforks.
  - johngladtj 3y ago
    So you agree with the widespread censorship in China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc...?
    - sandworm101 3y ago
      Despite what Fox News says, Canada is not the Soviet Union. it is a functional liberal democracy full of checks and balances with a government subject to regular elections.
      - whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
        [flagged]
CountSessine 3y ago
The thin end of the wedge. The epistemic supply-chain needs grooming to achieve information purity. If you support this idiocy, let me assure you that eventually it will be used against you when the Wrong sort of people are in power.
- jszymborski 3y ago
  Not all speech in Canada is protected, and never has been. Even in the US, there are (albeit far more narrow) carve-outs for "harmful" speech (best not yell "fire" in a movie theatre or "bomb" in an airport). Nobody has been or ever will be jailed for talking about the FLQ crisis and internet searches for pictures of tanks on Canadian streets aren't banned from search engines, but I guess people can go off on their China and USSR comparisons.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    The problem of holding platforms accountable for enforcing this is a chilling effect: speech that wouldn't be restricted even by the government gets taken down by the platforms as a proactive measure, to err on staying on the right side of the law. This is especially true of speech with nuance. (See GPT & Gemini's heavy-handed self-censorship as an example). Nobody will be jailed, their posts will just be hidden or removed for non-compliance with the restrictive terms of the private platform.
    - jszymborski 3y ago
      It's a great reason to leave these platforms for more intentional ones with moderation teams you trust. Community run Mastodon and Bluesky servers are a dime a dozen. Forums are seeing a bit of a resurgence. If this makes the big corpo social networks less fun and cool to be on, then bring it on!
      - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        It is, and it would be nice if it worked out that way, but the dynamics of two-sided markets are really sticky. You need more than a strong incentive, because your audience needs to come along too. And even federated platforms might find they don't want to hold the hot potato of legal accountability, and block Canadian IPs rather than try to ensure their moderation meets the Canadian government's standards.
superkuh 3y ago
This is a terrible idea, but as long as it only applies to incorporated persons it's fine. By incorporating and creating a legal person that has very limited legal liability an entity gives up most human rights. But if this is applied to non-incorporated human persons it will be very frightening and do much damage.
- AwaAwa 3y ago
  This is Canada. It will be applied to whomever the Government wants and then a few years down the line, if you survive, you'll get $10.5M worth of taxpayer funded hush money.
cooper_ganglia 3y ago
I hate the modern day we live in where every single person is obsessed with making sure people who think differently than they do should be silenced. This is not limited to one group, this is pervasive throughout all discourse everywhere, and it’s getting so exhausting.
- dadjoker 3y ago
  It's for those who know that they don't have a valid argument to make in the marketplace of ideas, and so they try to censor anyone who dares to have an opposing viewpoint and label them as "harmful" or "spreading misinformation."
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    On the other hand, if censorship is a bad idea, why is it winning in the marketplace of ideas? It kinda seems like free speech is losing, so why keep rooting for a failing idea? The rational answer is to look a step forward and update your position to match the winner, as it's empirically winning.
    - jdsully 3y ago
      Because its sidestepping this market and using force instead of argumentation.
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        It's realpolitik. If you think it's worth fight for then why choose a losing battleground? "I think the people I disagree with should limit themselves to this arena," is a guaranteed way of losing. It's like saying, "I think we should all line up and fight in a big field," when your opponents bring in the guns and artillery you say, "Yes, you overpowered us and won, but you did it in the wrong way so we didn't actually lose." Again, it seems that free speech is losing in the marketplace of ideas, why wouldn't that make you change your mind? Holding onto a losing idea is exactly how the marketplace of ideas is not supposed to work.
jpalawaga 3y ago
I feel like Americans (HN in particular), distrustful of their government, will not like this. I think it's great. People will look at Fox News and think 'thank god,' but as a Canadian, I'm glad we have more stringent restrictions on reckless forms of speech (hate/inciting genocide, fake news, etc). Further, I cannot recount a time when I've seen someone's speech restricted in a way I thought was improper. Yes, it is possible for a power to be abused. I don't agree with not granting the power though. But I think it's fundamentally a 'trust in government' thing (which Americans sadly have little of).
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  What constitutes a reckless form of speech is entirely in the eye of the beholder, which is why this is a terrible idea.
- AwaAwa 3y ago
  As a Canadian, we are in dire straits because of government overreach. And reading history it looks like that has been the case for at least the last 4 decades. Of course the Canadian rug under which everything is swept has become a tapestry of national Pride. Though that pride runs naked, like an emperor. Good thing MAID in Canada means something final.
  - jpalawaga 3y ago
    How, exactly, are we in dire straits, in a way that is connected to the limits on free speech?
- msandford 3y ago
  The COVID vaccines have saved many lives. They've also caused some adverse reactions in some folks. Should people be allowed to discuss this? Is this reckless or responsible? Why? What happens if the science changes? Who ensures that the folks in charge stay current?
  - betaby 3y ago
    Point is that some Canadian provinces had a literal curfew and any discussion of it was absolutely shut down.
euniceee3 3y ago
What a joke. This is how the US has solved this problem. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761567080988676256.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761567080988676256.html
DarkByte 3y ago
Unfortunately this is extremely dangerous as this opens the door to mis-labeling attacks by politicians pushing agendas and looking to censor talk against them.
jszymborski 3y ago
It's very funny to see the brains of all the Americans who are unaware of freedom of expression laws in other Western countries entirely melt whenever headlines like these show up. I can assure you, this is not China or the USSR. Our press, elections, and democratic institutions are free. Nobody is getting or will be thrown in jail for expressing their political opinions, unless it's calling for the death of a group of people or bodily harm to a protected class.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  People have veen jailed for less. Try giving out a free paper against [insert list of taboo subjects]. In many ways you have more freedom to speakout in those countries as long as it's not the government. In Canada you can speak out against the government in a limited way but are forbidden to for other topics and some topics they will allow only if it's politically correct but if that changes you are liable for those statements too.
  - jszymborski 3y ago
    You're going to need to cite some sources for claims like that to be taken seriously. I'd love to see some evidence of people jailed for nothing but political dissent in Canada.
lucidone 3y ago
Grass is greener and so forth but as a Canadian I find our current government paternalistic, pandering, reactive, and stifling. Not every problem should be solved by the sledgehammer of our public service, regulation, and bureaucracy, all of which are highly inefficient and wasteful. It's tax season - I pay nearly half my wages to the government in income tax - all so they can redistribute it to those who they deem worthy and unworthy (similar how to they might deem some content harmful and other content unharmful). Let me make my own decisions!
- timbit42 3y ago
  Even the opposition party is for this nonsense.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    From what I can tell, the opposition party is paradoxically for the also questionable proposal to hold porn sites accountable for minors accessing them, but not the Online Harms one.
    - busymom0 3y ago
      The leader of the opposition party stated yesterday that they are against id for porn: https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157 https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157 At least seems to be listening to criticism.
      - brailsafe 3y ago
        That was a surprisingly clear walk back.
scohesc 3y ago
I can't wait to see what the definition of "harmful content" is. It's likely we'll never know the specific definition because it'll use subjective wording that is up to interpretation which will conveniently be used by the justice system in ways that favor the current sitting government rather than the individual. Remember, it's "for the children" so we have to ram this legislation through as fast as possible - children in Canada, right now, are getting harmed as I type this comment! I can't wait until "anti-vaccine sentiments", "anti-government messaging", "apolitical misinformation" etc. all get rolled up into "online harmful content" because "it could cause harm to somebody, somewhere in Canada at any time". "Prime Minister Trudeau, show me on the doll where the harmful content hurt you."
renegat0x0 3y ago
Some things ring a Bell: meta oversight board, disinformation governance board, fact checking sites, counter disinformation unit. It always work with funding from powerful. Always people at top are nominated by the powerful. The last thing is these boards have to listen to powerful people. Therefore it is a puppet show. Rather than creating social media moderation tools for the community they establish boards.
- neverrroot 3y ago
  I'm trying to learn more about what disinformation is, could you please post your thoughts under the following Ask HN post? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369
faeriechangling 3y ago
Sounds to me like Trudeau is promising somebody who will vaguely do something because the opposition politicians are all pushing a bill to do mandatory identification for porn sites to allow for age gating. I don't really see how expanding the administrative state will help matters, especially with such a vague and exploitable mission like "preventing harm". What is harm? Is speaking against the presiding government harm?
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  mandatory ID laws are the dream of every single ad funded publisher on the internet. Can you imagine someone in 1970 being asked to show ID to get a copy of the daily print version of their local newspaper?
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    not just showing ID, but making damn sure the vendor checked it, and potentially can prove they checked it.
- busymom0 3y ago
  At least the leader of the opposition stated yesterday that they oppose id for porn: https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157 https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157
arp242 3y ago
This article is jumping the gun; there is no text yet, and it's entirely unclear what "accountable for harmful content" means exactly. How exactly that is defined makes a huge difference. And all of this is based on "sources" so it may not even be accurate in the first place. Right now all anyone can respond with is guesses and assumptions. This should be discussed in a few days, when there is actually something concrete to discuss. All of this is typical of "the news cycle". Imagine delaying publication for a few days until there's something to actually discuss...
tamimio 3y ago
> It's not clear whether the regulator will have power only over online platforms hosted in Canada or over all websites accessible by Canadians. Canada is irrelevant, it cannot enforce anything beyond its borders. This regulation will be used as a pretext later to create a digital identity and violate users’ privacy even more. The children’s safety argument is the responsibility of their parents/guardians, not the government. If the government really cares about children, it should start by tackling the drug problem.
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  Or the homelessness problem. Or the food bank queues problem. These are much more serious and more pressing threats to child welfare in Canada than PornHub is. Unfortunately, solutions to these problems don’t require implementing digital ID for Canadians, so these are non-starters.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    You know governments work on multiple things simultaneously? They announce new measures to combat the housing problems about once a week. This week it was giving BC $2B to build new homes. Unfortunately it takes years for measures like that to move the needle.
    - brailsafe 3y ago
      > You know governments work on multiple things simultaneously? If only someone told them that 8 years ago, maybe they could have moved the needle by now ;) woops
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        For the last 40 or so years Canadian governments have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. Home prices going up was a good thing, because home owners were far more reliable voters then renters. So we saw lots of programs like the RRSP first time home buyer program, which made it easier for new buyers to buy and by increasing demand, made prices go up. Remember that people thought the 2008 crash in the States was caused by too many houses. Voters and governments concentrate on preventing the last crisis from happening again. The next crisis is a lot harder to focus on until it actually happens.
boring-alterego 3y ago
That commission looks harmful.
egberts1 3y ago
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Latin: who watches the watchers?)
maximus-decimus 3y ago
I might just not vote at the next elections. They're all a joke.
bostonwalker 3y ago
When I first heard that the gov't is trying to protect children from online harm, for some reason I thought it meant we were going to regulate their access to the highly addictive forms of social media that have been destroying their experience of childhood and setting them up to be a failed generation. But I guess they decided instead to go after the politically low-hanging fruit of hate speech, bullying, and sexual exploitation, as if the heavy hand of government speech regulation is somehow going to solve these problems this time around in history at no major cost to free societal norms.

68 points by segasaturn 3y ago

mcsniff 3y ago

The Ministry of Truth. A bit hyperbolic, but the West really has fallen.

segasaturn 3y ago
Absolute freedom of speech is solely an American tradition. Speech regulation has always been the norm in the west.
- stackedinserter 3y ago
  That's what Russian Government says all the time. According to them, speech is free in Russia, they just have some reasonable limitations.
- neom 3y ago
  Canada in fact has quite deep restrictions on speech: https://ccla.org/our-work/fundamental-freedoms/freedom-of-expression https://ccla.org/our-work/fundamental-freedoms/freedom-of-ex... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canad... It's one thing I think we do particularly poorly compared to our friends down South. The Americans' absolute freedom of speech is... quite freeing.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  > an American tradition So also is silencing speech it doesn't like. Easy examples like the book banning taking place in states like florida and the ag-gag laws.
  - AustinDev 3y ago
    Just curious because I've heard the 'book banning in Florida' ad nauseum. I've got a Miami server I can proxy through. Can you send me an Amazon link of a book I can buy in Texas but cannot buy in Florida? I'd like to test this out.
    - BitwiseFool 3y ago
      "Book Banning" is always to be taken with a grain of salt. What typically happens is that a school library is not permitted to have copies of books considered inappropriate for children of a certain age.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
      Ok, try going to this florida school library and check out an encyclopedia or Anne Frank's diary. You can't because they were banned by a government law. You may counter with, this isn't a book ban because you can still buy it on amazon and that the government is supposed to moderate content in schools. But when 'moderation' becomes this absurdly broad, its a ban. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/11/florida-schools-ron-desantis-ban-books-sexual-content https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/11/florida-scho...
      - AustinDev 3y ago
        Looking at the press release it appears to me that this is a form of 'Malicious Compliance' it only makes sense in that context. If you are an administrator or librarian and disagree with the law, you would want to 'ban' the most absurd list of books. You do this for two reasons: 1. So they can print the headline in the article you linked 2. So that when the case challenging this law inevitably goes to trial the lawyers can cite the absurd examples on your 'banned book' list. It often times helps to think critically about who benefits from an action when you see something as blatantly ridiculous as a dictionary being 'banned'.
        Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
        Ironically I think this is the point. The government deliberately made the law very general so they could cast a broad net and remove all of the bad-think books through the magic of selected enforcement. The malicious compliance was used to highlight this and the difference between 'protecting the children' and the policing of thoughts and ideas (always the root of censorship).
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Freedom of speech is not the norm in most countries and not the norm historically. It does strongly correlates with democracies in contrast with feudal or monarchic societies where the elites needed to suppress diverging voices. I am not from the US, but the US is just plainly more advanced here. Maybe it is even a reason why it is the most successful nation. Nobody should be proud about the intention to curb freedom of speech because of "hate speech" or comments on the internet. It is just majorly short sighted.
matrix_overload 3y ago
Freedom of speech works as a mechanism to maintain decentralized power. If there are multiple sources of power interested in preserving their own shares of power, they end up agreeing on fair mechanisms of resolving conflicts. Like arguing your case in a court vs. sending an assassin, or discussing different viewpoints in a civilized manner rather than waiting than the party-chosen one goes into the extreme, and evokes an equally extreme counteraction. Power in the West has been centralizing for decades now. Information society and low interest rates have been catalyzing this even more. It is inevitable than hard-fought-for freedoms will fall, followed by an economic collapse, splintering, and a slow crystallization of new sources of power over the courses of centuries. Empires fall. History repeats. Humans are humans...

jesusofnazarath 3y ago

[dead]

mistermann 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it It's funny how resistant humans are to learning from history.

sandworm101 3y ago

To their credit, Canadian regulators have in the past gotten stuff done in this area. Back in 2010 Canada was instrumental in getting Facebook to implement basic privacy protections. More often than not, the big online platforms internally know that regulation has to happen. Whichever country first comes up with a standard for "reasonable" in an area tends to see that standard mirrored by other countries struggling with the same issue. The online platforms would love to say that they are already in compliance with the Canadian standard when they inevitably have to negotiate new standards for the US and Europe.

smallbluedot 3y ago

Goddamn my government is absolutely pathetic.

cynicalsecurity 3y ago

That sounds like a very bad idea. Why does it need to be implemented when there are already existing mechanisms in place to hold criminals accountable for their actions?

matrix_overload 3y ago
Because a whole generation doesn't care about their financial well-being, affording kids, retirement, or any kind of future plans. They are happy, as long as they have a petty emotion-driven control over what others will be allowed to say or think. And the government is happy to deliver...
- betaby 3y ago
  While this is true. It's also true that all above and manufacture and conditioned for awhile.
- iosystem 3y ago
  I'm surprised you're being downvoted when almost all the lack of infrastructure for the future of Canadian youth doesn't just hint at what you're expressing, but instead screams it. Almost all politicians in Canada are landlords, multiple property holders, and have decided that what's best for Canada is increasing immigration, where young-born Canadians are having their wages suppressed because of it. Additionally, they are locked into living with their parents because rent has skyrocketed to absurd levels for just a small studio apartment. All for the benefit of the existing established boomer generation.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    I'm confused, are you arguing the constraints on their finances and upward mobility due to everything outside their control hints that their circumstances are due to their own vacuity (or whatever parent was on about)? I'd argue it's not worth trying to acquire the things boomers, and subsequently gen-xers and older millennials sought, but it's worth finding a way to secure some other kind of financial security in whatever way that's feasible. It's not worth listening to politicians of any sort who say they'll be able to bring that down to earth in the next 5 years.

TriangleEdge 3y ago

What I didn't see mentioned in this article is what "harm" means in this context. My pessimistic view is that the govt will define harm as they see fit.

neom 3y ago
Harmful speech has been fought and settled over a long period of time in Canada, and there is a lot of case law around in it, it's governed by Canada's criminal code. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.ht... It's expected the new bill will be based on this, we won't really know the implications till case law is settled.
- cperciva 3y ago
  Hate speech has a lot of case law around it. The fact they're inventing a new term "harmful speech" makes me think they're trying to avoid that case law.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    It does sound like a weasel word, like "assault weapon".
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  His plan to me doesn't read as narrowly focused on hate speech.

jjice 3y ago

- Who decides what constitutes "harmful"? Some things will be able to be agreed upon by man, but some won't. - So every platform needs serious moderation teams? I absolutely believe that major platforms should, but what if I have a blog and someone doxxes someone in the comments? Am I responsible now? So we're going to crush independent sites because they can't afford moderation from serious spam? I don't know, this is a tricky subject but I can't see this working well.

sandworm101 3y ago
>> Who decides what constitutes "harmful"? Government. The same people who set speed limits, tell pilots they cannot drink while flying and decide which drugs are too dangerous to sell in vending machines. Don't like it? Vote in someone different. In Canada, that will mean a committee which will take public and industry input, talk to victims and consult with law enforcement. They will set some rules, along with a complaints and appeals process probably headed by an ombudsman of sorts. If Canadians don't like it, they will either tell their government to change things or elect a new one that will. It is almost like someone had designed a system so that a few people could represent the will of the population without everyone having to break out the pitchforks.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  So you agree with the widespread censorship in China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc...?
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    Despite what Fox News says, Canada is not the Soviet Union. it is a functional liberal democracy full of checks and balances with a government subject to regular elections.
    - whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
      [flagged]

CountSessine 3y ago

The thin end of the wedge. The epistemic supply-chain needs grooming to achieve information purity. If you support this idiocy, let me assure you that eventually it will be used against you when the Wrong sort of people are in power.

jszymborski 3y ago
Not all speech in Canada is protected, and never has been. Even in the US, there are (albeit far more narrow) carve-outs for "harmful" speech (best not yell "fire" in a movie theatre or "bomb" in an airport). Nobody has been or ever will be jailed for talking about the FLQ crisis and internet searches for pictures of tanks on Canadian streets aren't banned from search engines, but I guess people can go off on their China and USSR comparisons.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  The problem of holding platforms accountable for enforcing this is a chilling effect: speech that wouldn't be restricted even by the government gets taken down by the platforms as a proactive measure, to err on staying on the right side of the law. This is especially true of speech with nuance. (See GPT & Gemini's heavy-handed self-censorship as an example). Nobody will be jailed, their posts will just be hidden or removed for non-compliance with the restrictive terms of the private platform.
  - jszymborski 3y ago
    It's a great reason to leave these platforms for more intentional ones with moderation teams you trust. Community run Mastodon and Bluesky servers are a dime a dozen. Forums are seeing a bit of a resurgence. If this makes the big corpo social networks less fun and cool to be on, then bring it on!
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      It is, and it would be nice if it worked out that way, but the dynamics of two-sided markets are really sticky. You need more than a strong incentive, because your audience needs to come along too. And even federated platforms might find they don't want to hold the hot potato of legal accountability, and block Canadian IPs rather than try to ensure their moderation meets the Canadian government's standards.

superkuh 3y ago

This is a terrible idea, but as long as it only applies to incorporated persons it's fine. By incorporating and creating a legal person that has very limited legal liability an entity gives up most human rights. But if this is applied to non-incorporated human persons it will be very frightening and do much damage.

AwaAwa 3y ago
This is Canada. It will be applied to whomever the Government wants and then a few years down the line, if you survive, you'll get $10.5M worth of taxpayer funded hush money.

cooper_ganglia 3y ago

I hate the modern day we live in where every single person is obsessed with making sure people who think differently than they do should be silenced. This is not limited to one group, this is pervasive throughout all discourse everywhere, and it’s getting so exhausting.

dadjoker 3y ago
It's for those who know that they don't have a valid argument to make in the marketplace of ideas, and so they try to censor anyone who dares to have an opposing viewpoint and label them as "harmful" or "spreading misinformation."
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  On the other hand, if censorship is a bad idea, why is it winning in the marketplace of ideas? It kinda seems like free speech is losing, so why keep rooting for a failing idea? The rational answer is to look a step forward and update your position to match the winner, as it's empirically winning.
  - jdsully 3y ago
    Because its sidestepping this market and using force instead of argumentation.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      It's realpolitik. If you think it's worth fight for then why choose a losing battleground? "I think the people I disagree with should limit themselves to this arena," is a guaranteed way of losing. It's like saying, "I think we should all line up and fight in a big field," when your opponents bring in the guns and artillery you say, "Yes, you overpowered us and won, but you did it in the wrong way so we didn't actually lose." Again, it seems that free speech is losing in the marketplace of ideas, why wouldn't that make you change your mind? Holding onto a losing idea is exactly how the marketplace of ideas is not supposed to work.

jpalawaga 3y ago

I feel like Americans (HN in particular), distrustful of their government, will not like this. I think it's great. People will look at Fox News and think 'thank god,' but as a Canadian, I'm glad we have more stringent restrictions on reckless forms of speech (hate/inciting genocide, fake news, etc). Further, I cannot recount a time when I've seen someone's speech restricted in a way I thought was improper. Yes, it is possible for a power to be abused. I don't agree with not granting the power though. But I think it's fundamentally a 'trust in government' thing (which Americans sadly have little of).

baggy_trough 3y ago
What constitutes a reckless form of speech is entirely in the eye of the beholder, which is why this is a terrible idea.
AwaAwa 3y ago
As a Canadian, we are in dire straits because of government overreach. And reading history it looks like that has been the case for at least the last 4 decades. Of course the Canadian rug under which everything is swept has become a tapestry of national Pride. Though that pride runs naked, like an emperor. Good thing MAID in Canada means something final.
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  How, exactly, are we in dire straits, in a way that is connected to the limits on free speech?
msandford 3y ago
The COVID vaccines have saved many lives. They've also caused some adverse reactions in some folks. Should people be allowed to discuss this? Is this reckless or responsible? Why? What happens if the science changes? Who ensures that the folks in charge stay current?
- betaby 3y ago
  Point is that some Canadian provinces had a literal curfew and any discussion of it was absolutely shut down.

euniceee3 3y ago

What a joke. This is how the US has solved this problem. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761567080988676256.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761567080988676256.html

DarkByte 3y ago

Unfortunately this is extremely dangerous as this opens the door to mis-labeling attacks by politicians pushing agendas and looking to censor talk against them.

jszymborski 3y ago

It's very funny to see the brains of all the Americans who are unaware of freedom of expression laws in other Western countries entirely melt whenever headlines like these show up. I can assure you, this is not China or the USSR. Our press, elections, and democratic institutions are free. Nobody is getting or will be thrown in jail for expressing their political opinions, unless it's calling for the death of a group of people or bodily harm to a protected class.

ipaddr 3y ago
People have veen jailed for less. Try giving out a free paper against [insert list of taboo subjects]. In many ways you have more freedom to speakout in those countries as long as it's not the government. In Canada you can speak out against the government in a limited way but are forbidden to for other topics and some topics they will allow only if it's politically correct but if that changes you are liable for those statements too.
- jszymborski 3y ago
  You're going to need to cite some sources for claims like that to be taken seriously. I'd love to see some evidence of people jailed for nothing but political dissent in Canada.

lucidone 3y ago

Grass is greener and so forth but as a Canadian I find our current government paternalistic, pandering, reactive, and stifling. Not every problem should be solved by the sledgehammer of our public service, regulation, and bureaucracy, all of which are highly inefficient and wasteful. It's tax season - I pay nearly half my wages to the government in income tax - all so they can redistribute it to those who they deem worthy and unworthy (similar how to they might deem some content harmful and other content unharmful). Let me make my own decisions!

timbit42 3y ago
Even the opposition party is for this nonsense.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  From what I can tell, the opposition party is paradoxically for the also questionable proposal to hold porn sites accountable for minors accessing them, but not the Online Harms one.
  - busymom0 3y ago
    The leader of the opposition party stated yesterday that they are against id for porn: https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157 https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157 At least seems to be listening to criticism.
    - brailsafe 3y ago
      That was a surprisingly clear walk back.

scohesc 3y ago

I can't wait to see what the definition of "harmful content" is. It's likely we'll never know the specific definition because it'll use subjective wording that is up to interpretation which will conveniently be used by the justice system in ways that favor the current sitting government rather than the individual. Remember, it's "for the children" so we have to ram this legislation through as fast as possible - children in Canada, right now, are getting harmed as I type this comment! I can't wait until "anti-vaccine sentiments", "anti-government messaging", "apolitical misinformation" etc. all get rolled up into "online harmful content" because "it could cause harm to somebody, somewhere in Canada at any time". "Prime Minister Trudeau, show me on the doll where the harmful content hurt you."

renegat0x0 3y ago

Some things ring a Bell: meta oversight board, disinformation governance board, fact checking sites, counter disinformation unit. It always work with funding from powerful. Always people at top are nominated by the powerful. The last thing is these boards have to listen to powerful people. Therefore it is a puppet show. Rather than creating social media moderation tools for the community they establish boards.

neverrroot 3y ago
I'm trying to learn more about what disinformation is, could you please post your thoughts under the following Ask HN post? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369

faeriechangling 3y ago

Sounds to me like Trudeau is promising somebody who will vaguely do something because the opposition politicians are all pushing a bill to do mandatory identification for porn sites to allow for age gating. I don't really see how expanding the administrative state will help matters, especially with such a vague and exploitable mission like "preventing harm". What is harm? Is speaking against the presiding government harm?

sidewndr46 3y ago
mandatory ID laws are the dream of every single ad funded publisher on the internet. Can you imagine someone in 1970 being asked to show ID to get a copy of the daily print version of their local newspaper?
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  not just showing ID, but making damn sure the vendor checked it, and potentially can prove they checked it.
busymom0 3y ago
At least the leader of the opposition stated yesterday that they oppose id for porn: https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157 https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1762178506102858157

arp242 3y ago

This article is jumping the gun; there is no text yet, and it's entirely unclear what "accountable for harmful content" means exactly. How exactly that is defined makes a huge difference. And all of this is based on "sources" so it may not even be accurate in the first place. Right now all anyone can respond with is guesses and assumptions. This should be discussed in a few days, when there is actually something concrete to discuss. All of this is typical of "the news cycle". Imagine delaying publication for a few days until there's something to actually discuss...

tamimio 3y ago

> It's not clear whether the regulator will have power only over online platforms hosted in Canada or over all websites accessible by Canadians. Canada is irrelevant, it cannot enforce anything beyond its borders. This regulation will be used as a pretext later to create a digital identity and violate users’ privacy even more. The children’s safety argument is the responsibility of their parents/guardians, not the government. If the government really cares about children, it should start by tackling the drug problem.

unsupp0rted 3y ago
Or the homelessness problem. Or the food bank queues problem. These are much more serious and more pressing threats to child welfare in Canada than PornHub is. Unfortunately, solutions to these problems don’t require implementing digital ID for Canadians, so these are non-starters.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  You know governments work on multiple things simultaneously? They announce new measures to combat the housing problems about once a week. This week it was giving BC $2B to build new homes. Unfortunately it takes years for measures like that to move the needle.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    > You know governments work on multiple things simultaneously? If only someone told them that 8 years ago, maybe they could have moved the needle by now ;) woops
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      For the last 40 or so years Canadian governments have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. Home prices going up was a good thing, because home owners were far more reliable voters then renters. So we saw lots of programs like the RRSP first time home buyer program, which made it easier for new buyers to buy and by increasing demand, made prices go up. Remember that people thought the 2008 crash in the States was caused by too many houses. Voters and governments concentrate on preventing the last crisis from happening again. The next crisis is a lot harder to focus on until it actually happens.

boring-alterego 3y ago

That commission looks harmful.

egberts1 3y ago

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Latin: who watches the watchers?)

maximus-decimus 3y ago

I might just not vote at the next elections. They're all a joke.

bostonwalker 3y ago

When I first heard that the gov't is trying to protect children from online harm, for some reason I thought it meant we were going to regulate their access to the highly addictive forms of social media that have been destroying their experience of childhood and setting them up to be a failed generation. But I guess they decided instead to go after the politically low-hanging fruit of hate speech, bullying, and sexual exploitation, as if the heavy hand of government speech regulation is somehow going to solve these problems this time around in history at no major cost to free societal norms.