3 ms·

I support prohibiting people from accessing the internet IF they're proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet. But this applies to any public

I support prohibiting people from accessing the internet IF they're proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet. But this applies to any public space or commons, internet or otherwise, and we already have the means of accomplishing this... With a due process. Why would it makes sense to remove that process, while introducing an incredible opaque decision-making process in its place, which totally bars anyone from knowing why they were excluded from accessing the internet? It even prevents wrongfully excluded individuals from receiving compensation. For example, I could be cut off from the internet which I need to do my job. Say I'm unable to work for a week or two and then it's determined that I can access the internet because an error was made... Well, as far as I can tell, I'd be SOL. That doesn't seem right... Worse still is that this seems about as technically competent as using an IP address to determine a person's location. Any serious threat vector, human or otherwise, will find other ways to access the internet or perpetuate their threat if they care to. If they're a serious threat, why wouldn't prison be a better solution than... Calling their ISP and banning them from the internet? All of this seems very short-sighted, undemocratic, and naive. And while the 'human or otherwise' phrase I used might seem odd (I know someone's dog isn't shit-posting on X), what I mean to say is something like... What if an LLM is posting from an unsuspecting person's computer and was placed there as a virus? Once it's cut off from that poor person's computer, it's very likely it will eventually or already be functioning from some other unsuspecting person's computer, server, or whatever other device. Their toaster. My point is that we live in an age where there are non-human agents causing harm online. The machine they operate from will not always be OpenAI's or Anthropics, and indeed, will probably rarely be so. This was already the case with human actors, but it made much worse with the advent of AI-based agents.

BLKNSLVR 1y ago
> Why would it makes sense to remove that process, while introducing an incredible opaque decision-making process in its place For all the Canadian railing against Trump, this is an authoritarian play as much as many of Trump's actions. Unfortunately this seems to be a growing, hypocritical trend around the world. EU's Chat Control as another example. Australia's lax control over entities able to access ISP metadata as another. The problem is that it enables Trump further by allowing him to point at their decisions as similar examples to his own, as justification. I'm only using Trump since he seems to be the one willing to push boundaries the furthest, so if supposedly "more democratic" leaders are pushing such boundaries, then Trump will... Trump them.
- steve_adams_86 1y ago
  I agree that it's an authoritarian play, completely. That doesn't mean I think we have an authoritarian government, but I do see the nature of the bill as authoritarian. Ideas like this should be unwelcome in Canada, period. I was opposed to freezing bank accounts during the trucker convoys, even though I was opposed to how the convoys were performing their protests. These kinds of measures—and capabilities of governments in general—are anti-democracy in nature and in my opinion, should be rejected by everyone who values democracy. I'm all for keeping dangerous people offline. I'm all for protecting fellow Canadians from online dangers. We can find better ways to do this, though. I'm very disappointed that such poor judgement is being used by our current government. The worst part is that seemingly no one gets to know what the cause of the ban is, and there are so few checks or balances before the decision is acted on. It's absolutely bizarre.
- armada651 1y ago
  > Unfortunately this seems to be a growing, hypocritical trend around the world. EU's Chat Control as another example. It's not hypocritical, there's no such thing as an absolute right to freedom of speech in the EU like there is in the US. Chat Control is widely opposed in the EU and I don't agree with it, but it's not hypocritical nor inconsistent with how the EU treats freedom of expression. Here are the limitations placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention on Human Rights: > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. You won't find those conditions in the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.
  - 331c8c71 1y ago
    'Course it's hypocritical. What is quickly condemned as "bad" in a foreign context is often not held to the same standard when it appears within Europe.
kennethrc 1y ago
> IF they're proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet ... which means what? They espouse ideas "you" don't like?
zahlman 1y ago
> proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet. What exactly would this entail? Some people nowadays seem to have a very broad conception of "safety", broad enough to cause serious concern on the part of advocates for freedom and privacy.
- xvector 1y ago
  It will invariably be reduced to "saying mean things on the internet" by the government. I do not understand why people are so willing to give governments an ever-increasing amount of power. People never learn from history.
  - vixen99 1y ago
    From the UK: Seems to me that very few people except those with very direct interests, support the Keir Starmer Government and his Finance Minister - Reeves who is universally regarded as a disaster (armed with an Oxford PPE degree & yet driving businesses down and out in the UK). My point: 'so willing to give ... power' ? We have three more years of this administration and meanwhile seem unable to do anything to prevent them creating the Britain of their fantasies.
SchemaLoad 1y ago
In modern society it's pretty much impossible to live without using the internet. You can't apply for a job, you can't apply for a rental. You can't even order a burger at some restaurants without scanning the QR code. Anyone too dangerous to be allowed any access to the internet probably just needs to be in jail. What would be the point in leaving someone to their own devices while preventing them from participating in society at all?
- zzo38computer 1y ago
  > You can't even order a burger at some restaurants without scanning the QR code. I have only ever been to one restaurant where this was the case (and it was not a very good restaurant in my opinion, so I do not intend to go back there even if they have a real menu, unless they also improve their food and management), but they provided a iPad to any customer who needed it for this purpose (I did not need it, since I was not alone and was with another customer who had their own iPad). (I think it might be better to post the menu on the wall for customers to read. It might be suitable to use e-paper displays if they sometimes change but not very often; this is more reliable and does not require as much power, nor emit too much light.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bakugo 1y ago
> IF they're proven to be dangerous to others You are literally part of the problem. "Dangerous to others" is a meaningless phrase that can be twisted to mean anything you want.
__turbobrew__ 1y ago
> proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet What does this even mean? What kind of crimes can people commit using the internet that justifies bypassing due process for public safety? There are rules on the books in Canada that allows bypassing due process to confiscate firearms from a potentially violent or mentally unstable person, but I think that is a bit — just a little bit — more justifiable as the crimes that can be committed with a gun are much more serious than the crimes you can commit with the internet. Also, the internet is almost a necessity to be a part of functioning society whereas guns are not.

BLKNSLVR 1y ago

> Why would it makes sense to remove that process, while introducing an incredible opaque decision-making process in its place For all the Canadian railing against Trump, this is an authoritarian play as much as many of Trump's actions. Unfortunately this seems to be a growing, hypocritical trend around the world. EU's Chat Control as another example. Australia's lax control over entities able to access ISP metadata as another. The problem is that it enables Trump further by allowing him to point at their decisions as similar examples to his own, as justification. I'm only using Trump since he seems to be the one willing to push boundaries the furthest, so if supposedly "more democratic" leaders are pushing such boundaries, then Trump will... Trump them.

steve_adams_86 1y ago
I agree that it's an authoritarian play, completely. That doesn't mean I think we have an authoritarian government, but I do see the nature of the bill as authoritarian. Ideas like this should be unwelcome in Canada, period. I was opposed to freezing bank accounts during the trucker convoys, even though I was opposed to how the convoys were performing their protests. These kinds of measures—and capabilities of governments in general—are anti-democracy in nature and in my opinion, should be rejected by everyone who values democracy. I'm all for keeping dangerous people offline. I'm all for protecting fellow Canadians from online dangers. We can find better ways to do this, though. I'm very disappointed that such poor judgement is being used by our current government. The worst part is that seemingly no one gets to know what the cause of the ban is, and there are so few checks or balances before the decision is acted on. It's absolutely bizarre.
armada651 1y ago
> Unfortunately this seems to be a growing, hypocritical trend around the world. EU's Chat Control as another example. It's not hypocritical, there's no such thing as an absolute right to freedom of speech in the EU like there is in the US. Chat Control is widely opposed in the EU and I don't agree with it, but it's not hypocritical nor inconsistent with how the EU treats freedom of expression. Here are the limitations placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention on Human Rights: > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. You won't find those conditions in the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.
- 331c8c71 1y ago
  'Course it's hypocritical. What is quickly condemned as "bad" in a foreign context is often not held to the same standard when it appears within Europe.

kennethrc 1y ago

> IF they're proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet ... which means what? They espouse ideas "you" don't like?

zahlman 1y ago

> proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet. What exactly would this entail? Some people nowadays seem to have a very broad conception of "safety", broad enough to cause serious concern on the part of advocates for freedom and privacy.

xvector 1y ago
It will invariably be reduced to "saying mean things on the internet" by the government. I do not understand why people are so willing to give governments an ever-increasing amount of power. People never learn from history.
- vixen99 1y ago
  From the UK: Seems to me that very few people except those with very direct interests, support the Keir Starmer Government and his Finance Minister - Reeves who is universally regarded as a disaster (armed with an Oxford PPE degree & yet driving businesses down and out in the UK). My point: 'so willing to give ... power' ? We have three more years of this administration and meanwhile seem unable to do anything to prevent them creating the Britain of their fantasies.

SchemaLoad 1y ago

In modern society it's pretty much impossible to live without using the internet. You can't apply for a job, you can't apply for a rental. You can't even order a burger at some restaurants without scanning the QR code. Anyone too dangerous to be allowed any access to the internet probably just needs to be in jail. What would be the point in leaving someone to their own devices while preventing them from participating in society at all?

zzo38computer 1y ago
> You can't even order a burger at some restaurants without scanning the QR code. I have only ever been to one restaurant where this was the case (and it was not a very good restaurant in my opinion, so I do not intend to go back there even if they have a real menu, unless they also improve their food and management), but they provided a iPad to any customer who needed it for this purpose (I did not need it, since I was not alone and was with another customer who had their own iPad). (I think it might be better to post the menu on the wall for customers to read. It might be suitable to use e-paper displays if they sometimes change but not very often; this is more reliable and does not require as much power, nor emit too much light.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

bakugo 1y ago

> IF they're proven to be dangerous to others You are literally part of the problem. "Dangerous to others" is a meaningless phrase that can be twisted to mean anything you want.

__turbobrew__ 1y ago

> proven to be dangerous to others if they access the internet What does this even mean? What kind of crimes can people commit using the internet that justifies bypassing due process for public safety? There are rules on the books in Canada that allows bypassing due process to confiscate firearms from a potentially violent or mentally unstable person, but I think that is a bit — just a little bit — more justifiable as the crimes that can be committed with a gun are much more serious than the crimes you can commit with the internet. Also, the internet is almost a necessity to be a part of functioning society whereas guns are not.