Really love how supposed left of centre governments are falling in line to these “age verification” bills, which are bankrolled by anti-LGBT far right groups designed to push LGBTQ kids from public life.
Also love how none of them even stop to think that this was a possibility for why these bills were being pushed when the people pushing them have flat out admitted it.
I honestly think that’s just a bonus to them. They’re doing it so they can link people’s IDs to their online activity and we all get automatically Big brothered for the rest of time
Yes. Liberals aren’t your friends. They appropriated queer politics to do exactly this. People have been warning against this for decades.
They are not being tricked into doing this, this is the second time the Liberal party alone has tried this along with other proposals from Cons and other internet authoritarianism policies like lawful access. They know what it is for and they understand the consequences of who it’ll effect. It just so happens queer people (racialized people, indigenous people, disabled people, etc.) are also disproportionately politically active and challenging to liberal capitalism, and liberals have had an exceedingly difficult time shutting that down online through censorship alone.
It is not only distortive but also dangerous to accept that this is out of stupidity and ignorance. They are attacking us. “Elbows up,” awards for the people who voted for Carney because they didn’t think a minority govt with a stronger NDP presence was possible.
I mean I agree with you mostly but the vote was for Carney or conservatives. Voting NDP for most people would be effectively a vote for the Tories.
Two generational NDP ridings in my area flipped Con because of Liberal voters. So, I can’t say I particularly give a shit about how this would hypothetically empower the PC Party, since our local needs will definitely be ignored in the foreseeable future anyway, maybe forever if a Lib gets elected next. The fact is that a minority government, either PC or Liberal, would have far less power at its disposal to enact these common neoliberal policies. Instead, “Elbows Up,” we have a majority Liberal parliament that is aggressively slashing environmental protections, funnelling public wealth into private corporations for "sovereignty-"based mining and fossil fuel drilling, and implementing authoritarian internet surveillance policies; of course, all without consideration of indigenous peoples or First Nations. Wow, what a difference.
Don’t act like you’re considering the trans genocide rhetoric that PP was running on either, because it’s not like Carney has done anything to address the spread of anti-trans hatespeech or the restricted access to gender-affirming care achieved through privatization. Is it better because now it isn’t talked about at all besides by the victims?
So the NDP lost in your riding and your still arguing that I should have voted for them in mine?
You do not have a two party system, you have a parliamentary system.
That’s correct, thanks for telling me something I learned in grade 2 social studies.
I also learned what first past the post voting was in grade 2 social studies.
Cool, FPTP in Parliamentary systems does not result in a two party system. Therefore no, your generic Americanism of ‘if you don’t vote for the lesser evil you’re voting for the greater evil’ is objectively and totally incorrect in every possible interpretation of Canadian politics or parliamentary politics in general.
I know you people are basically more American than European, but that doesn’t meant you have to keep yourselves at their intelligence level.
You’re really going to try to talk to me about my own political system and call me America for not knowing better?
It’s you who doesn’t understand our system, and I never mentioned once a two party state.
We are not a two party state, I don’t like the liberals, and the only thing I said was that An NDP vote in most ridings for our last election would be in effect a vote in favor of the Tory in that riding. As in most ridings the liberals were the most likely to beat the Tories.
We need to vote strategically in our system of we don’t want to throw away our votes or support Tories.
That’s the reality of our system, I’m not that interested in the fantasy version where we vote NDP and then everyone gets a rainbow and a family doctor and an education
It’s you who doesn’t understand our system, and I never mentioned once a two party state.
Yes, yes you did. You said:
and the only thing I said was that An NDP vote in most ridings for our last election would be in effect a vote in favor of the Tory in that riding. As in most ridings the liberals were the most likely to beat the Tories.
This is a two party system that you’re describing.
This is not what you have. A vote for a party is a vote for that party (or coalition). It is not a vote for whom you believe is the enemy party because its not for your preferred party.
Americans use the exact same reasoning, which resulted in the last two presidents having approval ratings under 40% within 2 years. "If you don’t vote for ‘shitty compromise which is objectively as bad as this other party but marginally different, you’re just voting for the other party.’
We need to vote strategically in our system of we don’t want to throw away our votes or support Tories.
No. You have a parliamentary system. This is specifically designed to not devolve or degenerate into a two party system via ‘strategic’ aka American-style voting decisions. You vote for what you want. The more parties that win seats, the less power any party has, and the need for coalitions increases, which results in a better outcome than the American-style system you’re ascribing to Canada.
You have the solution to two-party politics. You have the solution to strategic voting. It’s already implemented. You just need to not ruin it by doing American-style politics. That’s it.
That’s the reality of our system, I’m not that interested in the fantasy version where we vote NDP and then everyone gets a rainbow and a family doctor and an education
No, if everyone voted for the party that most represented their interests, then no single party has power and a coalition will have to form to produce a PM. Then you get a half rainbow, a chiropractor, and free American college; which is a half measure but infinitely better than sabotaging yourself because you think this is a team sport.
Cool, well, maybe you should read about it in your adult life too.
Thanks yeah I have, that’s why I didn’t throw my vote away giving it to the guy definitely coming a distant 3rd place and risking a Tory winning
Down voting me doesn’t make FPTP not real
I love how you made this comment within minutes of someone else giving you a single downvote. You are wrong because you misunderstand how power in this system works and how people who aren’t in positions of power must navigate the politics of this system to their benefit, not because people think that FPTP isn’t a real thing or a factor in elections here.
I’m still not wrong. For most people in Canada Voting NDP in the last election would effectively have amounted to a pro Tory vote in the majority of ridings
No, but being wrong makes you wrong.
There is a world where the NDP is a viable candidate, and Layton proved that.
Absolutely there is, and I would have loved to have voted for a competent NDP candidate in my riding if they had any prayer of winning either my riding or doing anything meaningful at all on a federal level.
I’m still not wrong though.
You wishing the NDP could have run and won in any significant numbers and without risking a PP victory doesn’t make it so, and people voting NDP just because they like NDP policy wouldn’t have changed that
Why only the past?
Because the election happened in the past
Those in power hate the anonymous internet.
Because the things they do make the anonymous internet hate them.
Gabe Newell is a rare example of someone who is rich and has a decent amount of power but still the majority of the internet loves him
Do you want authoritarianism, because that’s how you get it.
I think it’s already here (globally, I mean). The beast is just now confident to show its face.
I think they just don’t care because they know no one will do anything about it. Except protest, which is for losers.
They have been finding that pretty annoying too, they are banning as much of that as they can currently get away with even if its completely ineffective.
Yes that’s whah Carney has been paid to want.
This seems rather pointless from a business standpoint it will hurt many businesses geared towards children such as youtube kids even.
I think anyone thinking about enacting a law like this deserves to be impeached immediately the public have spoken against this and they are more valid arguments than for this.
-
Your ID data can be hacked such as what happened with persona. I don’t consider uploading your ID unless you must for a bank, phone provider, government entity, or work. No other business should ever need this info in my opinion.
-
Selfie option will just fuel artificial intelligence. In my opinion they need to outlaw the use of scrapping age verification selfie images for ai.
-
Yeah, once one country has done it, the rest can join in with a flick of a switch.
The big sites are only too happy to hoover up and sell even more data about you.
What can we do to stop this?
End capitalism. It’s no coincidence all these countries are pushing this in lockstep.
End goal is the death of online freedom.
Get angry, get involved in your local politics to bring democracy to the workplace and the economy.
It’s not gonna get better otherwise.
My plan is to just never submit to an age verification. Change servers or self host if necessary. Worse comes to worse, we log off.
That’s the spirit.
I’ll watch the system burn to the ground before I agree to privacy invasion.
But it won’t burn, it will be content to leave you behind.
And so what? Many of us left Reddit because it killed 3rd party apps to force us onto its shitty mobile app. Did it burn without us? No, I doubt they even noticed. Does that make our departure meaningless? Also no, we built something better here.
TBH this is just how it goes in general I think. A small group of people build something neat, and if it attracts enough people then the corporations and money come in, they attract more people and it all goes to shit, then a small amount of people from that group leave and start a new thing. reddit was the neat little alternative thing once.
I suspect eventually we’ll probably have to build a second internet lol
So it isn’t a choice between privacy invasion or watching it burn. It’s a choice between privacy invasion and being left behind.
Left behind? If you’ve deemed a system to be so necessary that refusing to abandon your privacy at its behest means you are condemned to live in obsolescence, then you’re only reinforcing the idea that we must surrender our rights for the benefits of the system.
I’m old enough to have lived in a world without the internet and if it’s going in a direction that demands I surrender my right to privacy then I’ll return to a life without the internet. I won’t be alone and just like Lemmy I’m confident we’ll build an alternative that aligns with our values.
I wish I was lucky enough to grow up in those times. Recently a mother almost lost custody of her kid because he was outside on his own.
I have serious doubts that returning to a ludite existence is truly feasible anymore. These companies, along with governments, seem intent on making it a necessity to be online and to do so without privacy.
The CEO of nvidea outright said their plans for the future involve AI agents accessing your financials and PCs being replaced with AI boxes as our interface. If they force AI into enough stuff before the bubble bursts, it won’t be a choice. The way the net works will be built for AI, not for users to manually interface with. If the infrastructure is rebuilt for AI, it won’t be a choice. With governments all pushing for OS level Id, Microsoft trying to record all user action, the push to ban VPNs, it seems like you will be making that choice sooner than you want.
I hope it works out for you but anyone who remembers a pre-internet life is middle age now and isn’t the target market for emerging tech anymore. If AI proves to be significantly advantageous, not being online to sue it will be like refusing to use computers was to the boomers. You’ll be outcompeted and lose track of how the world is changing.
Oh I left Reddit because they permabanned me for something that wasn’t even violent and the platform is built specifically to make it hard to appeal and they don’t even give you warning like “take this down or we’ll ban you” you just comment and a few minutes later your account is lost to the ether.
God I hate that place so much.
They did you a favor. It happened to me maybe a month ago and I’m not missing it. I was pretty much down to using one sub only by the time it happened, though, so YMMV I suppose.
Yeah the only problem I have is that there are very few posts here and the communities have far fewer people. Reddit isn’t like TikTok how it can be pretty much replaced by IG reels or YT shorts, since it’s really unique with its content and community.
That said, every Reddit moderator is a fatass with a kink for how their own armpits smell
Leave us behind? Where is it going?
And what do you do when its a requirement to buy food, submit tax returns, get healthcare?
This is the problem people don’t understand. We have the same issue now in the UK. People think a voluntary system is easy ro just ignore until everything you rely and need forces you to starve or submit.
And its not going to stop at just age verification, it’ll continue until all you get to enjoy is maybe a loaf of bread, and some pond water! 🤦♂️
I might be mistaken, but I don’t think a government can force it’s citizens to have a phone. There has to be a way to pay your taxes, buy stuff, etc that doesn’t rely on you having a phone. Paper money still exists after all.
It might be possible to live disconnected rather than giving away your privacy. You’ll have to say goodbye to social media, but I don’t see it as a bad thing.
Why wouldn’t it be able to? That’s just a matter of which laws are enacted. And considering government is responsible for proposing and enacting laws, well…
He’s talking about the creep. The current legal battles are to establish the framework for all transactions of all kinds to be logged and processed digitally. A precursor to that is establishing a national digital ID.
First its optional and you can avoid things that use it. Then, slowly more things are on it and more and more people capitulate and get one.
Last, they require it for everything, and since they’ve already got most people to get one, resistance is lukewarm and they get their way.
It really amazes me that people don’t understand this when governments have done it time and time again but hey ho, hopefully I’m old enough that I might at least die before the worst hits because clearly people are to ignorant to do anything to stop it! 😳
May I introduce you to: the Flock camera
The impact that may have on navigating life seems significant. Have you even considered how that would actually work? Practically.
Vote.
Voting won’t do shit, the majority of people don’t even see the problem with these bills.
And that defeatist mentality is the reason shit doesn’t change.
Not a defeatist mentality. You should strive to change the vote for everyone instead of mindlessly voting yourself.
Vous avez beau ne pas vous occuper de politique, la politique s’occupe de vous tout de même
(You might not care about politics, politics will take care of you nonetheless)
For who? Where? I’m what?
Start with local elections, then move up to provincial and finally national elections. Vote the people in that won’t do this.
Take it a step further and run for election yourself.
Its unlikely that we will, too many people want this and the elites have created a system that has disempowered people completely. You work around it, with VPNs and use other sites.
Stop voting “strategically” and stop whining about largely made-up NDP critiques. People will voluntarily eat shit just because they heard that the cake on offer doesn’t have any icing.
Better parenting.
That’s not a joke. This is a stupid government’s way of trying to halt generational harm and decline due to low quality parents. Everything listed is a “if they won’t, we’ll have to” solution. Unfortunately this means every child gets a Nanny State out of it and it’ll fail to work and likely backfire long-term, leading to more nannying.
Stop buying in to the excuses the governments are using to hack at privacy and increase surveillance.
How could you possibly read that as “buying their excuses” when the context is “don’t give authoritianism excuses”? Did you make it past two words?
An authority doesn’t need much to deploy secundum quid. That’s arguably the most used tactic. It’s part of the backbone of any authoritarian ideology.
🤦
We’re so fucked, lol
Because it has nothing do to with parenting. You make a bizarre claim that there needs to be better parenting, when we both know that parenting has nothing to do with this.
You are suggesting, if I read what you said correctly that somehow they are able to get a foothold for these kinds of bills because of bad parenting. That is not true.
Almost got it.
Point is, it doesn’t have to be bad parenting, that’s just the narrative. But if not, what is it then? What’s the foothold? As far as I can tell, it’s to protect children since that’s the narrative. How was that foothold given to them? They don’t need much to work with. If it were evident there were no foothold, there wouldn’t be one.
And, you’re exactly right, they would look for another if we had this one defended well. It is evident what the end goal is, but a defence is by minimising chinks in armour. If there were strong contrasting evidence to the very few bad parents, it wouldn’t be a foothold—they couldn’t use that narrative. But they seem to think there’s just enough of a chink for pressing fallacious generalisation.
Everyone knows kids just get around it all anyway, so that’s not the point, but they’re in because there was enough to make use of secundum quid. That’s almost always how authoritarian shifts worked in social history if not outright oppression through violence. We know it’s bullshit, but it works like that, unfortunately.
How was that foothold given to them? They don’t need much to work with. If it were evident there were no foothold, there wouldn’t be one.
They don’t need one. They will simply make it up. We have seen this over and over. That is why its pointless to even have this discussion.
They don’t make them up. They only do that with absolute power or desparation.
Imagine you have no political influence or are directly involved in politics. But you want to ultimately be in a position of authority for personal boon. What’s your first move? What moves do you continue to make to get there?
Would making shit up work for you prior to established influence? Or would you pull out the historical playbook and chip away like it’s always worked?
At this phase, you’re already in sociopolitical influence. You got there by exploiting failed defences of the people already. Murder went from 1 to 2 in your town and you used that for your campaign. You’re a mayornow; do whatever you want so long as murder goes back to 1.
Everyone’s unhappy with the governor ignoring a single on-topic issue. You hyperfocus on that in your campaign, get the spot. Job done; do whatever again.
You now have influence over topics and the feed people see. Shape that for you by creating issues that aren’t really there—just like the murders—but now you can make them issues. Boom, you’re in the next phase.
So how to influence next and how to control next? Well, a kid did this horrendous one-off thing, or education performances are falling for many reasons, but the two can be linked through social media and poor parenting of it. Done. Push that one…
At this point you’re already so deep in there by just using the same tactic. “Where is there turmoil that I can use to my advantage?” You’ve beaten democracy, you’ve beaten narrative, you need to control the next frontier, and there’s an in. Hell, in 2026 you’re also using the same tactics to get richer and widen the class gap.
So now go back to being a normal person again, how do you make sure that foothold doesn’t exist? You just do be better at it to ensure it can’t be exploited by the instances of one-off.
You don’t have to be a sociopath to beat one, a community and a society just needs to be aware of how they work. They don’t have to work hard either, they just need to close up like a herd and do things better to close the gaps. Done long enough, they win through fatiguing those imposing authority AND there’s no downside. But it shouldn’t need to be said that better parenting shouldy be something that only happens when the parent is unhappy with a state exploiting it.
Yes, that’s a long message, but I’m trying to—very simply—makenaware of the much bigger picture of the play and variables. Just saying “This isn’t right!” never works and they know that attrition of foot holds at a controlled pace would never result in immediate violence or revolution. History is just available to you as it is to them. Use it.
Because you’re trying to work around their excuse. If it’s not bad parenting, they’ll find some other absurd reason. Don’t even try to follow their nonsensical attempts to justify this invasion of privacy, that just gives them more fuel.
Why?
Because being stupid is stupid.
Good explanation…
What explanation are you even asking for? Why shouldn’t you believe fucking authoritarian propaganda? lmao??? That’s like asking why pushing over old people and laughing at them is bad; if you don’t get it, you won’t get it.
Either I grossly misinterpreted what you said originally, or a bunch of you are daft.
Explain to me how providing ID to websites is good. Explain to me how this is good for your data privacy. Uploading all your photo ID and whatnot into some private corp or government database, where it absolutely will be linked with your account, which is already grossly tracked across the internet in numerous ways. you’re just asking to have your ID attached to your online activities.
Explain to me how OPs comment about better parenting is incorrect. Kids push boundaries and things that are forbidden are enticing.
Furthermore, after you’ve attached your online profiles to your picture ID, it will be moot because there will be ways around it and the legitimate users end up being the suckers with their ID linked across the internet.
Explain to me how firewalling Canada’s internet traffic and monitoring it all is good for us.
This is all just to remove more of your anonymity, which we barely have nowadays anyways.
You fell for their “won’t somebody think of the children?!” propaganda hook, line, and sinker. If they want suckers to let them overreach they just throw out terrorism or children as the reasons and people like you get in line instantly.
It’s not about children. It never was. It’s about getting a mandatory digital ID, where you have zero anonymity on the internet so they can keep you in line by threat of ruining your life and throwing you in jail.
Parents spend less time with their children than the state and culture does. Parents all work 8-10 hours a day, they can’t feasibly solve this through parenting, not without ensuring parents have the time and resources necessary to parent. That’s also not just to partner in the right directions, but to counter the efforts of billion dollar companies and governments who are all teaching children lessons that drive them in bad directions.
Parenting is not possible in the way it was in the past. Some kind of community parenting may work, but that’s an informed concept.
The elites in every country are fighting together to keep us down, while we fight against each other.
There is a simple common problem.
Rule34: don’t lock down the Internet
How many lawmakers are publicizing their support for Rule 34 on the internet?
Rule 34 is a famous internet maxim stating: “If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.” It asserts that any conceivable subject, fictional character, corporate brand, or inanimate object has been or will be depicted in explicit content somewhere online.
Ironic that this is being pushed by “liberals”. They don’t even bother to live up to their own failing ideology anymore.
Everyone in power wants it. They all say “It’s for the children”. State govs have already done it for adult sites.
Why does every government want age verification now, what’s in it for them? Can’t be one started and everyone saw it and thought that’s a great idea let’s introduce it too?
Because it de facto requires everyone using the internet to provide their identity, which is something that gives authoritarian types a huge boner. Once there is no such thing as anonymous discourse, it becomes trivial to target/arrest/harass/brutalize dissenters or indeed anyone the current regime simply doesn’t like.
This amount of surveillance has a really disturbing track record in history. So assuming any politician backing this must be a fascist at heart is the correct approach. These politicians should not be in any position to make any of these decisions. They can’t represent democracy when they declare themselves the enemies of it.
It gives any gov a huge boner, not just athoritarians, that’s the real problem.
maybe they are secretly authoritarian too
It’s part of the data center push, Palantir, all of it. Centralized info storage so if anyone starts to push back anywhere they know exactly who and where. That and ads. The internet is too anonymous.
It’s the same set of billionaires. A little line between countries doesn’t mean much to them.
It’s so blatant too, for anyone with half a brain. We’re part of 5 Eyes, there’s like 97 data centres being built or already in the late stages of approval here, and all of our internet traffic is controlled by 3 mega ISPs in moustache and glasses. We’re already being tracked pretty thoroughly. Conservatives or Liberals, it doesn’t matter when it comes to selling Canadians off to foreign corporate entities.
I suspect it’s just their way of inching towards requiring everyone to provide ID to access the internet, they pretty much always wrap this stuff up in some sort of “protect the children” hysteria, so they can accuse anyone who protests it of being a pedophile.
Also Meta is lobbying for it so they can get off the hook for having to moderate their own stuff by shunting the responsibility onto someone else.
Because the wealthy and the elite think we are on the cusp of a world with a massive labor surplus, no jobs, and nothing to follow it. There will be massive unrest, and so they want to lockdown the internet before that happens, so it will be easier to direct the angry horde at each other rather than at the top where all the issues are actually stemming from.
Because Meta and probably Bloomberg too, bribed them.
Social networks see the writing on the wall and want to create regulatory capture. If they provide the identify verification it is another hook into us.
Surveillance
Serious question, can we start building local infrastructure for our own internet via meshtastic and those technologies?
Seconding reticulum. Meshtastic is a toy, reticulum is actual infrastructure
You should check out reticulum if you haven’t already. More use cases than just messaging.
We’re not already doing that? (No we’re not, my node is hella lonely)
I tried warning thee Canadians months ago. The assault is upon the common man. These bastards are going to enslave us and run off with a bunch of cash.
WE NEED
---
online age verification
TO PROTECT CHILDREN
If I hear anything else about C-34 I’m going to slap the benzos out of Jordan Peterson
They are throwing Bill C-22, (L)Awful Access and C-34 at the same time to confuse low information voters.
Now here’s a camera I want full Slo-Mo 4K footage of the Benny’s hitting the floor after you slap them out of JP.
Fucking idiots everywhere
