Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

nationalpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 414 posts

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#201

Post by 331c8c71 »

armada651 wrote: post #139
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 limitatio…

'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.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#205

Post by kimixa »

tomhow wrote: post #190
nbngeorcjhe wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> wtf are you talking about? those states have Dem majorities because that's what their populations want. moron Please don't comment like this on HN. The guidelines ask us to be kind and constructive when engaging in discussions here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I didn't even notice until later, the final word of that comment. WTF indeed. This is absolutely not okay on HN, and we have to ba…

It's also a failure state of real discussion to discount someone's voice simply because of perceived incivility.

Or conversely, weigh someone's opinion higher simply because of phrasing rather than content.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#206

Post by hunterpayne »

standardUser wrote: post #198
glitchc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always starts with the left, not the right. Read "The True Believer". It's not the poor folk that start a revolution. They are too busy trying to survive to do anything else. No, it's the idle bourgeois. They are the most unhappy as what they seek is just out of their reach.

A few fascist movements sprang out of leftist movements, or had some small overlap in rhetoric with the left, but by and large the most repressive Western governments have come firmly if not exclusively from the right.

So sure, if you ignore all Communist countries and lump in Islamist countries with the western 'right' you can make that argument.

Back on earth, its always the left that is motivated by ideology. The only right wing governments who turn authoritarian do so for money and power, not ideology. The ideology of the right (in the west) is specifically designed to be against that.

That's why the biggest body counts always come from the left. At this point, Communism and all wars combined are running neck and neck for the cause of the most violent deaths. Somehow, you lefties always forget that.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#207

Post by tomhow »

kimixa wrote: post #205
tomhow wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wtf are you talking about? those states have Dem majorities because that's what their populations want. moron Please don't comment like this on HN. The guidelines ask us to be kind and constructive when engaging in discussions here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I didn't even notice until later, the final word of that comment. WTF indeed. This is absolutely not okay on HN, and we have to ba…

It's also a failure state of real discussion to discount someone's voice simply because of perceived incivility. Or conversely, weigh someone's opinion higher simply because of phrasing rather than content.

The guidelines have been in place since soon after HN started, and have always been clear that kindness and curious conversation are what we're aiming for here.

In the case of this comment "wtf are you talking about?" may be at the milder end of the spectrum of abuse, "moron" certainly isn't.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#208

Post by Awesomedonut »

hagbard_c wrote: post #75
logicchains wrote: post #61

Americans like to say the first amendment relies on the second amendment, or as Mao Zedong put it, political power grows from the barrel of a gun. When I was younger I thought it was exaggerated, but now it seems like there really are fewer and fewer countries where you can criticise your government online without facing legal repercussions. If things continue at the current rate, in 5-10 years America might be the o…

> as long as you don't criticise Israel Eh? You can criticise Israel all you want. Some people might not agree and start pointing fingers at you but go ahead and criticise.

Not sure why this is downvoted, plenty of Canadians are very vocal and public with their criticism of Israel. There are protests regularly happening on the streets.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#209

Post by hunterpayne »

Spivak wrote: post #91
BJones12 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to ruin the lives of those who oppose them. The Canadian Liberal government has previously attempted the same goal by de-banking protestors, in a move that the courts later ruled unconstitutional.

If there's an avenue for extrajudicial punishment it seems like every government is angling to use it. How did we wind up with such openly vindictive and unprincipled people in our governments? Like you call yourself Liberals, surely it's clear as day that such a thing isn't compatible with how you believe government should operate. You're doing this because you can't arrest them for a crime—shouldn't that give you p…

Liberals believe in things like free speech and equal protection under the law. There isn't a political party in the English speaking world who uses the word 'Liberal' in their name which is actually Liberal. Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist.

You want to know what a liberal sounds like? Listen to Bill Clinton's speech in the 90s or a current day Republican. Those are liberals.

Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant

#210

Post by kimixa »

lisbbb wrote: post #44
SoftTalker wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyway, the USA is a representative republic.

You can't look at California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts--states who have these very long-term Democrat majorities, and tell me we have a representative anything! Those places will likely never turn back to any kind of balanced representative rule. They pass whatever the hell they want and the only pushback is through our Federal courts who often take years to produce…

No, a representative democracy allows the majority to choose their representatives. And the majority chose one party in those states. That is what democracy is.

What you're asking for is rule by minority. At an extreme, an autocracy.

Post reply on HN