give a man a fish and feed him for a day
give a man a fishing boat and you can threaten to take it away if he starts doing things you don't like.
Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
251–260 of 414 posts
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#252I think countries with division and low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures from the government to hold them together. Increasing dependence on government for their own security will reduce peoples' ability to question and change the government. One might think it's all part of the plan. Real freedom and self determination has been a fleeting blink of an eye in the histor…
> low social trust and cohesion necessarily require increasingly authoritarian measures
Then this country is fucked.
It's really hard to have some kind of national identity when the previous PM goes and says things like Canada might be the first post-national state.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Globe and Mail is a reputable and respectable publication but The National Post is an American-owned right wing propaganda paper. I won't apologize for calling them as I see them.
The G&M is a left-wing propaganda paper. What's your point?
The Globe and Mail is a very right leaning newspaper. The National Post is a far-right echo chamber rag; it's the Toronto Sun for people who can read without moving their lips. In all cases it is important to interpret editorial content in light of their well-established biases, just as it is with any other curated source of information.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. When discussing "the most repressive Western governments", we exclude Communist and Islamist regimes by definition. The West refers to North America and Western Europe, where no Communist or Islamist government has held power. You can't reasonably claim the Western right is less authoritarian by pointing to non-Western examples. 2. The claim that "it's always the left that is motivated by ideology" ignores that ri…
tldr is "kettle calling the pot black" Both extremes don't listen and arguments always fall on deaf ears, especially when perceived as ideologically different. Merits of the argument are irrelevant. Most don't evolve past"My dad is stronger than your dad", it just morphs into "my God is better than your god", or in more recent years "my politics/policy smarter than your policy". The people at the top want the same th…
Yes we know, being pro universal healthcare is equally as radical as building literal concentration camps and sending legal immigrants to them.
The left has never oppressed the right in this country. Being banned from twitter for saying racial slurs is not oppression.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians seem to enjoy corruption. It benefits them directly. They really do hate anyone who points out their hypocrisy or makes fun of them. It challenges their corrupt kickbacks directly. I think it's easy to make a prediction of actual use cases here.
Yeah, it's hard not to be cynical when the tools they keep pushing for always seem ripe for political abuse rather than legitimate threats
It seems these tools are the threats.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 15.2(2)(d) cannot as a matter of law be used to effectively ban anyone from the internet at all. How laws are read can change. It may not fly in court today, but what about 5 or 10 years later? They may not immediately ban anyone, but just slightly throttling the services they don't like with national security as an excuse is detrimental to the free Internet. People will get used to it and then one day, it would be…
> How laws are read can change. They are more likely to ignore the law than to change the fundamental principles of how the words are read. It's easier. See the US. Worrying about this sort of lawless action when writing laws is pointless because no matter how well laws are written they don't stop someone from simply ignoring them. > Good. This is the way it should be. I have no interest in rolling over and handing t…
[deleted]
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
tldr is "kettle calling the pot black" Both extremes don't listen and arguments always fall on deaf ears, especially when perceived as ideologically different. Merits of the argument are irrelevant. Most don't evolve past"My dad is stronger than your dad", it just morphs into "my God is better than your god", or in more recent years "my politics/policy smarter than your policy". The people at the top want the same th…
Yes we know, being pro universal healthcare is equally as radical as building literal concentration camps and sending legal immigrants to them. The left has never oppressed the right in this country. Being banned from twitter for saying racial slurs is not oppression .
I meant more generally, that the ruling/politico class is the same everywhere. They'll weaponise ideology they think will get them more votes. They're basically just wealthy and powerful reprobates playing us all for emotional fools.
As for the concentration camp thing you brought up, I know it's hollow words on the Internet, but I'm sorry that it's happening. I live in the UK and tend to avoid news halfway across the world that I can't do anything about. It tends to make my (already precarious) mental healthy worse.
As for the Twitter thing... I think Twitter (or any privately owned social media platform) is free to ban people. I think going to jail for hollow comments made on the Internet is not okay though.
But also, these things are kind of orthogonal anyway.
And for context, I'm what most people on the right would call a libtard: gay, neuro divergent, and the cherry on top is that I'm also a filthy immigrant. So it goes without saying that I strongly disagree with a lot of the stuff said by the"hard right", but silencing/cancelling people won't help improve the situation. It just breeds more contempt and leads into authoritarianism. And it makes the people in the middle question why is the other side so afraid of oppositing ideas.
Authoritarian systems are bad whether right or left leaning. I come from a country ravaged by left leaning authoritarianism that's still recovering from that aftermaths (economically, politically, etc) even if I was born after it.
The zeitgeist changes, so just because it's in my "libtard" interest right now, it doesn't mean it will always be. The left becomes right and vice versa. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#258I tought that the National Post was exaggerating the severity in their crusade against the Liberal like they frequently do. So I when to read the law and it's as bad as they say: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-re... ... Factor Before making the order, the Governor in Council must consider (a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers; (b) its financial impa…
[flagged]
Ad hominem is an argument that a claim should be rejected because of something about the person making it. "This source has a history of bias, so you should assume this article is biased" is ad hominem.
"This source has a history of bias, but this article is accurate" is the opposite; it tells the reader not to draw an ad hominem conclusion.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians seem to enjoy corruption. It benefits them directly. They really do hate anyone who points out their hypocrisy or makes fun of them. It challenges their corrupt kickbacks directly. I think it's easy to make a prediction of actual use cases here.
Is this even corruption? Who's getting kickbacks here? It sounds like they're just incompetent, and brainstorming stupid ideas and writing a law around whatever sticks to the wall.
The incompetence only seems to provide benefits in one direction.
Re: Canadian bill would strip internet access from 'specified persons', no warrant
#260give a man a fish and feed him for a day give a man a fishing boat and you can threaten to take it away if he starts doing things you don't like.
Set a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man afire and he's warm for the rest of his life.