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

381–390 of 414 posts

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

#381

Post by umbra07 »

txrx0000 wrote: post #318
torben-friis wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The universal push for expanded security trumping all is concerning. At this point authoritarian pushes are the best case scenario - I’m fearing it’s preparation for wartime.

I think this current wave of low social cohesion and authoritarianism is caused by recent technological advances. Indeed, this phenomena I'm about to describe is a precursor of war, but the causal relationship is the inverse of your suspicions. And I think it can also be fixed by other recent technological advances. Here's why and how: The Internet and social media in its current form makes it easier for social group…

> then get it ranked and filtered on the user's device based on the user's preferences and viewing history

I think I'm missing something here. Why would people not just choose to remain in their echo chambers?

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

#382

Post by fasbiner »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #380
fasbiner wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The light is going to go out for all of humanity for all time as part of a centuries old plan for final victory by starting at the most critical link of all in the whole chain of being... canadian routers. Canada is a country that has historically been weaker on free speech and free assembly and individual rights compared to the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada#Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/…

> The light is going to go out for all of humanity for all time as part of a centuries old plan for final victory by starting at the most critical link of all in the whole chain of being... canadian routers. This is a fabrication of your own mind which you have now started arguing against.

Tried to understand what you were saying with LLM assistance since I was directly referencing a comment above. The best we could come up with was that you might be confused about how nested comments work and didn't realize there were words written before mine.

Deepseek also speculated you might have a mood disorder or an incurable learning disability, but I told it that kind of speculation might seem like a personal attack and is totally out of bounds.

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

#383

Post by sojournerc »

sojournerc wrote: post #157
btbuildem wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not defend the konvoy agitators here, these were legit seditionists who were given far too much leeway to start with. Cutting off their access to crowdsourced funds was too little too late, they should have been shut down more forcefully much sooner.

Next time you want to protest something your government is doing (ie, a bill to restrict internet access without due process), remember your comment. The truckers were peaceful and principled. I wish I was surprised that people can hold opinions such as this, but I see so many cheering for authoritarianism in what once were liberal societies. Freedom dies not with a bang but a wimper after being crushed by people wit…

Crazy brigading going on in this thread. Up 5 down 7 back to 1... Wtf. I guess a little truth is too hard for some people

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

#384

Post by [deleted] »

btbuildem wrote: post #119
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.

Let's not defend the konvoy agitators here, these were legit seditionists who were given far too much leeway to start with. Cutting off their access to crowdsourced funds was too little too late, they should have been shut down more forcefully much sooner.

[deleted]

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

#385

Post by txrx0000 »

umbra07 wrote: post #381
txrx0000 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this current wave of low social cohesion and authoritarianism is caused by recent technological advances. Indeed, this phenomena I'm about to describe is a precursor of war, but the causal relationship is the inverse of your suspicions. And I think it can also be fixed by other recent technological advances. Here's why and how: The Internet and social media in its current form makes it easier for social group…

> then get it ranked and filtered on the user's device based on the user's preferences and viewing history I think I'm missing something here. Why would people not just choose to remain in their echo chambers?

There is no longer an echo chamber besides the one a person creates for themselves, which people may choose to do.

It would speed up the rate at which individuals become delusional. But once a certain divergence threshold is reached, they get corrected by reality. The proposed solution hypercharges this delusion-correction process and contains it at the individual level so that it's less likely to grow to the nation-state level where most of the violence and oppression is siloed.

In a democratic society where each person gets a vote, individual delusions of this sort cancel eachother out like random noise. What ends up being voted into law will be what people want in common.

Also, people will gradually realize that being delusional is disadvantageous regardless of what goals they have, so they'll want to filter less and less over time.

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

#386

Post by txrx0000 »

txrx0000 wrote: post #385
umbra07 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then get it ranked and filtered on the user's device based on the user's preferences and viewing history I think I'm missing something here. Why would people not just choose to remain in their echo chambers?

There is no longer an echo chamber besides the one a person creates for themselves, which people may choose to do. It would speed up the rate at which individuals become delusional. But once a certain divergence threshold is reached, they get corrected by reality. The proposed solution hypercharges this delusion-correction process and contains it at the individual level so that it's less likely to grow to the nation-…

Allow me to make one important distinction I forgot to do in the previous reply: there is a difference between conflicts that arise from delusions vs conflicts that arise from preferences. The former is a subset of the latter. We can prevent escalation of the former with client-side filtering and ranking, but the latter is a force of nature. Two people that share an identical model of reality may decide to take different actions anyway. Minimizing echo chambers aligns people's reality models, but it doesn't align their preferences. So while people will want to do less ranking and filtering over time, they will still want to set a non-zero base level of ranking and filtering for themselves, and congregate into homogenous groups, not because they want to be delusional, but because they're fundamentally different.

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

#387

Post by olalonde »

ruszki wrote: post #199
olalonde wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in China since 2008 with a Chinese wife, I can confidently say the "social credit score" system often portrayed in the West is a myth and Western propaganda. What actually exists are standard financial credit scores, similar to those in the US or Europe, used for things like bank loans and mortgages.

I’ve started to read that exact Wikipedia page just two days ago, and its second paragraph contradicts you and itself. It was written by somebody who consumes a lot of Chinese propaganda. The first sentence tells, that it was never that bad as written in Western media, then the rest of the paragraph tells that the Chinese government didn’t like that it was that bad. The cited sources are the exact same thing: Western…

> I cannot understand how Chinese news consumers cannot see this.

What are they supposed to see? There are no news about it because it doesn't exist. You're free not to believe me but I guarantee that if you ask anyone in China about the "social credit score" as depicted in the West (e.g. "you lose points for jaywalking", or "can't go to certain places if your score gets too low", etc.), you will get blank stares. In fact, most people are probably even unaware that they have a "credit score", unless they have applied for a mortgage.

That said, I agree that the Wikipedia page is bad.

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

#388

Post by olalonde »

yibg wrote: post #97
aianus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being an asshole doesn't harm your credit score unless it causes financial damages that you don't pay back.

Isn’t that pretty much the case for the Chinese system too? There were a bunch of speculation around what goes into the score, but from current reporting it’s all financial related too.

You are correct.

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

#389

Post by armada651 »

331c8c71 wrote: post #201
armada651 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's not true, most of those condemnations come from the European parliament which also regularly condemns those practices within Europe:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230505IP...

https://www.unwantedwitness.org/european-parliament-condemns...

The problem is that the European commission loves surveillance and suppressing free speech and they hold the actual real power in the EU.

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

#390

Post by donkeybeer »

hunterpayne wrote: post #206
standardUser wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Answer the complete demolition of your "non ideological" nonsense, why are you silent, why did you fucking vanish from the replies? Man up send reply a rebuttal or own your failure.
Post reply on HN