No, Carney moves to deep mass surveillance of all adults while pretending its about "the children"
We made a mistake, Carney is a trick, a subterfuge, a subversion.
No, Carney moves to deep mass surveillance of all adults while pretending its about "the children"
We made a mistake, Carney is a trick, a subterfuge, a subversion.
@Reannlegge it's victim blaming. The big tech he refused to tax is the one committing the crime. Not the teenagers and by extension every Canadian.
The Liberal bill would force social media services — defined as traditional social media platforms, live-streaming services and adult content services focused on user-shared content — to restrict accounts for children under 16 years old.
However, services could seek an exemption if they implement what officials briefing reporters called adequate safeguards to protect children. The exemption wouldn't apply to adult content services.
AI chatbots will need measures to respond when a user expresses ideas of suicide or self harm or an intention to commit an act that could cause death or serious bodily harm to an individual, said officials. The bill would not require the companies behind the chatbots to report those interactions to police.
According to the bill, the maximum penalty for a violation would be either $10 million or three per cent of the company's gross global revenue — whichever is greater. Companies could face multiple penalties for repeated violations.
Yeah cause you know them kiddos wont be able to find ways around all and any locks big tech will put in place.
There's also a social function when laws like this pass. What "society" deems as not good or not appropriate helps shape a generation's habits, even if it's not the only thing that does.
On its own, that's not a very strong argument - underage people can still get their hands on alcohol, but the sale of it is still restricted.
Yeah I know I was pulling for people when I was 15, only because I was confident and now had ID. When I was in high school I “accidentally” found out how the school was blocking webpages and was helping people get to pages they wanted to go to by simply deleting the entry for said page. In the morning after the system rebooted all the locks and logs were erased so I could do it all over again, except for every other Thursday or the first Thursday of the month or something like that because that was when the IT guy came to the school to do their thing, this was in the early 2000’s so it was not hard. If I were to be in high school today, it may be a little more difficult if I did not know what I know now about networking. Funny story about how I found out how the school was blocking things was I misspelt an address and it brought me to some porn site, so I went looking for where the blocked sites where stored.
In no way am I saying this is going to stop kiddos from using the traditional, or whatever they called it, social media and AI. “Life it finds a way!” I am not calling the internet life I am calling the children life.
The more I think about it, the more it's clear that the intent here isn't to prevent kids from using social media - it's about forcing the social media companies to implement "adequate safeguards."
There's an exception available for them if they do, and a surprisingly hefty fine for violations.
Sure, but we don't have to give our biometric data to a US weapons manufacturer in order to purchase alcohol.
To be fair, kids clever and motivated enough to get around this type of gating generally aren't the ones at the greatest risk. I think this is more about creating a reasonable barrier to protect our most vulnerable.
The kids motivated enough to get around this will help their friends get around this, who will have other friends who want to get around this. If I was still at that age and had any real motivation for money I could have been getting money for the stuff I found out how to get around. I was pulling for people before I was legally old enough to buy alcohol, I was getting around website blockers in high school and helping others do the same. I can promise you if one child can do it they are helping their friends do it who are then going to help their friends do it, what is one child going to do on social media if their friends are not on social media?
It's just about increasing the friction. No door lock will stop a motivated thief, but it will discourage 75% of people from trying. The laziest/stupidest kids (read: the most at risk for grooming and indoctrination) will be the ones least likely to overcome this friction, so it's still a good harm reduction strategy.
Like everyone else I haven't seen the text yet but from everything that's been said about it I guess it's yet more evidence that the same gang of idiots who led Trudeau astray have found Carney and his crew just as easy to manipulate.
I'm really curious how this will affect the fediverse. Will lemmy.ca need to add age gating? :/
I really do not think the fediverse is what they are thinking of when they say traditional, or whatever word they used, when they thought of this. I think the closest they will come to the fediverse is Blusky.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-34/first-reading
According to the full text, there's no such consideration regarding "traditional" the only thing that I can see that qualifies a "social media" service as "regulated" is the number of users, and that's apparently TBD by some yet to be appointed council.
Fediverse will be hard to enforce compliance, so I don't know what they'll do to try and force age gating on us.
We will have to see because, like every other technological block in life the kids will find away around it before the adults do.
If only the people writing these bills were as sensible as you. Unfortunately these people believe age gating works. All it'll do is require more personal data to be tracked everywhere.
Well you see all the failed things that happen in Australia have to be tried here: see phoenix pay as an example.
I may by too cynical now, but I doubt the authors give a shit that kids will work around it. They are scratching the back of someone and they are getting what they want.
There's a clip in the CBC article linked in this post, the minister that tabled this bill was asked about age verification's effectiveness and kids getting around it in Australia.
The response was basically: Just because it doesn't work, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.. It's a brain dead take.
I don't think they're even vaguely aware that the term "fediverse" exists, much less what it actually is.
That's a good question. The bill itself is pretty vague so far:
Obligation 27 (1) Subject to section 29, an operator must, with respect to every regulated social media service specified by regulations made by the Governor in Council under subsection (5) that it operates, implement adequate age-verification or age-estimation measures designed to prevent a person under the age of 16 from being able to have an account with, or be otherwise registered with, the service.
Adequacy of measures
(2) In order to determine whether the measures implemented under subsection (1) are adequate, the Commission must be satisfied that the measures
(a) are effective;
(b) do not involve the collection or use of personal information other than for age-verification or age-estimation purposes;
(c) provide for the destruction of personal information that is collected for age-verification or age-estimation purposes once the verification or estimation is completed;
(d) provide for the protection of personal information that is collected for age-verification or age-estimation purposes until that information is destroyed; and
(e) comply with any other requirement specified in the regulations.
all 31 comments