Years in the making, the federal government is poised to introduce a new piece of legislation on Monday aimed at addressing a series of online harms.
Years in the making, the federal government is poised to introduce a new piece of legislation on Monday aimed at addressing a series of online harms.
15 Comments
nik282000@lemmy.ca · 31 pts · 2y
Sounds good on the surface but I'm sure there will be massive oversteps and oversights.
tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
It's ok, you won't be needing those pesky privacy rights anyways.
nik282000@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 2y
I'm confident in my ability to stay one step ahead of bureaucrats but most people can't even set up a router. When companies comply with regional locks most people will have no choice but to comply.
bionicjoey@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 2y
I don't like the government infringing on my right to bear harms
TommySunny@lemmy.ca · -12 pts · 2y
TakiMinase@slrpnk.net · -26 pts · 2y
Will Trudeau be punished for his blackface pictures causing harm....
villasv@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 2y
That wouldn't make sense, but even if that was not a joke, it would be out of scope. The legislation is likely to focus on requiring platforms to moderate content more strongly; plus maybe penalties for cyberbullying, deepfakes and such.
Being insensitive online is unlikely to ever become a crime, let alone something that can prosecuted retroactively.
Paragone@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 2y
There's a law, possibly international/UN or something, against making laws that retroactively criminalize stuff, so you're right, on that point.
Pretending that such things won't ever become a crime, however, when the US is at the point of criminalizing
as the next few years will demonstrate,
is naive/incompetent.
Yes, criminal-law is going to be used to enforce ideological-conforming, throughout much of the West, exactly as China, Israel, Russia, etc, now "use"/abuse law.
That tipping-point has already been crossed, on this world.
villasv@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 2y
All your examples indicate that if anything, having an actual black face is riskier than doing blackface in the long term.
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 2y
Only if churches stop portaying Jesus as a white man. 😄
TakiMinase@slrpnk.net · -5 pts · 2y
You can blame a certain emperor for making everyone paint his son as Jesus.
xmunk@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2y
Cool - but why do churches keep painting Jesus white.
Kichae@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 2y
You used ellipses instead of a question mark. Will you be held accountable for the harm you've inflicted?
phx@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 2y
If he makes new ones in the future that would be possible if they could be shown to cause harm, but you don't actually get to retroactively charge somebody for something over a decade ago that wasn't a crime then.
Speaking of over a decade ago, maybe you should move on eh?
TakiMinase@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 2y
Apply that to other politicians. Move on. Heh.
phx@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 2y
It's not about the politician, it's about the pulling out crap that happened decades ago before he even was one.
Seriously, get a new schtick, it's not like there's a leak is current issues to pissed at JT (or as you say, other politicians) about.