Rule34: don’t lock down the Internet
This seems rather pointless from a business standpoint it will hurt many businesses geared towards children such as youtube kids even.
I think anyone thinking about enacting a law like this deserves to be impeached immediately the public have spoken against this and they are more valid arguments than for this.
-
Your ID data can be hacked such as what happened with persona. I don’t consider uploading your ID unless you must for a bank, phone provider, government entity, or work. No other business should ever need this info in my opinion.
-
Selfie option will just fuel artificial intelligence. In my opinion they need to outlaw the use of scrapping age verification selfie images for ai.
-
Those in power hate the anonymous internet.
Because the things they do make the anonymous internet hate them.
Gabe Newell is a rare example of someone who is rich and has a decent amount of power but still the majority of the internet loves him
Ironic that this is being pushed by “liberals”. They don’t even bother to live up to their own failing ideology anymore.
Everyone in power wants it. They all say “It’s for the children”. State govs have already done it for adult sites.
Serious question, can we start building local infrastructure for our own internet via meshtastic and those technologies?
You should check out reticulum if you haven’t already. More use cases than just messaging.
We’re not already doing that? (No we’re not, my node is hella lonely)
WE NEED
---
online age verification
TO PROTECT CHILDREN
The elites in every country are fighting together to keep us down, while we fight against each other.
There is a simple common problem.
I tried warning thee Canadians months ago. The assault is upon the common man. These bastards are going to enslave us and run off with a bunch of cash.
All the left wing “progressive” WEF-aligned governments falling into line with fascist, authoritarianism while their supporters hilariously call the other side fascists and Nazis 🤣
This is what “progressives” calling for censorship of opposing views leads to. I hope Canadians like going to jail for criticising their government, because that’s where this leads.
In Germany, the left is among the only parties opposing stuff like this, and they have very good arguments against it! The social democrats want to “protect the kids”. The CDU is strongly in favor because they think “Teenage Terrorists” are being radicalized online.
*(sources are in German)
Good for Germany. In the UK, Australia, and Canada the left are pushing these authoritarian laws through.
Do you want authoritarianism, because that’s how you get it.
Yes that’s whah Carney has been paid to want.
What can we do to stop this?
My plan is to just never submit to an age verification. Change servers or self host if necessary. Worse comes to worse, we log off.
And what do you do when its a requirement to buy food, submit tax returns, get healthcare?
This is the problem people don’t understand. We have the same issue now in the UK. People think a voluntary system is easy ro just ignore until everything you rely and need forces you to starve or submit.
And its not going to stop at just age verification, it’ll continue until all you get to enjoy is maybe a loaf of bread, and some pond water! 🤦♂️
I might be mistaken, but I don’t think a government can force it’s citizens to have a phone. There has to be a way to pay your taxes, buy stuff, etc that doesn’t rely on you having a phone. Paper money still exists after all.
It might be possible to live disconnected rather than giving away your privacy. You’ll have to say goodbye to social media, but I don’t see it as a bad thing.
May I introduce you to: the Flock camera
Why wouldn’t it be able to? That’s just a matter of which laws are enacted. And considering government is responsible for proposing and enacting laws, well…
He’s talking about the creep. The current legal battles are to establish the framework for all transactions of all kinds to be logged and processed digitally. A precursor to that is establishing a national digital ID.
First its optional and you can avoid things that use it. Then, slowly more things are on it and more and more people capitulate and get one.
Last, hey require it for everything, and since they’ve already got most people to get one, resistance is lukewarm and they get their way.
The impact that may have on navigating life seems significant. Have you even considered how that would actually work? Practically.
Stop voting “strategically” and stop whining about largely made-up NDP critiques. People will voluntarily eat shit just because they heard that the cake on offer doesn’t have any icing.
Its unlikely that we will, too many people want this and the elites have created a system that has disempowered people completely. You work around it, with VPNs and use other sites.
Vote.
Voting won’t do shit, the majority of people don’t even see the problem with these bills.
And that defeatist mentality is the reason shit doesn’t change.
Not a defeatist mentality. You should strive to change the vote for everyone instead of mindlessly voting yourself.
For who? Where? I’m what?
Start with local elections, then move up to provincial and finally national elections. Vote the people in that won’t do this.
Take it a step further and run for election yourself.
Better parenting.
That’s not a joke. This is a stupid government’s way of trying to halt generational harm and decline due to low quality parents. Everything listed is a “if they won’t, we’ll have to” solution. Unfortunately this means every child gets a Nanny State out of it and it’ll fail to work and likely backfire long-term, leading to more nannying.
Stop buying in to the excuses the governments are using to hack at privacy and increase surveillance.
How could you possibly read that as “buying their excuses” when the context is “don’t give authoritianism excuses”? Did you make it past two words?
An authority doesn’t need much to deploy secundum quid. That’s arguably the most used tactic. It’s part of the backbone of any authoritarian ideology.
🤦
We’re so fucked, lol
Because you’re trying to work around their excuse. If it’s not bad parenting, they’ll find some other absurd reason. Don’t even try to follow their nonsensical attempts to justify this invasion of privacy, that just gives them more fuel.
Because it has nothing do to with parenting. You make a bizarre claim that there needs to be better parenting, when we both know that parenting has nothing to do with this.
You are suggesting, if I read what you said correctly that somehow they are able to get a foothold for these kinds of bills because of bad parenting. That is not true.
Almost got it.
Point is, it doesn’t have to be bad parenting, that’s just the narrative. But if not, what is it then? What’s the foothold? As far as I can tell, it’s to protect children since that’s the narrative. How was that foothold given to them? They don’t need much to work with. If it were evident there were no foothold, there wouldn’t be one.
And, you’re exactly right, they would look for another if we had this one defended well. It is evident what the end goal is, but a defence is by minimising chinks in armour. If there were strong contrasting evidence to the very few bad parents, it wouldn’t be a foothold—they couldn’t use that narrative. But they seem to think there’s just enough of a chink for pressing fallacious generalisation.
Everyone knows kids just get around it all anyway, so that’s not the point, but they’re in because there was enough to make use of secundum quid. That’s almost always how authoritarian shifts worked in social history if not outright oppression through violence. We know it’s bullshit, but it works like that, unfortunately.
How was that foothold given to them? They don’t need much to work with. If it were evident there were no foothold, there wouldn’t be one.
They don’t need one. They will simply make it up. We have seen this over and over. That is why its pointless to even have this discussion.
They don’t make them up. They only do that with absolute power or desparation.
Imagine you have no political influence or are directly involved in politics. But you want to ultimately be in a position of authority for personal boon. What’s your first move? What moves do you continue to make to get there?
Would making shit up work for you prior to established influence? Or would you pull out the historical playbook and chip away like it’s always worked?
At this phase, you’re already in sociopolitical influence. You got there by exploiting failed defences of the people already. Murder went from 1 to 2 in your town and you used that for your campaign. You’re a mayornow; do whatever you want so long as murder goes back to 1.
Everyone’s unhappy with the governor ignoring a single on-topic issue. You hyperfocus on that in your campaign, get the spot. Job done; do whatever again.
You now have influence over topics and the feed people see. Shape that for you by creating issues that aren’t really there—just like the murders—but now you can make them issues. Boom, you’re in the next phase.
So how to influence next and how to control next? Well, a kid did this horrendous one-off thing, or education performances are falling for many reasons, but the two can be linked through social media and poor parenting of it. Done. Push that one…
At this point you’re already so deep in there by just using the same tactic. “Where is there turmoil that I can use to my advantage?” You’ve beaten democracy, you’ve beaten narrative, you need to control the next frontier, and there’s an in. Hell, in 2026 you’re also using the same tactics to get richer and widen the class gap.
So now go back to being a normal person again, how do you make sure that foothold doesn’t exist? You just do be better at it to ensure it can’t be exploited by the instances of one-off.
You don’t have to be a sociopath to beat one, a community and a society just needs to be aware of how they work. They don’t have to work hard either, they just need to close up like a herd and do things better to close the gaps. Done long enough, they win through fatiguing those imposing authority AND there’s no downside. But it shouldn’t need to be said that better parenting shouldy be something that only happens when the parent is unhappy with a state exploiting it.
Yes, that’s a long message, but I’m trying to—very simply—makenaware of the much bigger picture of the play and variables. Just saying “This isn’t right!” never works and they know that attrition of foot holds at a controlled pace would never result in immediate violence or revolution. History is just available to you as it is to them. Use it.
You fell for their “won’t somebody think of the children?!” propaganda hook, line, and sinker. If they want suckers to let them overreach they just throw out terrorism or children as the reasons and people like you get in line instantly.
It’s not about children. It never was. It’s about getting a mandatory digital ID, where you have zero anonymity on the internet so they can keep you in line by threat of ruining your life and throwing you in jail.
Parents spend less time with their children than the state and culture does. Parents all work 8-10 hours a day, they can’t feasibly solve this through parenting, not without ensuring parents have the time and resources necessary to parent. That’s also not just to partner in the right directions, but to counter the efforts of billion dollar companies and governments who are all teaching children lessons that drive them in bad directions.
Parenting is not possible in the way it was in the past. Some kind of community parenting may work, but that’s an informed concept.
Why does every government want age verification now, what’s in it for them? Can’t be one started and everyone saw it and thought that’s a great idea let’s introduce it too?
Because it de facto requires everyone using the internet to provide their identity, which is something that gives authoritarian types a huge boner. Once there is no such thing as anonymous discourse, it becomes trivial to target/arrest/harass/brutalize dissenters or indeed anyone the current regime simply doesn’t like.
It gives any gov a huge boner, not just athoritarians, that’s the real problem.
maybe they are secretly authoritarian too
Because the wealthy and the elite think we are on the cusp of a world with a massive labor surplus, no jobs, and nothing to follow it. There will be massive unrest, and so they want to lockdown the internet before that happens, so it will be easier to direct the angry horde at each other rather than at the top where all the issues are actually stemming from.
It’s part of the data center push, Palantir, all of it. Centralized info storage so if anyone starts to push back anywhere they know exactly who and where. That and ads. The internet is too anonymous.
It’s the same set of billionaires. A little line between countries doesn’t mean much to them.
It’s so blatant too, for anyone with half a brain. We’re part of 5 Eyes, there’s like 97 data centres being built or already in the late stages of approval here, and all of our internet traffic is controlled by 3 mega ISPs in moustache and glasses. We’re already being tracked pretty thoroughly. Conservatives or Liberals, it doesn’t matter when it comes to selling Canadians off to foreign corporate entities.
Unpopular opinion but I support the intent of this bill. Kids shouldn’t be exposed to algorithmic content. As it’s currently written it looks to be limited to platforms with a certain threshold of users. Which might actually encourage fediverse growth. Any slippery slop argument is silly and just benefits Zuck and friends.
Kids need parents that dont give them phones and let them browse the internet freely.
Should we require ID to buy kitchen knives too?
This will lead to one thing. Mass surveillance. Worse than it already is.
This will lead to one thing. Mass surveillance. Worse than it already is.
I’m sick of this stupid argument. If you’re on commercial social media you’re already under mass surveillance FFS 🤦♂️ And if you’re arguing that now the government will have access to this data, they already do! Social media platforms already know how old you are, they even know when you’re taking a shit. It’s just not beneficial for them to take any actions to restrict kids from using their platforms because they need the next generation of addicted users.
Kids need parents that dont give them phones and let them browse the internet freely.
Commercial social media platform are multi billion dollar companies that have built some of the most sophisticated AI/ML algorithms to get people addicted to their platforms. Do you really think the average parent has a chance here? Then consider the network affect. If most of the kids at school are socializing online on these platforms then restricting your child’s access limits their socializing. Social media access for kids needs to be limited by governments.
Should we require ID to buy kitchen knives too?
I don’t think that would be effective at reducing access for minors given knives are readily available in most kitchens.
Have you read this bill? Are you sure your opinions haven’t been manipulated by social media companies that have lobbied hard and flown influencers around to speak on their behalf?
This is about protecting kids as much as Trump was going to clean the “swamp” or release the Epstein files. I have read the bill, and it doesn’t matter what it says right now because what you read is not going to be what gets signed into law. By the time it gets on the books it will be a butchered piece of shit that will do the opposite of what it claims it will do now.
As for your claim that we should all just be happy with government mandated surveillance, well you can just go tell your 3 letter agency overlords that I am not interested. My options to avoid mass surveillance and having my every word and move tracked may be diminishing at an alarming rate, but I am not going to accelerate it’s deterioration just because you are a Steve Job fuckboy who puts down your high score in flappy birds under “computer experience” on your resume.As for your claim that we should all just be happy with government mandated surveillance
I never made that claim. What the hell are you talking about?! Your whole comment is just the rambles of a mad man
Welcome to Lemmy!
Ok so ban personal recommendation algorithms for everyone. The only thing I’d settle for is an opt-in for it if it requires ID.
That would be a good option if the social networks didn’t have a long history of acting in bad faith. I think it would be an up hill battle. This seems like a reasonable response
Well, the only solution is horrific mass surveillance then.
Is that seriously your argument? If you’re on commercial social media you’re already under horrific mass surveillance. Is that you Zuck?
No, my argument is that requiring ID for the Internet is really really really fucking stupid
my argument is that requiring ID for the Internet is really really really fucking stupid
How is that argument at all related to this conversation or the bill? What are you talking about? If this bill passes you will not require ID to user the Internet in Canada. Have you read the bill?
They already have your name, phone number, age, gender and face… and are also tracking your every click and interest, every pause on scrolling, hover of your mouse, your relationships, where you were yesterday, the day before, what you buy…
If I hear anything else about C-34 I’m going to slap the benzos out of Jordan Peterson
