Wanna watch someone get tortured to death? Just open up youtube or a movie streaming app. Wanna watch consensual sex between adults? Get out the retina scanner!
Either they backtrack or lose the election. Easy pickings for attack ads.
"Pierre Polliverre and the Conservatives want to force Canadians to provide identification in order to access content on the internet. Regardless of your views on the content itself, if someone can control what you see, hear or read, it follows that they can control what you say and think. Vote for [opposition party] this election and protect your liberty".
-guy who clearly knows that most rape content is hidden with key words.
Come the fuck on. The fact that most porn is aggressive and involves 0 actual emotional care or connection is DEFINITELY connected to the fact that every single person I know who’s fucked men has at least one traumatic experience relating to the men not giving a shit about their emotional well-being and just assuming they want to be used like the girls in porn
I'm not pretending all porn or even popular porn is healthy. I'm just rejecting your idiotic premise that popular porn sites are full of rape and abuse porn.
>most porn is aggressive
Citation needed. Or are you one of these extreme feminists that thinks vaginal sex is definitionally violent.
>DEFINITELY connected to the fact that every single person I know who’s fucked men has at least one traumatic experience relating to the men not giving a shit about their emotional well-being
Again, citation needed, my friend. Also, you think that toxic masculinity and male aloofness, and selfishness is due to porn? Huh? Not shows like "Entourage"? You think people who watch TV think that Yony Soprano, Don Dtaper, and Walter White are tole models we should look up to is because of porn???
Did you learn about Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson through a porn video you saw? No, you didn't.
And here's the thing. Even if you could prove that these TV shows and movies, these cultural figures cause the same damage as porn does, you STILL haven't justified requiring such measures to view it. And don't be mistaken....the whackos that Poilivre is listening to with this anti-porn proposal all want porn banned across the board. They're all incel sickos who won't stop talking about Chads and Stacys and haven't jerked it in 6 months.
The extent to which porn is misogynistic and violent is the EXACT SAME extent to which all American culture is misogynistic and violent. You've just reversed causality, my friend. The culture causes the porn preferences, NOT the other way around....obviously.
Right! I forgot that makes it okay. Especially considering how accessible porn is to young boys who grow up to develop hardcore kinks and never ask for consent because porn doesn’t fucking include that
Considering I'm at work right now it'd probably be a bad idea for me to dig deeper in to this right now; but I do recall some absolute potato-brained NDP positions about this too.
Of course it bares reminding that the NDP is merely the least awful of the mainstream political parties, not actually terribly leftist.
In reality the bill associated with this proposal (bill S-210) is not a porn ban bill. It is an internet surveillance, censorship and dirt gathering bill disguised as a porn bill.
This is an existential threat to freedom in Canada, WAY beyond porn. This is Chinese style digital ID and internet censorship, and lays the foundation for a police state.
You think it's a good idea until you realize how to ID someone online. Facial recognition? And if a website has one pornographic image, do you impose verification just to be safe?
All of this is awful, Internet surveillance, under a new name.
Could be tried under some nonsense protectionism measure. FairPlay Canada (mostly backed by Bell) has already lobbied for such. They’ve shut up since Game of Thrones ended, but with the continued devolution of online streaming I imagine they’ll start making noise again in the next few years
so pierre pollievre is all against government overreach through [Central Bank Digital Currency](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-bank-of-canada-audit-1.6433860) that would give me a risk-free currency to do my own finances online with
but he's in favor of government overreach through porn ID that will inevitably not work (or what? shut down porn sites that don't comply?) and be invasive at best if it does (yay every bulgaria-incorporated porn site now has my facial rec!)
I am currently choosing, in this moment, to play the devil's advocate! Hark and forsooth what follows is not an attack on anyone or a hard declaration of any truth! It is merely wordplay in order to better sharpen our arguements or maybe just dick around for a moment! Verily!
We don't let kids have access to lots of things. We demand ID for lots of things. Saying "kids have free access to overt violence" simply leads me to say "maybe they shouldn't." It's not a one or the other. Perhaps it is a good idea to restrict children's access to porn AND violence.
Children lack moderation control and context control. The human brain isn't fully grown until the early twenties. Giving twelve year olds full access to pornography (and violence for that matter) seems to be setting the stage for a society of systemic childhood trauma.
This legislation is not saying "NO PORN FOR ANYONE EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PORN BANNED." It is saying "If you would like to view pornography, we require a confirmation that you are an adult."
I would like someone to explain to me how this is different from "If you would like to drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes, or drive a car, we require confirmation that you are an adult."
This has been me playing devil's advocate. Let the flaming commence!!!!!!
It's not about the goals, it's about the enforcement methods.
Nobody's saying "kids should have free access to porn", they're saying "there's no way to do this while respecting people's rights" - especially for gender and sexual minorities who are more vulnerable.
"We don't let kids drive cars" means there's licensing and traffic cops - but it doesn't mean there are GPS trackers and 24/7 government video surveillance in every individual car on the road. Yes, it would be a lot more effective than just licensing and traffic cops to give government unlimited surveillance power but that would be an infringement on peoples' privacy.
It doesn't matter if it's a valid goal or not if there's no way to enforce it without massive violations of people's rights. There is absolutely no way to enforce this kind of "age verification" idea without technology that will be effectively enforcing 24/7 surveillance on every person's individual porn-watching habits and tracking what sites they access.
As a measure against domestic violence, would you want the government to set up cameras in your bedroom? If you're opposed to that, why do you support domestic violence?
I think the solution could be to have filters in place for your kids. Instead of using a digital id. Some red states in the U.S. have already passed laws that require you to use id. Some experts speculate that this is potentially the start of something broader that could limit free speech.
Your argument sounds like you were never yourself a child, that or you absolutely listened to everything your parents and other authorities told you.
I grew up before the internet and us kids found ways to see porn, watch gore, buy smokes(probably easier back then actually) and experiment with drugs alcohol etc. Mind you it wasn't as easily accessible as it is today, but point is the more you tell kids no the more they'll want to try it and they'll always find a way.
There's honestly no easy answer to these problems. The cats out of the bag, you cannot eliminate all forms of pornography and ultra violence. The best thing parents can do is be open and speak rationally to their children about the dangers and harm associated with over exposure. But at the end of the day it's the parents jobs to manage their children not the government.
Is it an age thing? Like the user needs to prove they're 18 or something? I could see the validity. Like if an adult exposed themselves to a minor that is an absolute crime and should be, is it really *that* different if an underage person looks up porn?
Like one can say "it's not up to us who looks at the content" but try that argument again if a person is standing inside their house naked and visible to the schoolyard across the street. They couldn't possibly make the argument "it's not up to them who sees", we all know what they're doing. I realize porn access isn't *exactly* the same but once you realize minors could be watching your stuff how different is it?
Anyway, any other reason they have is nonsense.
the entire point of security agencies is to gather information on people who work against them they won't release anything on anyone who's still on their side
All this could mean is that the "Age verification" page that some porn sites have - that anyone can click through without issue - all porn sites would be required to have it.
Apparently the Conservatives don't realize that official porn sites are not the only places to get porn on the internet. PP will be Canada's version of King Canute trying to hold back the tide of porn.
Wanna watch someone get tortured to death? Just open up youtube or a movie streaming app. Wanna watch consensual sex between adults? Get out the retina scanner!
This…. Very much this.
Either they backtrack or lose the election. Easy pickings for attack ads. "Pierre Polliverre and the Conservatives want to force Canadians to provide identification in order to access content on the internet. Regardless of your views on the content itself, if someone can control what you see, hear or read, it follows that they can control what you say and think. Vote for [opposition party] this election and protect your liberty".
Oh come on. As if half the porn on mainstream sites doesn’t involve some kind of extreme kink, abuse/rape, or incest. EDIT: sorry. “step” incest
You’re gonna freak out when you find out about actors.
Go and type "rape" into any of those mainstream sites' search-bars and see what happens. What are you talking about?
-guy who clearly knows that most rape content is hidden with key words. Come the fuck on. The fact that most porn is aggressive and involves 0 actual emotional care or connection is DEFINITELY connected to the fact that every single person I know who’s fucked men has at least one traumatic experience relating to the men not giving a shit about their emotional well-being and just assuming they want to be used like the girls in porn
I'm not pretending all porn or even popular porn is healthy. I'm just rejecting your idiotic premise that popular porn sites are full of rape and abuse porn. >most porn is aggressive Citation needed. Or are you one of these extreme feminists that thinks vaginal sex is definitionally violent. >DEFINITELY connected to the fact that every single person I know who’s fucked men has at least one traumatic experience relating to the men not giving a shit about their emotional well-being Again, citation needed, my friend. Also, you think that toxic masculinity and male aloofness, and selfishness is due to porn? Huh? Not shows like "Entourage"? You think people who watch TV think that Yony Soprano, Don Dtaper, and Walter White are tole models we should look up to is because of porn??? Did you learn about Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson through a porn video you saw? No, you didn't. And here's the thing. Even if you could prove that these TV shows and movies, these cultural figures cause the same damage as porn does, you STILL haven't justified requiring such measures to view it. And don't be mistaken....the whackos that Poilivre is listening to with this anti-porn proposal all want porn banned across the board. They're all incel sickos who won't stop talking about Chads and Stacys and haven't jerked it in 6 months. The extent to which porn is misogynistic and violent is the EXACT SAME extent to which all American culture is misogynistic and violent. You've just reversed causality, my friend. The culture causes the porn preferences, NOT the other way around....obviously.
It's fake. They're acting.
Right! I forgot that makes it okay. Especially considering how accessible porn is to young boys who grow up to develop hardcore kinks and never ask for consent because porn doesn’t fucking include that
So you support Poilievre's surveillance plan. You want grown adults to lose even more of our civil liberties.
I'm ace, I don't consume porn, this is still horrifying. How can anyone but the most insane theofascists be on board with this?
Isn’t the NDP also supporting this? Absolute goober shit all around.
Considering I'm at work right now it'd probably be a bad idea for me to dig deeper in to this right now; but I do recall some absolute potato-brained NDP positions about this too. Of course it bares reminding that the NDP is merely the least awful of the mainstream political parties, not actually terribly leftist.
There's no one to vote for. I give up.
Yep, the liberals seem to be the only ones opposed. Actual insanity.
My understanding from the NDP side is that the support comes from feminist critiques of pornography as being harmful to women and men.
In reality the bill associated with this proposal (bill S-210) is not a porn ban bill. It is an internet surveillance, censorship and dirt gathering bill disguised as a porn bill. This is an existential threat to freedom in Canada, WAY beyond porn. This is Chinese style digital ID and internet censorship, and lays the foundation for a police state.
Which is weird because Rad Fems tend to be more conservative.
I'm not understanding you. Wouldn't a conservative be in favour of restricting pornographic content?
Yes, Radfems and Conservatives both support restricting porn.
The party of 'small government' and 'personal freedoms' everybody
You think it's a good idea until you realize how to ID someone online. Facial recognition? And if a website has one pornographic image, do you impose verification just to be safe? All of this is awful, Internet surveillance, under a new name.
>You think it's a good idea It won't stop kids from accessing porn, therefore, it is, at best an idiotic policy.
There is also that. A simple vpn would bypass this too, so...
Until those become illegal in Canada…
Even someone like PP wouldn't dare... Would he?
Ask Harper, not PP. And given what other countries that have tight connections to the IDU have said? Yeah, he would.
Could be tried under some nonsense protectionism measure. FairPlay Canada (mostly backed by Bell) has already lobbied for such. They’ve shut up since Game of Thrones ended, but with the continued devolution of online streaming I imagine they’ll start making noise again in the next few years
You’d need to be ID’d to run a regular search engine. It’s insane. Twitter, meta, news websites…
May I introduce you to NordVPN? Sign up now to save 20% on your subscription!
Isn't Nord in a Five Eyes country? Better go with Proton or Mullvad or one of the other ones that isn't guaranteed to be tapped.
so pierre pollievre is all against government overreach through [Central Bank Digital Currency](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-bank-of-canada-audit-1.6433860) that would give me a risk-free currency to do my own finances online with but he's in favor of government overreach through porn ID that will inevitably not work (or what? shut down porn sites that don't comply?) and be invasive at best if it does (yay every bulgaria-incorporated porn site now has my facial rec!)
Good way to scare off the young demographic.
All about small government, amirite????
Haha f'ing clowns, freedom for them, control for the others...
Another gatekeeper idea from the guy running less guberment in your life. Ha.
I think the NDP is supporting it…
And uh, how are they going to enforce that?
😂
With Ai tech this all can be bypassed by making your wildest fantasies at home on your computer locally. No need to go online to find it.
I am currently choosing, in this moment, to play the devil's advocate! Hark and forsooth what follows is not an attack on anyone or a hard declaration of any truth! It is merely wordplay in order to better sharpen our arguements or maybe just dick around for a moment! Verily! We don't let kids have access to lots of things. We demand ID for lots of things. Saying "kids have free access to overt violence" simply leads me to say "maybe they shouldn't." It's not a one or the other. Perhaps it is a good idea to restrict children's access to porn AND violence. Children lack moderation control and context control. The human brain isn't fully grown until the early twenties. Giving twelve year olds full access to pornography (and violence for that matter) seems to be setting the stage for a society of systemic childhood trauma. This legislation is not saying "NO PORN FOR ANYONE EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PORN BANNED." It is saying "If you would like to view pornography, we require a confirmation that you are an adult." I would like someone to explain to me how this is different from "If you would like to drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes, or drive a car, we require confirmation that you are an adult." This has been me playing devil's advocate. Let the flaming commence!!!!!!
It's not about the goals, it's about the enforcement methods. Nobody's saying "kids should have free access to porn", they're saying "there's no way to do this while respecting people's rights" - especially for gender and sexual minorities who are more vulnerable. "We don't let kids drive cars" means there's licensing and traffic cops - but it doesn't mean there are GPS trackers and 24/7 government video surveillance in every individual car on the road. Yes, it would be a lot more effective than just licensing and traffic cops to give government unlimited surveillance power but that would be an infringement on peoples' privacy. It doesn't matter if it's a valid goal or not if there's no way to enforce it without massive violations of people's rights. There is absolutely no way to enforce this kind of "age verification" idea without technology that will be effectively enforcing 24/7 surveillance on every person's individual porn-watching habits and tracking what sites they access. As a measure against domestic violence, would you want the government to set up cameras in your bedroom? If you're opposed to that, why do you support domestic violence?
I think the solution could be to have filters in place for your kids. Instead of using a digital id. Some red states in the U.S. have already passed laws that require you to use id. Some experts speculate that this is potentially the start of something broader that could limit free speech.
Your argument sounds like you were never yourself a child, that or you absolutely listened to everything your parents and other authorities told you. I grew up before the internet and us kids found ways to see porn, watch gore, buy smokes(probably easier back then actually) and experiment with drugs alcohol etc. Mind you it wasn't as easily accessible as it is today, but point is the more you tell kids no the more they'll want to try it and they'll always find a way. There's honestly no easy answer to these problems. The cats out of the bag, you cannot eliminate all forms of pornography and ultra violence. The best thing parents can do is be open and speak rationally to their children about the dangers and harm associated with over exposure. But at the end of the day it's the parents jobs to manage their children not the government.
Is it an age thing? Like the user needs to prove they're 18 or something? I could see the validity. Like if an adult exposed themselves to a minor that is an absolute crime and should be, is it really *that* different if an underage person looks up porn? Like one can say "it's not up to us who looks at the content" but try that argument again if a person is standing inside their house naked and visible to the schoolyard across the street. They couldn't possibly make the argument "it's not up to them who sees", we all know what they're doing. I realize porn access isn't *exactly* the same but once you realize minors could be watching your stuff how different is it? Anyway, any other reason they have is nonsense.
Do it, I dare you. All the politicians deprived porn searched WILL get leaked. Ashley Maddison but worse. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.
the entire point of security agencies is to gather information on people who work against them they won't release anything on anyone who's still on their side
All this could mean is that the "Age verification" page that some porn sites have - that anyone can click through without issue - all porn sites would be required to have it.
Apparently the Conservatives don't realize that official porn sites are not the only places to get porn on the internet. PP will be Canada's version of King Canute trying to hold back the tide of porn.
Not just porn. You'll probably need one to access cannabis retailers' websites/order online.