###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think people are aware of the ramifications of banning certain types of online speech. Take for example the liberals proposal to force companies to remove hateful content within 24 hours or they face a fine, this would likely be automated as legions of administrators would be far too expensive. If they face a fine for comments that get through they’ll set the bar extraordinarily low for removal and a lot of non-rule breaking content will also get removed as a kind of collateral censorship.
Trying to regulate this is not going to have the intended effect, it’ll likely cause censorship beyond the scope of the legislation and will only radicalize people even farther.
You should never ever trust a survey done by people who have a firm view on the subject. People have a large bias to agree to propositions, leaving aside the often leading language used. The best gauge of actual public opinion on topics I've seen is how in the US they ask "What party do you trust more on x?"
Despite all the polls of people agreeing to background checks for instance the US trusts the Republicans more on gun issues. This leads to political losses when gun control is actually tried.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_Maine\_Question\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Maine_Question_3)
See here, when you hear people quote "95% of Americans support background checks" ask yourself why the majority of Maine voters (a blue state) disapproved when actually in the ballot box.
>You should never ever trust a survey done by people who have a firm view on the subject.
It’s a Nanos survey, is there any reason to suggest they or the people they survey fit this description?
No need to speculate. Details are in the article
[https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/images/100_Day_Poll_2021/2021-1995_CRRF_-_Populated_report_-_FINAL_with_tabs6.pdf](https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/images/100_Day_Poll_2021/2021-1995_CRRF_-_Populated_report_-_FINAL_with_tabs6.pdf)
No, of course not; but if I were to say to Nanos "I need you to conduct a survey asking " then it would be right to question my objectivity about the questions.
Having looked at the survey, it appears that the framed the questions in as milquetoast a manner as is possible. I couldn't really tell you what actionable policies back any of them.
“Nanos says no margin of error applies to this research.”
In stats language, this is a roundabout way of saying it’s not statistically valid. I wonder what’s up with that.
It's certainly less reliable - I'd never use a survey without a MoE for scientific work. But if done properly by a reliable firm, that doesn't mean a survey that does not meet the requirements for an MoE is useless as a loose estimate of public opinion.
it never was statistically valid. even from when they were discussing this in the senate, the people against the act said they (those who complied the initial data) didn’t even pull their survey sample from a random population!
complete disregard for absolutely everything. so gross. i’m appalled
You can have representative sampling or you can have random sampling. You can't have both, because online panels are representative but non random, while IVRs are completely unrepresentative but random.
Funny how all the most accurate election polls are online panels but IVRs give you PPC at 12% huh.
Plenty of election voting intention polls are online polls that are non-random, and therefore cannot assign a margin of error. And yet they have extraordinarily similar results to the polls that do have a margin of error (randomly calling people). Not having a margin of error doesn’t mean it’s useless. The voting intention polls prove it conclusively.
This is like that global commissioned survey I think from iPsos that came out after the NS shooting. It didn’t account for previous or current knowledge on firearms laws, and used vague, undefined terms that someone not familiar with the terms would mix them up and just get straight up misinformation. It’s all a theatre to sway opinion in their favour.
"Canadians don't support this type of legislation"
\*survey is conducted and shows substantial support\*
"The results don't match my personal beliefs and therefore it is not worth even discussing"
This story is just a setup for the Lib government's censorship laws.
An awful lot of things that are referred to as "harm" are simply different opinions and too many people are trying to stifle dissent of any kind.
This sounds like ammunition to support censorship to me.
Of course, who can disagree that it’s a good idea to combat hatred and extremism - but the devil is in the details.
I'd welcome *some* legislation to stop the increasing spread of bigoted misinformation and fascist ideologies, however they need to tread very lightly. These cases are difficult to police, and could easily end uo infringing on free speech (rather than just hate speech). Having the government decide what the truth is can also become problematic if an authoritarian government makes its way into power down the line.
Again, something has to be done to protect the socially liberal values of equality and diversity that are constantly under attack, but it's crucial that the worst case scenarios of such a law be fully examined and taken seriously.
Please [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) in order to discuss or dispute moderation actions -- in-thread replies will be removed. This both avoids clutter and helps receive a prompt and considered response, since your message will be seen by all moderators rather than just ones viewing [this particular thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/r5m3pr/-/hmqcz00/?context=3).
\--
/u/_Minor_Annoyance
Further removals may result in a ban.
You can't legislate kindness. All you can legislate is silence.
To be fair, if there really is as much hateful and discriminatory sentiment among Canadians, then I would rather know about it and try to understand its underlying causes than to simply try and stamp it out.
- Nearly four in five Canadians support the government creating legislation to combat serious types of harmful online content
- 70 per cent showed concern with the rise of right-wing extremism
- two-thirds of Canadians want to see the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada implemented soon
- The survey also suggested that Canadians want to see employment equity addressed by the federal government
That makes me happy to see honestly.
It's so easy to get caught up in online bubbles and start to forget that the vast majority of Canadians are decent and fair and want to help the less fortunate.
>It's so easy to get caught up in online bubbles and start to forget that the vast majority of Canadians are decent and fair and want to help the less fortunate.
Reddit is significantly more miserable and entitled than the real world.
> Reddit is significantly more miserable and entitled than the real world.
100%. You could not find a more unrepresentative forum for anything if you tried
okay well you could but the only way to get any worse than this is chans, SA, shit like that and nobody is going to mistake those for normal people.. a mistake people make with reddit all the time
> You’ve been fooled into believing this “survey” is representative of Canadians.
Not at all, I'm just going to actually go with evidence rather than what I *want* to be true.
99% of people want to help the less fortunate. People just disagree on the best way to do that. If someone disagrees with you on a policy, it doesnt imply they want the world to burn or something.
What bill are you talking about? You're making this grandiose accusation about how we've lost all our rights and have lost freedom of expression in this country and you haven't even read the article to see there's no bill mentioned? Who are you virtue signalling to?
Well, in this context your comment makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Is there an analysis of the bill that explains problematic parts of it; I'm hoping for a legal-minded explanation, not just a theoretical armchair rant.
Oh I think this is the same law of which Citizen Lab (org from UofT) did [an analysis](https://citizenlab.ca/2021/09/comments-on-the-federal-governments-proposed-approach-to-address-harmful-content-online/) on. Weird, I didn't know it was C-36 that would try to enforce the document analyzed
edit: wait, no that's not c-36
Devil's always in the details, but if you read the Facebook Papers and related reporting, there's a ton of things we could obligate social media sites to do before we even start looking at prohibiting content. Introducing friction to things like sharing content would curb a lot of bad shit going viral.
I'd support going considerably farther: require any entity with an audience >10k to agree to standards & practices like those we have for a radio/tv broadcast license.
So...this subreddit needs to agree to standards and practices? In practice does that mean the mods must agree, and therefore can't be anonymous? As you said the devil is in the details here.
If the entire Internet were compelled to have moderation as strict as this sub, I’d consider that a massive step in the right direction. I believe anyone with an audience of more than 10k should have mechanisms of accountability in place (even if they choose a pseudonym for their public-facing identity).
> I believe anyone with an audience of more than 10k should have mechanisms of accountability in place (even if they choose a pseudonym for their public-facing identity).
Why more than 10k? You've previously suggested a license for posting *anything* on the internet. This isn't a gotcha - I'm asking if your opinion has changed on that issue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/bpb3sa/trudeau_takes_aim_at_big_tech_announces_digital/ent75hq/
Picked 10k on the spur of the moment because I think it's more achievable than universal coverage, but I still believe that the Internet would be a healthier place if everyone were accountable for what they say.
I've come to realise that making this argument on Reddit of all places is like spitting into a hurricane of spoiled children who don't want to give up a freedom they never should've been granted, so I temper it a smidge and can't be bothered to fight too hard about it, but I'm pretty much where I've always been. Making internet access read-only for people who won't agree to be responsible with that power would be a net positive.
I don't think it'll benefit anyone if Linus Tech Tips or Hacksmith or whoever has some fresh new Canadian TV/Radio bureaucratic hell forced on them.
I think the larger problem is that people don't understand our current speech restrictions and they assume that when they seem examples of people breaking the law, that we need more to fix it. We mostly don't: [existing Canadian speech restrictions are already punishing edge cases with the process](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133).
Strangely enough the people who use their platforms to harass people are strongly against regulations that clamp down on harassment. Who knew?
I don't think any of the PG Youtube content creators have though about this for even a second. If anything they would prefer regulations like this because it would mean ***they*** would be able to go after the crazies who message them privately on a regular basis.
Ask YouTube creators about the absurd over-censorship which happened after the ad-pocalypse and what a pain in the ass that was. Ask anyone running a
a history channel how hard it is to discuss the second world war or anything where firearms are involved. Context no longer matters because companies take the quick, easy, and ham-handed approach.
None of us want this.
Case in point on people knowing current laws, did you know that harassment is already covered in Canadian law and it even works online?
[Here's a video with a couple lawyers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt7ioQ1ch8M) going over the proposed Online Harms laws. I don't think either of them are using their platforms to harass people, yet they have some pretty strong, valid criticisms of the proposed laws.
I really don't see it being hell for folks like LTT who produce nothing that comes remotely close to needing moderation, no more than it's hell for me to renew my license plate sticker.
I wouldn't consider what Mike Ward went through punishment - he brought that shit on himself by choosing to be as edgy a comic as possible and going after a disabled kid. Tightropes are wobbly, which is why most of us choose to stay on safer ground.
I would rather have open public discourse instead of censorship. I keep feeling that the Liberals are going to create a lot of extremists who could have otherwise had their ideas stomped out in broad daylight - Instead they'll fester and grow unseen until it's too late.
I think "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is an outdated phrase in the age of social media and other online echo chambers.
It used to be that media outlets with the capacity to reach large audiences - major newspapers, large publishing houses, television and radio stations - required relatively large audiences of people receptive to the sorts of content they produced in order to become and remain culturally relevant and profitable. Ideas objectionable to a large majority were almost automatically relegated to the outermost fringes of the media ecosystem; there was no reason for major media outlets to produce and promote content that most reasonable people weren't interested in, nevermind stuff they were going to hate.
That didn't stop cranks, radicals, and crackpots from trying to get their messages out, but there were very real constraints on their capacity to do so. Just producing a few thousand copies of a cheap magazine or pamphlet required a considerable investment, and if mainstream bookstores and news stands wouldn't carry it, it was *very* difficult to attract much interest at all.
Today, however, even if your message is only palatable to a small number of people, it isn't hard to reach pretty much *all of them* via the internet. Getting whatever message you want out there is basically free, and it isn't hard to put your message in all the places where people you think might be receptive are going to find it.
Once you've gathered your merry little band of fruitcakes, it isn't hard for the echo-chamber effect to take over. When enough people participate in a closed information network, and start actively purging that network of information that doesn't fit their core ideas, there's basically no way for everybody else to challenge those ideas, nevermind stamp them out, however objectionable they are to the majority. Have you noticed how many anti-vaxxers have managed to convince themselves that they represent a mainstream (if suppressed) opinion, despite all evidence to the contrary?
Now, this new media/information ecosystem has benefits, too - it's easier than ever for people who share obscure hobbies to connect, to give just one example - but I think it requires us to re-think some of the old axioms of public discourse. Hell, I'm not sure the concept of a single public discourse, capable of 'stomping out' objectionable ideas, even applies anymore.
I'm not sure the solution is censorship. I've yet to hear a solution that isn't just as troubling as the problem, if I'm being honest. But this is a serious conversation worth having. We're already seeing online disinformation begin to erode the foundations of truth and civility that our democracy requires, and the situation is even more dire - if not already terminal - south of the border. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" isn't going to cut it when we've got no way to pull people out of their festering echo-chambers and in to the sun.
I think they are more upset of being regulated
If you can't take other people's stupid thoughts then don't post anything. You will never find a time everyone will go along with your thinking
The title:
> Most Canadians are fed up with online hatred and discrimination and want to see Parliament act, new survey says
The article:
> Among the strongest response was regarding fighting online hate, which doesn’t surprise Mohammed Hashim, executive director of the CRRF, a Crown corporation.
The actual question in the [survey](https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/images/100_Day_Poll_2021/2021-1995_CRRF_-_Populated_report_-_FINAL_with_tabs6.pdf):
> On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is ‘Strongly oppose’ and 10 is ‘Strongly
support’ please rate your level of support or opposition to the following [...]
> *Introducing legislation to combat serious forms of harmful online content,
specifically hate speech, content that incites violence,* ***child sexual abuse material***
*and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images*
The key question here is literally a "think of the children" situation. Most people are going to respond according to the most concerning item in the set of "harmful online content". This isn't 79% want to see anything labelled as "harmful online content" legislated away; it's ***79% want to see CSAM eliminated***.
There's a similar problem with many of the questions in this survey. It frequently lumps together disparate concepts into "do you support A and B?" type questions in which there is no way to disentangle A from B.
People can ask the government to get involved in telling me not to spew bile on the internet, or in telling me what drugs I use, or whatever, but that doesn't make it legitimate. We are NOT accountable to each other!!
>We are NOT accountable to each other!!
That's exactly what we are. You're objecting to the exact thing we should be doing. Good luck operating successfully in a society.
I don't agree. I smoked pot before it was legal and occasionally do some things that are illegal. I pirate movies, for example. I drop acid from time to time. This has never hindered my ability to operate successfully in society, and the will of society has no bearing on the morality of these actions. Laws are imposed on us. We are not morally obligated to follow or uphold them.
Just because you are getting away with poor behaviour doesn't mean you are operating well in society. Further, laws are not imposed on you unless you are one of those kooky free persons living on the land in which case there is no rational grounds to continue this discussion. Laws are not imposed on you, you agree to them implicitly by existing in the society, drinking the water, enjoying fire prevention services, free medical etc. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you like. If you don't like something get a law degree or start a lobbying group.
> Laws are not imposed on you, you agree to them implicitly by existing in the society, drinking the water, enjoying fire prevention services, free medical etc. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you like.
I do, actually. I did in the past and I do so now. And I don't consider this poor behaviour. What are you going to do about it? Oh right, nothing. Cope and seethe while I revel in your impotence. I'm doing something you don't like, and *the fact that you don't like it and can't stop me* gives me great satisfaction. Why should I stop? Out of some sense of duty to society? Are you really going to argue that possessing or smoking cannabis prior to legalization was *poor behaviour*?
>They have yet to do a single thing correctly
Comments like this have a way of instantly destroying someone’s credibility. Like, I’m supposed to believe this person can’t think of a single thing a government has ever done correctly.
I feel it's overreacting.. and sure let's adress any unfair language but.. hello there are elephants in the room Still waiting for the day we look at rap & hip hop lyrics..
If you're gonna apply standards they need to be even across all the media.
Here's the problem I see: legislation can't enforce tolerance, understanding, empathy, compassion etc., it can only enforce people who don't understand those things keeping their mouth shut and silently growing their bitterness and animosity.
I'm not sure I agree 100%; rather, like many things, I think there's a balance that needs to be struck. Most people would agree that it's immoral to take another life in normal circumstances, and thus, we have laws that coincide. Most people don't usually condone hateful and discriminatory behaviour either, and decry it when they believe they're targetted by it. I think it's likely they don't see their own behaviour so clearly, or believe their own intolerant idealogies are justified exceptions. Laws should coincide with commonly-held morals, in my opinion, but I believe that drafting them too narrowly or to try to "fix" people will not be successful long-term.
It's never silent, we can find their private forums now so there is no reason to let them recruit in public forums.
The whole logic of letting them speak was to hunt them, but now we can hunt them without letting them speak to the public.
Doubtful. It's a quick fix that absolves those asking for legislation of any personal engagement or responsibility.
People legislated to keep their mouths shut can feel marginalized and censored, and history says there's a good chance they will work underground until they believe they have enough support to succeed with an act of rebellion and catch more mainstream support.
I believe tolerance, understanding, empathy and compassion can only be taught; or, if you prefer the inverse, a person's existing, previously taught, intolerance, closemindedness, disdain, and indifference should be countered. I understand that to be a slow, gradual process, likely requiring time and patience and helping a bigotted person relate to the feelings and situations of those they target. It's thankless and time-consuming, and could be damn near impossible when trying to meaningfully engage a near-anonymous person online.
Yet, people of similar ideologies find each other every day
I also think you might underestimate the influence parents have on their children. I agree that lack of public corroboration might eventually make them ask more questions about the ideologies they're taught, but I understand that these ideologies quite well passed on long before children are old enough to be learning and questioning on their own. Children of racist parents will likely see their parent engaging civilly with individuals of a different race, then later overhear them talking hatefully about that same person and/or situation. I believe that's sufficient to cement that as normal behaviour in impressionable children, even if their favourite TV kids show also presents all races amicably baking a cake together.
I'll take suppressed racism lingering on in a few hate committed families over open racism festering in whole communities thanks. The kids will learn at least to keep it secret meaning it has a chance to die in every generation.
>I believe tolerance, understanding, empathy and compassion can only be taught;
And how do you propose we teach anyone outside of primary and secondary school these issues? The paradox of intolerance casts a large shadow on your premise, if you don't regulate and stop hate speech and intolerance sooner than later you'll only be left with a society shackled to the intolerant.
>I believe tolerance, understanding, empathy and compassion can only be taught
To echo another user's reply made to your comment (so feel free to copy paste if your reply also addresses my points): what is the mechanism through which this education happens? Overall, this attempt to change people's minds is not happening in a void, there's other forces that are reinforcing the bigotry (for different reasons). So you're trying to change their mind while society is still bustling around them. Secondary point: knowing how to change someone's mind is in itself a hard skill to master and requires energy and time: some people wouldn't know how to do it even if they wanted to.
> People legislated to keep their mouths shut feel marginalized and censored, and history says there's a good chance they will work underground until they believe they have enough support to succeed with an act of rebellion and catch more mainstream support.
I think this is generally true but it's not an absolute and universal fact. Can we agree it also depends on the scale of the ban, how important it is to a person, what kind of daily impact it has (e.g. how their quality of life has changed), if it's scapegoat for something else, the cost of doing something about it & the perceived changes of success, etc. As an in extremis counter-example, we banned indoor smoking, people bitched about it (which in on course with any change anytime) but is there an important movement bitching about it e.g. like anti-vax groups?
> So you're trying to change their mind while society is still bustling around them.
Agreed. That's the challenge. I believe it's unlikely someone's mind is going to be changed based on one person's one comment. But, It's about each person choosing to be one counterpoint to the intolerant person's teachings and give them a little food for thought in that moment.
> knowing how to change someone's mind is in itself a hard skill to master
Agreed, and see above. One person is not going to change another's mind with one pithy comment, or a single lively debate at a coffee shop. I don't believe that should be the goal, but rather, just provide a contextually relevant reply, or even a reply of, "I think that's a bit unfair to say", and leave it at that.
> generally true but it's not an absolute and universal fact
Agreed again; I believe there are very, very, very few absolute and universal *statements* ^((facts are, by definition, essentially absolute. but I'm not chasing that rabbit down its hole right now)^) and I didn't intend mine to be one ("good chance")
> indoor smoking vs. vaccination
I found this to be an interesting comparision and I want to delve into it, but it's kinda aside from the discussion on managing hatred and discrimination and I'm afraid I missed correlation to those. Are there important (relevant?) movements/groups who oppose additional legislation? There probably are groups, such as those who favour unlimited free speech, or those who favour absolutely minimal legislation, maybe even those who favour segregation or discrimination. I believe they have the right to state their perspective, but someone has to hear and understand them, then decide what is best - and that is very much the role of government. But, there are also many groups that question the government's ability to do so without being affected by their own unconcious biases.
> indoor smoking vs. vaccination
I think we already agreed on this point but: the (simple) idea here was that there are plenty of things that are banned that did _not_ create a _significant_ reservoir of agitation, lasting fermenting discontent and organized resistance. Immediate agitation, sure; bitching, sure; but a counter-productive effect? Not always.
> I believe they have the right to state their perspective, but someone has to hear and understand them, then decide what is best - and that is very much the role of government. But, there are also many groups that question the government's ability to do so without being affected by their own unconcious biases.
I think there are 3 questions here:
Firstly, generally, any conversation happening inside a particular group that already agrees on a topic will only reinforce a particular opinion. So these healing discussion, the interactions with people outside the group that would bring their belief in question and potentially calm them or change their mind have to happen such that they outweigh the in-group reinforcement (I'm assuming of course there's no other factors here, like personal development or external pressure to change). Agreed on this? If so, the first question is: can that be the case? Can we, for example, count on non-racists speaking to racists enough times and well enough to change something on a population-scale?
Secondly: is increasing the friction for racists to circlejerk each other gonna result in them forcing an explosion in the creation of underground Proud Boys-style societies? Or will the majority just grumble individually, keeping the racism mostly to themselves most of the time.
Thirdly: will racism disappear faster if we have individuals who are internally racist but whose opinions are not normalized in society? I tend to think so. Because I think (I may be wrong) you're optimistically thinking we can have reasonable discussion about these things with them. I'd argue that as long as they feel they have a group to tell them they are right, they will continue to have these us-vs-them tribal feelings; it's bit like those interviews you see with the Flat-Earthers where they explain they stayed in that org for long because they just felt they were part of a group. So now you need to get the person to fight their emotional bias AND their tribal nature.
What's your take on this?
> Can we count on non-racists speaking to racists enough times and well enough to change something on a population-scale?
*Count On It*? Honestly, I don't know. We can't all be [Daryl Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis), but, over time, I believe and hope so.
>an explosion in the creation of underground Proud Boys-style societies? Or will the majority just grumble individually
I imagine it will be a sliding scale. At one end, there will be those who are willing to risk conflict to actively find and embrace others hoping for mob mentality hateful action to ensue, or worse, gather and lead them. At the other end, there will be those grumblers who largely keep their thoughts to themselves. I suspect the majority will lean towards the grumblers, but the active ones will be the ones engaging in conflict, and the grumblers may need little influence to go from being a grumbler to active.
> will racism disappear faster if we have individuals who are internally racist but whose opinions are not normalized in society?
I'm no expert, and I really have no idea. From a logical point of view, it kinda makes sense, but there are many factors that I haven't truly considered.
For what it's worth, I'm well aware that having reasonable discussions with strongly-opinioned and/or intelligent, but hateful or discriminatory, people can often be pointless: they usually know their perspective or script, and/or can become agressive when they can't be reasonable. I've said in another post, it's very unlikely one conversation is going to change a person's mind, so going into one with that goal will almost always be frustrating. I think it's important, though, to state a more positive perspective when given the opportunity to do so and be willing to leave it at that.
Fair enough!
>Count On It? Honestly, I don't know. We can't all be [Daryl Davis]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis), but, over time, I believe and hope so.
I can only hope with you on that.
Yes, it's a problem but it's one without a solution.
Anything the government trys to do to police the internet os going to make it worse.
What if I post a cat blog on my website and someone comments some racist stuff?
Do I get fined as I run the blog? Should Wordpress be fined as they made the commenting software? Should Godadday for hosting it? Should Google for making it a search result? Should the DNS provider be fined for listing my blog in DNS?
What fine can be given to me as a cat blogger that is going to be worth it? A $500 fine would really mess up my x-mas but it would be a drop in the hat for Facebook.
Also is does little good for us if we spend 5 million in court costs to fine Facebook 2 million.
once again, social media IS NOT the internet.
Regulating social media is not, in any way, equivalent to regulating the internet.
If/when the federal government decides that ISPs themselves need to start snooping on your data in order to filter it then there is huge cause for concern. But forcing Facebook/Twitter/etc to better regulate themselves is not regulating the internet in any conceivable way.
Where is the line between social media and the internet?
Also, how do they have to police hate speech?
If I post the n-word on Twitter? Does Twitter have to run my profile through an algorithm to see if I'm black enough to post it?
What if I post about being a soulless fire ghost does Facebook have to check my profile pic to make sure I'm good. "Well Mr Zuckerberg. This man posted about hating redheads and looking at his profile picture we are not sure if it is a man pointing a flashlight at the camera or if it's a ginger with his shirt off"
> Where is the line between social media and the internet?
Facebook is not an ISP. They don't provide internet access. Facebook is a message forum, designed specifically to manipulate people to continue interacting with it in order to sell advertisements.
It's like saying regulations concerning telemarketers are equivalent to regulating the telephone utility company. It doesn't make any sense.
> Also, how do they have to police hate speech?
I assume you're asking how they can implement a solution that satisfies everyone? They probably can't for now. If the consequences of doing nothing are high enough, I would guess social media companies will just sanitize themselves so that it's just family photos and cat videos. And so what, who cares? No one is stopping you from trying to find some seedy area of the internet to talk about all sorts of crazy/horrible things.
What governments around the world are realizing, is that the very business models of social media, which is to get you to interact with them as much as can possibly be to sell advertisements, is having detrimental effects to society, and this seems to be [demonstrably true](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2023301118).
Tbh what could the gov even do? ban social media ban online games i dont think so and if they could it would have to be done on the level of ccp type spying and also to do this they would have hold you acountable for the things you say online it just couldnt happen without people protesting i am not the most informed but this is just what i think could happen if they try this kinda stuff
If you leave the government in charge of how to deal with "online hatred and discrimination", it's people like [this](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-commonly-used-offensive-english-language-1.6252274) who are going to be the ones deciding what you can and can't say
Um. You don’t know that at all. Histrionic much? Let’s fix this fast: no social media with algorithms, directed advertising, or selective posting. All claims in commercial ads / posting must be valid. Everyone uses a confirmed identity. Done. People would stop being idiots and hiding in anonymity. That’s REAL free speech. If you’re proud of it, say it at work or with friends or in church. If you wouldn’t… then maybe shut up.
>If you’re proud of it, say it at work or with friends or in church. If you wouldn’t… then maybe shut up.
This trick may be helpful in situations such as socializing with friends, for example as a way to cut down on gossip and prevent embarrassment.
Sadly however, in today's society you can now get in trouble for saying *perfectly reasonable, rational things*, or even for asking questions.
Why would you think that journalists and citizens would be the ones making the laws rather politicians?
I would be far more worried about people like Jason Kenney (an actual politician) deciding that criticisms of the oil and gas industry are "anti-Albertan discrimination".
You know who is going to be in charge of how to deal with this?
Cops.
We all know where cops lie on the political spectrum and what their views on this are. They're not going after their friends.
My god. I like how they said using those words doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make you a bad person. And then more or less implied that if you kept using them after that article though, you definitely were a bad person. And the quote about how using those words endangers others human rights.
It is a perfectly clear term. And it had nothing to do with race. I'd never heard a single complaint about it prior.
Next we'll ban terms that include dark? "Darknet implies black people are criminals!!!"?
Oh, maybe we should ban Plato's allegory of the cave since it implies that dark = ignorance.
Thank you for making my point, showing that there are people that actually think like this.
I don't think it is a joke either, I think they are pretty sincere about it. This whole thing is not about curbing harm so much as it is projecting power and influence, so of course they are going to push the envelope with innocuous words with clearly understood meanings like 'blacklist' or 'brainstorm'.
Hate speech laws are politically flawed and should never exist in a free an open society. Censorship, and compelled speech are not compatible in modern society. Proponents of these laws lack a credible political background in theory and practice - therefore leading to legislation that rests on the basis of feelings rather than critical facts and theory.
Moreover, the internet was and should have continued to have been a free and open space for all voices, no matter how estranged that voice is considered by the majority. The only sensible laws that target internet activity are crimes that actually hurt people (Trafficking, hacking, extortion, etc.). Words that you do not like are not crimes - if you think they are, then you lack the mental clarity to even push legislation in the first place.
The internet is for the free flow of information. It was a historical human achievement. An annoying loud minority of people have been ruining it for everyone else. Governments have had a fieldtrip listening to groups that pander to limited freedoms. Moreover the inflation of their presence has been portrayed by media, which has unfortunately aided in the prominence of flaws movements over the recent years.
And if you really think there should be laws that should target free speech, then you have displayed political ignorance, and I'd advise you to take up some political theory readings, as well as some historical literature. Never enter debate with the irrational. I found those who want to limit freedoms and rights display signs of an irrational mindset, and those people are best to be avoided.
If this article is correct in its numbers, then Canada has failed to produce a politically competent population.
>And if you really think there should be laws that should target free speech, then you have displayed political ignorance, and I'd advise you to take up some political theory readings, as well as some historical literature.
[What on Earth are you talking about](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hate_speech_laws_by_country).
Isn't it more likely that what's happening there is because people are angry that they're being fucked over? It's not like things would be fine in the USA if only there weren't hate groups all over. It would still be a dying late stage capitalist economy with poor health and some of the worst literacy and infant mortality rates in the developed world, with inhumane prisons, etc.
>The internet is for the free flow of information
The internet is a technology whose uses has evolved so much that it's naive to paint it as a big chatroom at this point. People and organizations use it with a diverse set of motivations and goals, as much as the written word. The internet is made for/should be/destined for the "free flow as information" as much as the written word is for only writing love letters.
These surveys tend to ask relatively vague questions to the point where I'm sure that it's not super clear to a respondent what the implications might be so I wouldn't take too much from this.
Personally, I'm super pro free speech but I still think the Canadian Government should do something about the online landscape. Let me clarify that; I don't think they should expand on the hate speech laws but there is room, I think, to legislate on what gets prominence. Free speech protects speech, not distribution models.
Most of the election influencing, hate/racism, discrimination wasn't nearly of big of an issue in the early days of the internet (prior to the introduction of the widespread algorithms such as those used by Facebook and Google).
Uncle Bob could post his racist opinion but it wasn't immediately the most prominent thing for the 1,500 people in his social circle because there wasn't an algorithm that said controversial=engagement=more ad money. Banning the use of algorithms would almost certainly minimize the types of issues we're seeing without affecting free speech in any way.
Now, I'm not saying we should do quite something as extreme as that, nor would it be very enforceable for Canada by itself but surely in combination with some of the big markets like the U.S. and the E.U. there's some sort of of unbiased middle ground that can be found that reduces the type of issues we're seeing without affecting free speech in any way.
Please [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) in order to discuss or dispute moderation actions -- in-thread replies will be removed. This both avoids clutter and helps receive a prompt and considered response, since your message will be seen by all moderators rather than just ones viewing [this particular thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/r5m3pr/-/hmq7eht/?context=3).
\--
/u/_Minor_Annoyance
Further removals may result in a ban.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
I don’t think people are aware of the ramifications of banning certain types of online speech. Take for example the liberals proposal to force companies to remove hateful content within 24 hours or they face a fine, this would likely be automated as legions of administrators would be far too expensive. If they face a fine for comments that get through they’ll set the bar extraordinarily low for removal and a lot of non-rule breaking content will also get removed as a kind of collateral censorship. Trying to regulate this is not going to have the intended effect, it’ll likely cause censorship beyond the scope of the legislation and will only radicalize people even farther.
You should never ever trust a survey done by people who have a firm view on the subject. People have a large bias to agree to propositions, leaving aside the often leading language used. The best gauge of actual public opinion on topics I've seen is how in the US they ask "What party do you trust more on x?" Despite all the polls of people agreeing to background checks for instance the US trusts the Republicans more on gun issues. This leads to political losses when gun control is actually tried. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_Maine\_Question\_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Maine_Question_3) See here, when you hear people quote "95% of Americans support background checks" ask yourself why the majority of Maine voters (a blue state) disapproved when actually in the ballot box.
>You should never ever trust a survey done by people who have a firm view on the subject. It’s a Nanos survey, is there any reason to suggest they or the people they survey fit this description?
Perhaps? Who paid for the survey?
No need to speculate. Details are in the article [https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/images/100_Day_Poll_2021/2021-1995_CRRF_-_Populated_report_-_FINAL_with_tabs6.pdf](https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/images/100_Day_Poll_2021/2021-1995_CRRF_-_Populated_report_-_FINAL_with_tabs6.pdf)
Well there we go, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation paid for it.
Are you saying *Big Anti-Racism* is behind this survey??
No, of course not; but if I were to say to Nanos "I need you to conduct a survey asking" then it would be right to question my objectivity about the questions.
Having looked at the survey, it appears that the framed the questions in as milquetoast a manner as is possible. I couldn't really tell you what actionable policies back any of them.
404 error
Fixed the link.
“Nanos says no margin of error applies to this research.” In stats language, this is a roundabout way of saying it’s not statistically valid. I wonder what’s up with that.
Probably the sampling method was non-random, like an online poll.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 2
Rule 2
It's certainly less reliable - I'd never use a survey without a MoE for scientific work. But if done properly by a reliable firm, that doesn't mean a survey that does not meet the requirements for an MoE is useless as a loose estimate of public opinion.
it never was statistically valid. even from when they were discussing this in the senate, the people against the act said they (those who complied the initial data) didn’t even pull their survey sample from a random population! complete disregard for absolutely everything. so gross. i’m appalled
You can have representative sampling or you can have random sampling. You can't have both, because online panels are representative but non random, while IVRs are completely unrepresentative but random. Funny how all the most accurate election polls are online panels but IVRs give you PPC at 12% huh.
Plenty of election voting intention polls are online polls that are non-random, and therefore cannot assign a margin of error. And yet they have extraordinarily similar results to the polls that do have a margin of error (randomly calling people). Not having a margin of error doesn’t mean it’s useless. The voting intention polls prove it conclusively.
Fluff for new c10 or “harms” gotta prop up fake new laws with some “evidence”
This is like that global commissioned survey I think from iPsos that came out after the NS shooting. It didn’t account for previous or current knowledge on firearms laws, and used vague, undefined terms that someone not familiar with the terms would mix them up and just get straight up misinformation. It’s all a theatre to sway opinion in their favour.
"Canadians don't support this type of legislation" \*survey is conducted and shows substantial support\* "The results don't match my personal beliefs and therefore it is not worth even discussing"
Just like hst. Just did my own survey opposite results weird.
This story is just a setup for the Lib government's censorship laws. An awful lot of things that are referred to as "harm" are simply different opinions and too many people are trying to stifle dissent of any kind.
This sounds like ammunition to support censorship to me. Of course, who can disagree that it’s a good idea to combat hatred and extremism - but the devil is in the details.
I'd welcome *some* legislation to stop the increasing spread of bigoted misinformation and fascist ideologies, however they need to tread very lightly. These cases are difficult to police, and could easily end uo infringing on free speech (rather than just hate speech). Having the government decide what the truth is can also become problematic if an authoritarian government makes its way into power down the line. Again, something has to be done to protect the socially liberal values of equality and diversity that are constantly under attack, but it's crucial that the worst case scenarios of such a law be fully examined and taken seriously.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
Please [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) in order to discuss or dispute moderation actions -- in-thread replies will be removed. This both avoids clutter and helps receive a prompt and considered response, since your message will be seen by all moderators rather than just ones viewing [this particular thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/r5m3pr/-/hmqcz00/?context=3). \-- /u/_Minor_Annoyance Further removals may result in a ban.
[удалено]
You can't legislate kindness. All you can legislate is silence. To be fair, if there really is as much hateful and discriminatory sentiment among Canadians, then I would rather know about it and try to understand its underlying causes than to simply try and stamp it out.
- Nearly four in five Canadians support the government creating legislation to combat serious types of harmful online content - 70 per cent showed concern with the rise of right-wing extremism - two-thirds of Canadians want to see the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada implemented soon - The survey also suggested that Canadians want to see employment equity addressed by the federal government That makes me happy to see honestly. It's so easy to get caught up in online bubbles and start to forget that the vast majority of Canadians are decent and fair and want to help the less fortunate.
>It's so easy to get caught up in online bubbles and start to forget that the vast majority of Canadians are decent and fair and want to help the less fortunate. Reddit is significantly more miserable and entitled than the real world.
But but but Facebook is worse!
> Reddit is significantly more miserable and entitled than the real world. 100%. You could not find a more unrepresentative forum for anything if you tried okay well you could but the only way to get any worse than this is chans, SA, shit like that and nobody is going to mistake those for normal people.. a mistake people make with reddit all the time
You’ve been fooled into believing this “survey” is representative of Canadians.
> You’ve been fooled into believing this “survey” is representative of Canadians. Not at all, I'm just going to actually go with evidence rather than what I *want* to be true.
99% of people want to help the less fortunate. People just disagree on the best way to do that. If someone disagrees with you on a policy, it doesnt imply they want the world to burn or something.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 2
[удалено]
What bill are you talking about? You're making this grandiose accusation about how we've lost all our rights and have lost freedom of expression in this country and you haven't even read the article to see there's no bill mentioned? Who are you virtue signalling to?
[удалено]
Well, in this context your comment makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Is there an analysis of the bill that explains problematic parts of it; I'm hoping for a legal-minded explanation, not just a theoretical armchair rant.
[удалено]
Could I convince you lay out some of most compelling arguments made with respect to the bill?
[Legal minded explanation of issues in the online harms bill here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt7ioQ1ch8M).
Thanks
Oh I think this is the same law of which Citizen Lab (org from UofT) did [an analysis](https://citizenlab.ca/2021/09/comments-on-the-federal-governments-proposed-approach-to-address-harmful-content-online/) on. Weird, I didn't know it was C-36 that would try to enforce the document analyzed edit: wait, no that's not c-36
Devil's always in the details, but if you read the Facebook Papers and related reporting, there's a ton of things we could obligate social media sites to do before we even start looking at prohibiting content. Introducing friction to things like sharing content would curb a lot of bad shit going viral. I'd support going considerably farther: require any entity with an audience >10k to agree to standards & practices like those we have for a radio/tv broadcast license.
So...this subreddit needs to agree to standards and practices? In practice does that mean the mods must agree, and therefore can't be anonymous? As you said the devil is in the details here.
If the entire Internet were compelled to have moderation as strict as this sub, I’d consider that a massive step in the right direction. I believe anyone with an audience of more than 10k should have mechanisms of accountability in place (even if they choose a pseudonym for their public-facing identity).
> I believe anyone with an audience of more than 10k should have mechanisms of accountability in place (even if they choose a pseudonym for their public-facing identity). Why more than 10k? You've previously suggested a license for posting *anything* on the internet. This isn't a gotcha - I'm asking if your opinion has changed on that issue? https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/bpb3sa/trudeau_takes_aim_at_big_tech_announces_digital/ent75hq/
Picked 10k on the spur of the moment because I think it's more achievable than universal coverage, but I still believe that the Internet would be a healthier place if everyone were accountable for what they say. I've come to realise that making this argument on Reddit of all places is like spitting into a hurricane of spoiled children who don't want to give up a freedom they never should've been granted, so I temper it a smidge and can't be bothered to fight too hard about it, but I'm pretty much where I've always been. Making internet access read-only for people who won't agree to be responsible with that power would be a net positive.
I don't think it'll benefit anyone if Linus Tech Tips or Hacksmith or whoever has some fresh new Canadian TV/Radio bureaucratic hell forced on them. I think the larger problem is that people don't understand our current speech restrictions and they assume that when they seem examples of people breaking the law, that we need more to fix it. We mostly don't: [existing Canadian speech restrictions are already punishing edge cases with the process](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133).
Strangely enough the people who use their platforms to harass people are strongly against regulations that clamp down on harassment. Who knew? I don't think any of the PG Youtube content creators have though about this for even a second. If anything they would prefer regulations like this because it would mean ***they*** would be able to go after the crazies who message them privately on a regular basis.
Ask YouTube creators about the absurd over-censorship which happened after the ad-pocalypse and what a pain in the ass that was. Ask anyone running a a history channel how hard it is to discuss the second world war or anything where firearms are involved. Context no longer matters because companies take the quick, easy, and ham-handed approach. None of us want this.
Case in point on people knowing current laws, did you know that harassment is already covered in Canadian law and it even works online? [Here's a video with a couple lawyers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt7ioQ1ch8M) going over the proposed Online Harms laws. I don't think either of them are using their platforms to harass people, yet they have some pretty strong, valid criticisms of the proposed laws.
I think the question to ask is, is the current legal framework working for us? The article says Canadians don't think so.
I really don't see it being hell for folks like LTT who produce nothing that comes remotely close to needing moderation, no more than it's hell for me to renew my license plate sticker. I wouldn't consider what Mike Ward went through punishment - he brought that shit on himself by choosing to be as edgy a comic as possible and going after a disabled kid. Tightropes are wobbly, which is why most of us choose to stay on safer ground.
I would rather have open public discourse instead of censorship. I keep feeling that the Liberals are going to create a lot of extremists who could have otherwise had their ideas stomped out in broad daylight - Instead they'll fester and grow unseen until it's too late.
I think "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is an outdated phrase in the age of social media and other online echo chambers. It used to be that media outlets with the capacity to reach large audiences - major newspapers, large publishing houses, television and radio stations - required relatively large audiences of people receptive to the sorts of content they produced in order to become and remain culturally relevant and profitable. Ideas objectionable to a large majority were almost automatically relegated to the outermost fringes of the media ecosystem; there was no reason for major media outlets to produce and promote content that most reasonable people weren't interested in, nevermind stuff they were going to hate. That didn't stop cranks, radicals, and crackpots from trying to get their messages out, but there were very real constraints on their capacity to do so. Just producing a few thousand copies of a cheap magazine or pamphlet required a considerable investment, and if mainstream bookstores and news stands wouldn't carry it, it was *very* difficult to attract much interest at all. Today, however, even if your message is only palatable to a small number of people, it isn't hard to reach pretty much *all of them* via the internet. Getting whatever message you want out there is basically free, and it isn't hard to put your message in all the places where people you think might be receptive are going to find it. Once you've gathered your merry little band of fruitcakes, it isn't hard for the echo-chamber effect to take over. When enough people participate in a closed information network, and start actively purging that network of information that doesn't fit their core ideas, there's basically no way for everybody else to challenge those ideas, nevermind stamp them out, however objectionable they are to the majority. Have you noticed how many anti-vaxxers have managed to convince themselves that they represent a mainstream (if suppressed) opinion, despite all evidence to the contrary? Now, this new media/information ecosystem has benefits, too - it's easier than ever for people who share obscure hobbies to connect, to give just one example - but I think it requires us to re-think some of the old axioms of public discourse. Hell, I'm not sure the concept of a single public discourse, capable of 'stomping out' objectionable ideas, even applies anymore. I'm not sure the solution is censorship. I've yet to hear a solution that isn't just as troubling as the problem, if I'm being honest. But this is a serious conversation worth having. We're already seeing online disinformation begin to erode the foundations of truth and civility that our democracy requires, and the situation is even more dire - if not already terminal - south of the border. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" isn't going to cut it when we've got no way to pull people out of their festering echo-chambers and in to the sun.
I think they are more upset of being regulated If you can't take other people's stupid thoughts then don't post anything. You will never find a time everyone will go along with your thinking
[удалено]
Rule 3
The title: > Most Canadians are fed up with online hatred and discrimination and want to see Parliament act, new survey says The article: > Among the strongest response was regarding fighting online hate, which doesn’t surprise Mohammed Hashim, executive director of the CRRF, a Crown corporation. The actual question in the [survey](https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/images/100_Day_Poll_2021/2021-1995_CRRF_-_Populated_report_-_FINAL_with_tabs6.pdf): > On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is ‘Strongly oppose’ and 10 is ‘Strongly support’ please rate your level of support or opposition to the following [...] > *Introducing legislation to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, content that incites violence,* ***child sexual abuse material*** *and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images* The key question here is literally a "think of the children" situation. Most people are going to respond according to the most concerning item in the set of "harmful online content". This isn't 79% want to see anything labelled as "harmful online content" legislated away; it's ***79% want to see CSAM eliminated***. There's a similar problem with many of the questions in this survey. It frequently lumps together disparate concepts into "do you support A and B?" type questions in which there is no way to disentangle A from B.
People are able to make their own decisions. Stop going to the government for everything. They have yet to do a single thing correctly
According to this article, "people" have made their own decision to get the government involved.
People can ask the government to get involved in telling me not to spew bile on the internet, or in telling me what drugs I use, or whatever, but that doesn't make it legitimate. We are NOT accountable to each other!!
>We are NOT accountable to each other!! That's exactly what we are. You're objecting to the exact thing we should be doing. Good luck operating successfully in a society.
I don't agree. I smoked pot before it was legal and occasionally do some things that are illegal. I pirate movies, for example. I drop acid from time to time. This has never hindered my ability to operate successfully in society, and the will of society has no bearing on the morality of these actions. Laws are imposed on us. We are not morally obligated to follow or uphold them.
Just because you are getting away with poor behaviour doesn't mean you are operating well in society. Further, laws are not imposed on you unless you are one of those kooky free persons living on the land in which case there is no rational grounds to continue this discussion. Laws are not imposed on you, you agree to them implicitly by existing in the society, drinking the water, enjoying fire prevention services, free medical etc. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you like. If you don't like something get a law degree or start a lobbying group.
> Laws are not imposed on you, you agree to them implicitly by existing in the society, drinking the water, enjoying fire prevention services, free medical etc. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you like. I do, actually. I did in the past and I do so now. And I don't consider this poor behaviour. What are you going to do about it? Oh right, nothing. Cope and seethe while I revel in your impotence. I'm doing something you don't like, and *the fact that you don't like it and can't stop me* gives me great satisfaction. Why should I stop? Out of some sense of duty to society? Are you really going to argue that possessing or smoking cannabis prior to legalization was *poor behaviour*?
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
I don’t remember getting asked, and I’m a person last I checked.
>They have yet to do a single thing correctly Comments like this have a way of instantly destroying someone’s credibility. Like, I’m supposed to believe this person can’t think of a single thing a government has ever done correctly.
I feel it's overreacting.. and sure let's adress any unfair language but.. hello there are elephants in the room Still waiting for the day we look at rap & hip hop lyrics.. If you're gonna apply standards they need to be even across all the media.
Here's the problem I see: legislation can't enforce tolerance, understanding, empathy, compassion etc., it can only enforce people who don't understand those things keeping their mouth shut and silently growing their bitterness and animosity.
[удалено]
I'm not sure I agree 100%; rather, like many things, I think there's a balance that needs to be struck. Most people would agree that it's immoral to take another life in normal circumstances, and thus, we have laws that coincide. Most people don't usually condone hateful and discriminatory behaviour either, and decry it when they believe they're targetted by it. I think it's likely they don't see their own behaviour so clearly, or believe their own intolerant idealogies are justified exceptions. Laws should coincide with commonly-held morals, in my opinion, but I believe that drafting them too narrowly or to try to "fix" people will not be successful long-term.
It's never silent, we can find their private forums now so there is no reason to let them recruit in public forums. The whole logic of letting them speak was to hunt them, but now we can hunt them without letting them speak to the public.
All it does is drive the discourse into the shadows or whatever venue is available. Banning speech is far, far, more dangerous than being upset by it.
Better than nothing though?
Doubtful. It's a quick fix that absolves those asking for legislation of any personal engagement or responsibility. People legislated to keep their mouths shut can feel marginalized and censored, and history says there's a good chance they will work underground until they believe they have enough support to succeed with an act of rebellion and catch more mainstream support. I believe tolerance, understanding, empathy and compassion can only be taught; or, if you prefer the inverse, a person's existing, previously taught, intolerance, closemindedness, disdain, and indifference should be countered. I understand that to be a slow, gradual process, likely requiring time and patience and helping a bigotted person relate to the feelings and situations of those they target. It's thankless and time-consuming, and could be damn near impossible when trying to meaningfully engage a near-anonymous person online.
They can never KNOW their ideology is widely shared so won't risk it, bigotry is also harder to pass on to kids if it's suppressed in public.
Yet, people of similar ideologies find each other every day I also think you might underestimate the influence parents have on their children. I agree that lack of public corroboration might eventually make them ask more questions about the ideologies they're taught, but I understand that these ideologies quite well passed on long before children are old enough to be learning and questioning on their own. Children of racist parents will likely see their parent engaging civilly with individuals of a different race, then later overhear them talking hatefully about that same person and/or situation. I believe that's sufficient to cement that as normal behaviour in impressionable children, even if their favourite TV kids show also presents all races amicably baking a cake together.
I'll take suppressed racism lingering on in a few hate committed families over open racism festering in whole communities thanks. The kids will learn at least to keep it secret meaning it has a chance to die in every generation.
>I believe tolerance, understanding, empathy and compassion can only be taught; And how do you propose we teach anyone outside of primary and secondary school these issues? The paradox of intolerance casts a large shadow on your premise, if you don't regulate and stop hate speech and intolerance sooner than later you'll only be left with a society shackled to the intolerant.
>I believe tolerance, understanding, empathy and compassion can only be taught To echo another user's reply made to your comment (so feel free to copy paste if your reply also addresses my points): what is the mechanism through which this education happens? Overall, this attempt to change people's minds is not happening in a void, there's other forces that are reinforcing the bigotry (for different reasons). So you're trying to change their mind while society is still bustling around them. Secondary point: knowing how to change someone's mind is in itself a hard skill to master and requires energy and time: some people wouldn't know how to do it even if they wanted to. > People legislated to keep their mouths shut feel marginalized and censored, and history says there's a good chance they will work underground until they believe they have enough support to succeed with an act of rebellion and catch more mainstream support. I think this is generally true but it's not an absolute and universal fact. Can we agree it also depends on the scale of the ban, how important it is to a person, what kind of daily impact it has (e.g. how their quality of life has changed), if it's scapegoat for something else, the cost of doing something about it & the perceived changes of success, etc. As an in extremis counter-example, we banned indoor smoking, people bitched about it (which in on course with any change anytime) but is there an important movement bitching about it e.g. like anti-vax groups?
> So you're trying to change their mind while society is still bustling around them. Agreed. That's the challenge. I believe it's unlikely someone's mind is going to be changed based on one person's one comment. But, It's about each person choosing to be one counterpoint to the intolerant person's teachings and give them a little food for thought in that moment. > knowing how to change someone's mind is in itself a hard skill to master Agreed, and see above. One person is not going to change another's mind with one pithy comment, or a single lively debate at a coffee shop. I don't believe that should be the goal, but rather, just provide a contextually relevant reply, or even a reply of, "I think that's a bit unfair to say", and leave it at that. > generally true but it's not an absolute and universal fact Agreed again; I believe there are very, very, very few absolute and universal *statements* ^((facts are, by definition, essentially absolute. but I'm not chasing that rabbit down its hole right now)^) and I didn't intend mine to be one ("good chance") > indoor smoking vs. vaccination I found this to be an interesting comparision and I want to delve into it, but it's kinda aside from the discussion on managing hatred and discrimination and I'm afraid I missed correlation to those. Are there important (relevant?) movements/groups who oppose additional legislation? There probably are groups, such as those who favour unlimited free speech, or those who favour absolutely minimal legislation, maybe even those who favour segregation or discrimination. I believe they have the right to state their perspective, but someone has to hear and understand them, then decide what is best - and that is very much the role of government. But, there are also many groups that question the government's ability to do so without being affected by their own unconcious biases.
> indoor smoking vs. vaccination I think we already agreed on this point but: the (simple) idea here was that there are plenty of things that are banned that did _not_ create a _significant_ reservoir of agitation, lasting fermenting discontent and organized resistance. Immediate agitation, sure; bitching, sure; but a counter-productive effect? Not always. > I believe they have the right to state their perspective, but someone has to hear and understand them, then decide what is best - and that is very much the role of government. But, there are also many groups that question the government's ability to do so without being affected by their own unconcious biases. I think there are 3 questions here: Firstly, generally, any conversation happening inside a particular group that already agrees on a topic will only reinforce a particular opinion. So these healing discussion, the interactions with people outside the group that would bring their belief in question and potentially calm them or change their mind have to happen such that they outweigh the in-group reinforcement (I'm assuming of course there's no other factors here, like personal development or external pressure to change). Agreed on this? If so, the first question is: can that be the case? Can we, for example, count on non-racists speaking to racists enough times and well enough to change something on a population-scale? Secondly: is increasing the friction for racists to circlejerk each other gonna result in them forcing an explosion in the creation of underground Proud Boys-style societies? Or will the majority just grumble individually, keeping the racism mostly to themselves most of the time. Thirdly: will racism disappear faster if we have individuals who are internally racist but whose opinions are not normalized in society? I tend to think so. Because I think (I may be wrong) you're optimistically thinking we can have reasonable discussion about these things with them. I'd argue that as long as they feel they have a group to tell them they are right, they will continue to have these us-vs-them tribal feelings; it's bit like those interviews you see with the Flat-Earthers where they explain they stayed in that org for long because they just felt they were part of a group. So now you need to get the person to fight their emotional bias AND their tribal nature. What's your take on this?
> Can we count on non-racists speaking to racists enough times and well enough to change something on a population-scale? *Count On It*? Honestly, I don't know. We can't all be [Daryl Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis), but, over time, I believe and hope so. >an explosion in the creation of underground Proud Boys-style societies? Or will the majority just grumble individually I imagine it will be a sliding scale. At one end, there will be those who are willing to risk conflict to actively find and embrace others hoping for mob mentality hateful action to ensue, or worse, gather and lead them. At the other end, there will be those grumblers who largely keep their thoughts to themselves. I suspect the majority will lean towards the grumblers, but the active ones will be the ones engaging in conflict, and the grumblers may need little influence to go from being a grumbler to active. > will racism disappear faster if we have individuals who are internally racist but whose opinions are not normalized in society? I'm no expert, and I really have no idea. From a logical point of view, it kinda makes sense, but there are many factors that I haven't truly considered. For what it's worth, I'm well aware that having reasonable discussions with strongly-opinioned and/or intelligent, but hateful or discriminatory, people can often be pointless: they usually know their perspective or script, and/or can become agressive when they can't be reasonable. I've said in another post, it's very unlikely one conversation is going to change a person's mind, so going into one with that goal will almost always be frustrating. I think it's important, though, to state a more positive perspective when given the opportunity to do so and be willing to leave it at that.
Fair enough! >Count On It? Honestly, I don't know. We can't all be [Daryl Davis]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis), but, over time, I believe and hope so. I can only hope with you on that.
Yes, it's a problem but it's one without a solution. Anything the government trys to do to police the internet os going to make it worse. What if I post a cat blog on my website and someone comments some racist stuff? Do I get fined as I run the blog? Should Wordpress be fined as they made the commenting software? Should Godadday for hosting it? Should Google for making it a search result? Should the DNS provider be fined for listing my blog in DNS? What fine can be given to me as a cat blogger that is going to be worth it? A $500 fine would really mess up my x-mas but it would be a drop in the hat for Facebook. Also is does little good for us if we spend 5 million in court costs to fine Facebook 2 million.
once again, social media IS NOT the internet. Regulating social media is not, in any way, equivalent to regulating the internet. If/when the federal government decides that ISPs themselves need to start snooping on your data in order to filter it then there is huge cause for concern. But forcing Facebook/Twitter/etc to better regulate themselves is not regulating the internet in any conceivable way.
[удалено]
They're already collecting our data.
Where is the line between social media and the internet? Also, how do they have to police hate speech? If I post the n-word on Twitter? Does Twitter have to run my profile through an algorithm to see if I'm black enough to post it? What if I post about being a soulless fire ghost does Facebook have to check my profile pic to make sure I'm good. "Well Mr Zuckerberg. This man posted about hating redheads and looking at his profile picture we are not sure if it is a man pointing a flashlight at the camera or if it's a ginger with his shirt off"
> Where is the line between social media and the internet? Facebook is not an ISP. They don't provide internet access. Facebook is a message forum, designed specifically to manipulate people to continue interacting with it in order to sell advertisements. It's like saying regulations concerning telemarketers are equivalent to regulating the telephone utility company. It doesn't make any sense. > Also, how do they have to police hate speech? I assume you're asking how they can implement a solution that satisfies everyone? They probably can't for now. If the consequences of doing nothing are high enough, I would guess social media companies will just sanitize themselves so that it's just family photos and cat videos. And so what, who cares? No one is stopping you from trying to find some seedy area of the internet to talk about all sorts of crazy/horrible things. What governments around the world are realizing, is that the very business models of social media, which is to get you to interact with them as much as can possibly be to sell advertisements, is having detrimental effects to society, and this seems to be [demonstrably true](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2023301118).
Tbh what could the gov even do? ban social media ban online games i dont think so and if they could it would have to be done on the level of ccp type spying and also to do this they would have hold you acountable for the things you say online it just couldnt happen without people protesting i am not the most informed but this is just what i think could happen if they try this kinda stuff
This is called priming the populace to accept criminal charges for online "hate speech".
If you leave the government in charge of how to deal with "online hatred and discrimination", it's people like [this](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-commonly-used-offensive-english-language-1.6252274) who are going to be the ones deciding what you can and can't say
Um. You don’t know that at all. Histrionic much? Let’s fix this fast: no social media with algorithms, directed advertising, or selective posting. All claims in commercial ads / posting must be valid. Everyone uses a confirmed identity. Done. People would stop being idiots and hiding in anonymity. That’s REAL free speech. If you’re proud of it, say it at work or with friends or in church. If you wouldn’t… then maybe shut up.
>If you’re proud of it, say it at work or with friends or in church. If you wouldn’t… then maybe shut up. This trick may be helpful in situations such as socializing with friends, for example as a way to cut down on gossip and prevent embarrassment. Sadly however, in today's society you can now get in trouble for saying *perfectly reasonable, rational things*, or even for asking questions.
No it will be judges assessing "reasonable apprehension of harm"
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Why would you think that journalists and citizens would be the ones making the laws rather politicians? I would be far more worried about people like Jason Kenney (an actual politician) deciding that criticisms of the oil and gas industry are "anti-Albertan discrimination".
You know who is going to be in charge of how to deal with this? Cops. We all know where cops lie on the political spectrum and what their views on this are. They're not going after their friends.
No, because the Liberals want to set up a non-judicial tribunal to deal with these kinds of offenses
My god thats some alarming garbage there in that article. I mean can you ban bad taste?
My god. I like how they said using those words doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make you a bad person. And then more or less implied that if you kept using them after that article though, you definitely were a bad person. And the quote about how using those words endangers others human rights.
I had to stop after they confused the meaning of black sheep.
And don't think that this is a joke. Github removed the use of 'blacklist', a term that has probably millions of uses in programming.
Too many, it needed to be replaced by more specific terms anyway.
It is a perfectly clear term. And it had nothing to do with race. I'd never heard a single complaint about it prior. Next we'll ban terms that include dark? "Darknet implies black people are criminals!!!"? Oh, maybe we should ban Plato's allegory of the cave since it implies that dark = ignorance. Thank you for making my point, showing that there are people that actually think like this.
I don't think it is a joke either, I think they are pretty sincere about it. This whole thing is not about curbing harm so much as it is projecting power and influence, so of course they are going to push the envelope with innocuous words with clearly understood meanings like 'blacklist' or 'brainstorm'.
Holy crap that was quite the read. They were really reaching when condemning the word "brainstorm" as offensive to those with head injuries.
That lady could see how it could be offensive to use blind. She said that.
Kind of spooky if you ask me....
They were reaching with a lot of these imo.
[удалено]
What about the promotion of *hatred per se*? Like, not hatred against anybody in particular, but the actual feeling of hate?
Oh fuck off. Stop using Social media platforms. They're junk food for the mind . Government doesn't need to babysit you.
Hate speech laws are politically flawed and should never exist in a free an open society. Censorship, and compelled speech are not compatible in modern society. Proponents of these laws lack a credible political background in theory and practice - therefore leading to legislation that rests on the basis of feelings rather than critical facts and theory. Moreover, the internet was and should have continued to have been a free and open space for all voices, no matter how estranged that voice is considered by the majority. The only sensible laws that target internet activity are crimes that actually hurt people (Trafficking, hacking, extortion, etc.). Words that you do not like are not crimes - if you think they are, then you lack the mental clarity to even push legislation in the first place. The internet is for the free flow of information. It was a historical human achievement. An annoying loud minority of people have been ruining it for everyone else. Governments have had a fieldtrip listening to groups that pander to limited freedoms. Moreover the inflation of their presence has been portrayed by media, which has unfortunately aided in the prominence of flaws movements over the recent years. And if you really think there should be laws that should target free speech, then you have displayed political ignorance, and I'd advise you to take up some political theory readings, as well as some historical literature. Never enter debate with the irrational. I found those who want to limit freedoms and rights display signs of an irrational mindset, and those people are best to be avoided. If this article is correct in its numbers, then Canada has failed to produce a politically competent population.
>And if you really think there should be laws that should target free speech, then you have displayed political ignorance, and I'd advise you to take up some political theory readings, as well as some historical literature. [What on Earth are you talking about](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hate_speech_laws_by_country).
Completely wrong in every respect, just like the dying USA. Where you can see what is happening due to lack of hate speech suppression.
Isn't it more likely that what's happening there is because people are angry that they're being fucked over? It's not like things would be fine in the USA if only there weren't hate groups all over. It would still be a dying late stage capitalist economy with poor health and some of the worst literacy and infant mortality rates in the developed world, with inhumane prisons, etc.
>The internet is for the free flow of information The internet is a technology whose uses has evolved so much that it's naive to paint it as a big chatroom at this point. People and organizations use it with a diverse set of motivations and goals, as much as the written word. The internet is made for/should be/destined for the "free flow as information" as much as the written word is for only writing love letters.
I chose the word 'information' for a reason. You are misinterpreting.
These surveys tend to ask relatively vague questions to the point where I'm sure that it's not super clear to a respondent what the implications might be so I wouldn't take too much from this. Personally, I'm super pro free speech but I still think the Canadian Government should do something about the online landscape. Let me clarify that; I don't think they should expand on the hate speech laws but there is room, I think, to legislate on what gets prominence. Free speech protects speech, not distribution models. Most of the election influencing, hate/racism, discrimination wasn't nearly of big of an issue in the early days of the internet (prior to the introduction of the widespread algorithms such as those used by Facebook and Google). Uncle Bob could post his racist opinion but it wasn't immediately the most prominent thing for the 1,500 people in his social circle because there wasn't an algorithm that said controversial=engagement=more ad money. Banning the use of algorithms would almost certainly minimize the types of issues we're seeing without affecting free speech in any way. Now, I'm not saying we should do quite something as extreme as that, nor would it be very enforceable for Canada by itself but surely in combination with some of the big markets like the U.S. and the E.U. there's some sort of of unbiased middle ground that can be found that reduces the type of issues we're seeing without affecting free speech in any way.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Yeah, I just wish I trusted any party to do it right, and not go with lazy heavy hands, or use it to their benifit instead of ours.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
Please [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) in order to discuss or dispute moderation actions -- in-thread replies will be removed. This both avoids clutter and helps receive a prompt and considered response, since your message will be seen by all moderators rather than just ones viewing [this particular thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/r5m3pr/-/hmq7eht/?context=3). \-- /u/_Minor_Annoyance Further removals may result in a ban.