Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
Please don’t take the bait!!!
This is left wing bait so that you support a privacy destroying censorship bill.
It’s the same as “won’t somebody please think of the children”
I’m all for pride and everything, but this is political bullshite to try and convince you that you don’t need privacy online.
DON’T TAKE THE BAIT!
This isn’t bait, this is accurate reporting of a decision by a Canadian court. Reality can be scary when you step out of the echo bunker.
Yep, right on the heels of a bill to try and censor the internet again.
While I agree with the outcome of the case, we must remain vigilant of our privacy.
Do you even have the first clue what you’re talking about or are you just spouting right wing talking points? Censoring the internet (banning hate speech as it is known outside of the right wing echo bunker) has nothing to do with privacy. Calm down, give yourself a bit of time to adjust. You will find that reality is FAR less scary than the right wing echo bunker would have you believe.
Trust me, I’m not right wing.
PP is a fucking shill and would be a disaster.
But privacy matters, and the only way to “censor hate speech” online in the way they describe would be an unimaginable loss to privacy.
And you won’t see that until it happens.
Everyone was ecstatic that Apple created a “child porn filter” on your phone, and in theory it’s great, but then all of a sudden governments wanted to use the tool to censor images that they didn’t like.
……and Apple quietly dropped the feature.
It’s rage bait to get you to support something that is bad for you.
Uh…no…I don’t think I will.
Ahhh, lovely retort.
But you don’t address any of my criticisms.
Have a nice day.
No one is under any obligation to engage with you on your nonsense. Sorry.
Have a nice day.
It’s a violation of my privacy that I can’t go around defaming people 😤 😤 😤
Ahhh the straw man argument.
We both know I didn’t say that, but as you’ve taken to arguing the point in bad faith, I’m not going to fight you.
Have a nice day.
Straw man? This is literally about people being charged for defamation lmao
Sure, but that’s not what I said at all.
People get charged with defamation every day….
Why make a big fuss out of it? Why big news stories?
What makes this one special?
Oh, right, they’re trying to push a censorship bill that forces companies to allow the government to audit your communications.
This is the 4th time they’ve done the same thing, and I need people to realize that while this case was an absolutely correct ruling, using the EXISTING infrastructure and legal framework to prosecute, we don’t need new tools to destroy privacy.
Privacy matters.
So people should be free to break laws so long as they do it anonymously?
I was asking why they bothered with the big news story on this particular case of defamation, not suggesting they the behaviour was okay…???
Did you reply to the wrong thread, or was there a misunderstanding of my comment?
It’s clearly you who is lost, because you seem unfamiliar with the details of what’s being discussed in this thread.
Noooope, not at all.
Please read ANY of my comments.
I don’t care about this case at all. It’s great, glad they got prosecuted.
I care about the fact that the government is currently trying to push through a bill invading our privacy to try and “prosecute more of these”
That’s why the article exists. There are thousands of cases of defamation every day, why care about this one?
This is all done to try and convince you that new laws are needed, when this case was successfully prosecuted on existing laws.
The article is rage-bait to get you worked up about this specific case of defamation.
In this case, privacy was respected and subpoenas were required. They want you amped up to skip that “due process”
Please re-read before you reply.
How is that anything to do with a privacy destroying censorship bill?
That is the current process and it works just fine. I’m good with what happened in this case.
But the news is choosing to cover these stories right now in order to build support for the privacy invading bill that they want to pass.
They’ve tried like 4 times.
This is how the narrative starts, with something very “reasonable”
Next they’ll ask for better tools to combat the epidemic of it.
But just to clarify they aren’t asking for better tools to combat the epidemic of it yet, that’s just something you’ve invented out of whole cloth and are now getting mad about it?
https://globalnews.ca/news/10178476/liberals-online-harms-bill-not-regulating-speech/
What’s this? An article that literally came out last night detailing some of the issues?
Here’s the rest of your cloth.
This is their 4th try at the same thing, that’s why I knew where this would go.
There’s the beginning of the ask.
Privacy matters.
Sounds like people had concerns so they got a group of experts in to rework the previous bill.
Is that an issue to you because it looks to me like it is the opposite of what you just explained.
Because of significant backlash, they were forced to abandon the efforts.
The “experts” just reworded the same problems. The issues still exist in the bill. In fact the bill itself is the issue. They were able to change the guy in the article on this post, why didn’t they need the “new law” for that?? Which countries have this law? They didn’t mention?
Curious.
The root of the problem is that the proposed law itself requires the government to be able to see/audit all your online communication. That hasn’t changed. They make their intentions in “look at this awful case”, but they ignore that the new law wasn’t required for that case, so then what’s the reason for needing the new law? Why did privacy ever matter? Wouldn’t they find more murders if they had cameras in everyone’s house?
Yes, that argument is extreme, but it’s intended to make you think about “if” and “why” privacy matters.
I said this was coming, you called me out for not having any sources and I gave you sources.
I worry that nothing I could say or prove would change your mind.
What does cameras in people’s house have to do with the current conversation?
It sounds like fear mongering to me. I find it’s easier to keep track of a subject if you stay on topic.
Cool, let’s stay on topic.
This case is about defamation and was investigated and put to trial on the existing tools.
A big story was written about it, and I believe it was to garner support for privacy-invading new laws.
Clearly the laws weren’t needed to prosecute this case, so why are they needed then?
So, I have 3 questions for you.
Why will they need new laws to prosecute similar cases when this case didn’t require it?
Why was this case written into a big news story when defamation cases halted every day?
Why does privacy matter at all?
deleted by creator
You’re missing the point.
They will show you reasonable cases right now to show that “broad censorship is needed” to help combat it.
Next there will be articles on how they need better tooling to prevent the epidemic of it.
This is their 4th try at it by my count.
It’s petrifying how many don’t see that!
I see it. At this point, the pros just outweigh the cons