this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
287 points (99.7% liked)

Canada

10728 readers
407 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Canada’s proposed Bill S-209, which addresses online age verification, is currently making its way through the Senate, and its passage would be yet another mistake in tech policy.

The bill is intended to restrict young peoples’ access to online pornography and to hold providers to account for making it available to anyone under 18. It may be well-intentioned, but the manner of its proposed enforcement – mandating age verification or what is being called “age-estimation technologies” – is troubling.

Globally, age-verification tools are a popular business, and many companies are in favour of S-209, particularly because it requires that websites and organizations rely on third parties for these tools. However, they bring up long-standing concerns over privacy, especially when you consider potential leaks or hacks of this information, which in some cases include biometrics that can identify us by our faces or fingerprints. [...]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 41 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The dark web became known as the hideout of internet criminals. Once we're all internet criminals, it will just be the hideout of everyone. Time to drop all these commercial services that we've let take over the internet and go back to being anonymous weirdos talking to other anonymous weirdos on websites run by anonymous weirdos. The web was ironically a nicer place. Also a shittier place, but at the same time a nicer place. This is why we can't have nice things.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They will try to ban websites run by anonymous weirdos.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Ban Website" sounds good in the news but those words together barely even parse to an idea.

A website is just a bunch of files hosted on a computer, put them behind some kind of access control and the outside world can't even know that they exist. Unless ISPs decide to block all inbound traffic to subscribers you can always just apt install apache2.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unless ISPs decide to block all inbound traffic to subscribers

I think some ISPs already do this, if they suspect you're running any kind of server, to force you to subscribe to a more expensive "business" plan.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

The shitty ones do this. Or you get stuck behind cNAT.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 3 points 2 days ago

They can try. Bans require enforcement, and they catch a few of us weirdos from time to time, but the hydra always grows more heads.