Send someone to fetch us
We're in Saskatchewan!
--Fozzie Bear and Kermit the Frog
We're in Saskatchewan!
--Fozzie Bear and Kermit the Frog
Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
Not the proper name for it. The proper
IF you don't want to do yours, you are welcome to come and do mine.
The gates are locked front and back. The fences are just under 6’ tall chain link. We have four dogs & a cat (& the cat won’t leave the yard, because he’s much braver behind the fence line with dogs to back him up)…so from the time I turn the furnace off in the spring until I turn it back on in the fall…my back door stays open.
The dogs have free run of the house & yard Spring though Fall. There’s a Shepherd, Pitbull, & two retired geriatric K9’s to boot that still have ears & vocal cords. We don’t have issues inside of our fence line. They can go from sound sleep to fully alert pretty much instantaneously.
Not from inside the fence line. Occasional stuff from the flower bed out front. Lawn, gnomes, and shit like that. Garden trowels maybe…a 1 gallon gas can I forgot behind the bushes out front when I mowed a couple weeks ago…But not from inside the fence line.
If somebody can get into the yard over the fence, and take the 50 inch old-school heavy TV from my deck back over the fence without waking up our dogs…kudos to them & they’ve earned it, but I don’t think it’s ever gonna happen. Hasn’t in the last several years anyway…& there’s a few junkies patrolling, etc…
With all the vines (Virginia creeper) along the fence lines, you really can’t see into the yard either. The whole back of the property is double garage & 3 foot wide sidewalk and gate that’s chained shut.
Well, this is not Canada specific, but it’s definitely Canada adjacent…& in the mis/dis-information censorship world…
If it’s admitted about America, is it happening here too?
That Hunter Biden laptop/shady dealings/10% for the Big Guy thing…was that America’s WE Charity scandal equivalent?
So this is admitted to, does it mean it’s stopped happening? Censoring COVID-19 info in a “Follow the Science” sort’a way? Crazy not so tinfoil hat stuff in hindsight?
In a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”
The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn't agree, he said in the letter.
“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter dated Aug. 26 and posted on the committee's Facebook page and to its account on X.
The letter is the latest repudiation by Zuckerberg of efforts to target misinformation around the coronavirus pandemic during and after the 2020 presidential election, particularly as allegations have emerged that some posts were deleted or restricted wrongly.
“I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today,” he said, without elaborating. “We’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
In response, the White House said in a statement that, “When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety. Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.”
Zuckerberg also expressed regret for Meta’s downplaying of content related to coverage by the New York Post about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election that the FBI warned may have been rooted in a Russian disinformation operation. “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he wrote.
Conservatives have long derided Facebook and other major tech companies as favoring liberal priorities and accused them of censorship.
apnews.com
"In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made from our apps," the platform said in another important decision related to the pandemic, in May 2021.
On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, pitting Vice President Kamala Harris against former president Donald Trump, Zuckerberg is also taking pains to appear non-partisan.
financialpost.com
In a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”
The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn't agree, he said in the letter.
“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter dated Aug. 26 and posted on the committee's Facebook page and to its account on X.
The letter is the latest repudiation by Zuckerberg of efforts to target misinformation around the coronavirus pandemic during and after the 2020 presidential election, particularly as allegations have emerged that some posts were deleted or restricted wrongly.
“I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today,” he said, without elaborating. “We’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
In response, the White House said in a statement that, “When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety. Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.”
Zuckerberg also expressed regret for Meta’s downplaying of content related to coverage by the New York Post about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election that the FBI warned may have been rooted in a Russian disinformation operation. “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he wrote.
Conservatives have long derided Facebook and other major tech companies as favoring liberal priorities and accused them of censorship.
Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook over some COVID-19 content during the pandemic
Mark Zuckerberg says senior Biden administration officials pressured Facebook to “censor” some COVID-19 content during the pandemic.
apnews.com
On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, pitting Vice President Kamala Harris against former president Donald Trump, Zuckerberg is also taking pains to appear non-partisan.
Zuckerberg says White House 'pressured' Meta to pull COVID-19 content
Meta Platforms chief executive Mark Zuckerberg alleged that Facebook was “pressured” by the U.S. government to COVID-19 content. Read more.
OK, so Zuckerberg regrets censoring covid misinformation, and promises to give full emphasis to any shit anybody posts in the future, the crazier the better?
GUNTER: Blacklock’s Reporter fights on in court after bizarre ruling from judge — Toronto Sun
Canadian officialdom just can’t get past the idea that they and they alone have been gifted with the intelligence and judgment to determine what the public should hear or see on the Internet. The best example, of course, is the Trudeau Liberals’ Online Harms Act which would empower the CRTC, the...
Takedown orders could be based solely on complaints from activist groups. So what do you think the online lifespan would be of a post that challenges climate change alarmism or wonders aloud how come no remains have been produced if there are “mass graves” around many residential schools?
The latest example of this we-must-protect-you-from-yourselves attitude is a ruling in late May by Federal Court Justice Yvan Roy who decided it was OK for federal civil servants to share passwords to subscriber-only content on news websites.
One Parks Canada manager, Genevieve Patenaude, had been instructed by Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault’s office to purchase a single membership to the online Parliamentary watchdog service, Blacklock’s Reporter.
After checking the Blacklock’s story the minister had asked Patenaude to check, Patenaude emailed her login credentials to at least nine other Parks Canada senior staff. “If you ever need to access any Blacklocks articles …” she invited her colleagues, followed by her username and password.
Bizarrely, Justice Roy ruled “This constitutes the simple act of reading by officials with an immediate interest in the articles for (work-related) reasons. There is no evidence this was … a frolic in territory protected by copyright.”
Of course it’s an infringement on copyright. How could it be anything else?
In order to buy the Blacklock’s subscription, Patenaude had to agree to that site’s terms of use which clearly prohibit the sharing of logins or copyrighted articles.
Moreover, once Blacklock’s detected the use of her login credentials from multiple locations, they sent Patenaude several emails explaining that if she wanted to share a password or content with colleagues, she should contact Blacklock’s publisher, Holly Doan, for an institutional subscription.
Roy inexplicably determined that all this legal mumbo-jumbo was just too complicated for Parks Canada employees to understand, even though teenage gamers have no trouble whatsoever understanding similar restrictions on their use of software.
But even more dangerous than Roy’s clearly wrong decision on copyright infringement and what is basically online shoplifting of Blacklock’s private property, is his justification that Parks Canada’s intrusion was in the “public interest.”
Somehow when governments steal it’s different than when members of the public steal because, “There is a significant public interest in reading articles with a view to protecting the public and the press against errors and omissions.”
See, if you don’t conform to the government’s opinions or, in the case of Blacklock’s, if you might embarrass the government by digging up dirt, agents of the government don’t have to respect your legal rights.
What’s the big fuss? It was a little harmless fact-checking, in Roy’s view.
Put aside for the moment the fact that the government is no better at or less biased than the public at sifting fact from misinformation. Their version of the facts is often no more than official opinion. So it is simply too risky to put anyone (well-meaning bureaucrats included), in charge of determining what can and cannot be posted.
Now extend Roy’s principal – that governments may violate rights when they deem that doing so is in the public interest – to other potential abuses, such as warrantless wiretaps.
Whether it is permitting a handful of civil servants to read copyrighted material without paying or arbitrarily seizing books a government official deems seditious, the principal being violated is the same.
This week, Blacklock’s announced it is appealing Roy’s ruling.
Erections have consequences. . .
(I'm pretty sure I heard that right. Meh, either way it's true.)
(I'm pretty sure I heard that right. Meh, either way it's true.)
So does an infringement on copyright, for some, unless it’s for the public good, with an immediate interest in the articles for (work-related) reasons, to determine it it needs to be deemed by these government appointees to be offensive, dangerous or “misinformation.”
Look on the bright side. Soon enough Conservatives'll be able to use the law to beat up on people they don't like.
Or scrap it, take the savings by deleting that bureaucracy, & flip it over toward meeting our (Canada’s) 2% minimum spending level of GDP on our military hopefully, without having to raise taxes but by re-allocating them.
Could just be wishful thinking on my part though.
Terry Newman: Brazil bans Twitter, Trudeau dreams of the same for Canada — National Post
The Liberals have enthusiastically bogged down our internet in regulations
Platforms will have to hand over their Digital Safety Plans, detailing how they will mitigate Canadians’ risk of exposure to harmful online content, keeping us children safe.
While the bill includes a number of provisions to protect actual children, and legislation of acts most Canadians would agree are heinous, like intimate content distributed without consent, it also includes acts that may be more difficult to assess, such as content that foments hatred.
Underw proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, anyone can file a complaint against anyone else for posting allegedly hateful content. A committee will get to decide if what was posted fomented hatred, and issue fines of up to $50,000. Anyone who wants to be on such a committee probably shouldn’t be the person making those decisions.
And the Liberal agenda of trying to control the internet goes well beyond “online harms.” It has also decided to micro-manage our content producers to ensure they meet obscure mandated cultural standards through the Online Streaming Act. Passed last year, the legislation requires various content producers to register, and then set out to ensure that content producers are filling Canadians’ web browsers with material they deem is “varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of all ages, interests and tastes” and reflecting “equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples and languages within that society.” Yes, Mom.
As an indirect result of the Liberal government’s actions, specifically passing the Online News Act, Canadians have been unable to read news on Facebook or Instagram since August, 2023. The Liberals thought they could use the act to force Meta to pay news publishers for articles shared by Canadians on its feeds. Meta, seeing which way the wind was blowing with our increasingly bureaucratic government, refused. The rest at the above link…
…With whose support (?) seeing as the Liberal Party is a minority government? Any guesses? The Conservatives? Bloc Québécois? All both Greens?