The closest it gets to the headline appears to be 15.2(2)(d)
> (d) impose conditions on a telecommunications service provider’s provision of services to a specified person, including a telecommunications service provider;
Which is one of the few parts of the bill that restrict what the ISP can provide, and not what the ISP can use. Even then it is of course only properly interpreted in the context of the charter, so the headline remains entirely false.
Canadian Breitbart is probably more like rebel news or epoch times.
Highly partisan news is generally not respected for good reason though.
CBC is definitely left wing[1], with a bias towards the liberal party (centre-left). Globe and Mail is centrist[0].
Be it Fox News lying and then claiming they're entertainment, not news, so they're allowed to lie; The Telegraph giving a soapbox to various climate skeptics and COVID deniers and having to retract them, or publishing flat out lies by folks like Boris Johnson; the Sun needs no explanation; Sky News Australia (same owner as Fox News) having a "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section on their Wikipedia; etc.
Absolutely not, their American owner has cut so much into that newspaper that whatever reputation they had a decade ago is entirely gone. They used to be somewhat of a right leaning equivalent to the Globe and Mail, but this is no longer an equivalent, what comes out of that publication is now extremely poor quality, often entirely false.
This is not anywhere close to the WSJ.
Order
(2) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Minister may, by order,
...
(d) impose conditions on a telecommunications service provider’s provision of services to a specified person, including a telecommunications service provider;
...
Non-disclosure
(5) An order made under subsection (1) or (2) may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence, or some or all of its contents, by any person.
Factors
(6) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2), the Minister must consider
(a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(b) its financial impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and
(d) any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.
...
No compensation
(10) No one is entitled to any compensation from His Majesty in right of Canada for any financial losses resulting from the making of an order under subsection (1) or (2).
> (e) prohibit a telecommunications service provider from entering into a service agreement for any product or service used in, or in relation to, its telecommunications network or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities;
> (f) require that a telecommunications service provider terminate a service agreement referred to in paragraph (e);
Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.
--- You're "endangering national security" by "spreading harmful information online". Such speech is not protected by the charter. You are now banned from the Internet. ---
They probably won't do this right away, but the door is open.
And they shouldn't be able to do this to the ISP's suppliers either.
They also could not because the charter would prohibit it. While not all speech is protected by the charter (your categories aren't the right one, but there are categories like CSAM and hate speech), the government doesn't have the ability to prevent significant amounts of protected speech to prevent unprotected speech without invoking the notwithstanding clause (which this law does not).
You realize that while the charter still safeguards your freedoms, it will eventually be overturned if the populace gets used to more and more control over time. Laws like this are cracks in the dam. If you pay no attention to it or give it charitable interpretations, then someday the dam will crumble.
What sort of conditions would be allowable here? Its pretty easy to imagine conditions so onerous that it amounts to defacto termination of service.
Whatever conditions you impose they're going to have to
- Preserve access, because the wording of the law makes it clear that can't be removed.
- Be necessary to protect the telecommunications system from a threat (by the definition of 15.2)
- By the charter not be things that are punitive, substantially impact the ability of someone to speak (i.e. to access the internet), etc. For clarity free speech in Canada includes anonymity.
And I really don't see much of interest that complies with all of those. Were it not for the charter part I agree the conditions could be onerous, but "defacto termination of service" would likely be the bar where courts say that's too onerous without the charter.
How's it clear?
As we seen with the tariff court cases in the US (ie. does "regulate ... imports" mean the power to set tariffs?), vague language like this is exactly what an authoritarian government would use to justify their actions.
>Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.
So they can crush dissenters and maybe get overturned in 2-3 years time, by which time everyone forgot? That's exactly what happened with the convoy protests.
That's why I cited this excerpt.
You're welcome to respond to those posts if you believe I missed a bit somewhere.
I didn't read the article not because I would have to click on it, but because it is paywalled and I'm not giving them my money, as I said in the post you replied to.
Ad hominen is when you use an irrelavent insult in an argument. Not every criticism of a source is an ad hominem.
Edit: to clarify, i think there is a huge difference between saying something like: national post is known to lean right and not really like the liberals so we should verify they are fairly summarizing the liberal proposed law by actually reading the law in question (what parent did) vs for example, national post leans right therefore everything they say is bullshit and should be ignored (which would be an ad hominem)
No, it’s when you argue the truth based on dismissing the speaker. So if Carl is an idiot, and Carl says cats are real, it would be ad hominem to say cat’s aren’t real because Carl said so. (Dismissing an argument isn’t ad hominem per se. Neither is name calling. It’s concluding based on not liking the speaker.)
Is it still ad-hominem if you actually agree with Carl? Doesn't it make Carl's argument even stronger when you say "I'm always against Carl but this time he's right" which is the opposite of dismissing his idea, ad hominem or not?
If you conclude X is right because Carl said so, it’s argument from authority.
> Doesn't it make Carl's argument even stronger when you say "I'm always against Carl but this time he's right" which is the opposite of dismissing his idea, ad hominem or not?
No. It makes his rhetoric (essentially an argument about an argument) stronger. But not argument per se.
adjective - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
And they were given the benefit of a doubt and vindicated (in the commenter’s own opinion).
Meaning their position was judged on its own merits.
So not really ad hominem.
Ad hominem is a much more specific kind of non-rational argument.
All other arguments, directed at the source of the argument, that don't address the argument itself, are ad hominems.
Their expectation even had a reasonable explanation: their previous encounters with the source (as they saw them).
Then their actual judgment was on the merits.
And even their credibility expectations were based on actual experience (as they interpreted those) with the target, not something irrelevant to credibility.
It is a good example of someone whose experiences might have prompted them to make an ad hominem attack, but who didn't. The opposite of making such an attack if there is one.
Kudos that OP actually read it, but that doesn’t change “I thought the argument was weak because of who made it”
Bust most real-world news stories and other interesting claims of material fact (and even moreso, claims of things being good or bad) are not syllogisms where the major and minor premise are trivially verifiable and the conclusion either follows of logical necessity or not, but are, to the extent they can be framed as arguments, inductive arguments.
You are also wrong about what ad hominem is (there are plenty of counterarguments to a logical argument that are neither on point not ad honinem), but the bigger issue is that the subject here is mot a logical argument in th sense that would make your claim correct insofar as rejecting all counterarguments that do not falsify the argument by logical necessity.
"This source has a history of bias, but this article is accurate" is the opposite; it tells the reader not to draw an ad hominem conclusion.
At this point authoritarian pushes are the best case scenario - I’m fearing it’s preparation for wartime.
China is going to attack pearl harbour in the hopes that a sudden unexpected attack will cripple the pacific fleet and knock America out of the war. It won’t work, we’ll go through hell again. But every time these places think it will work, and they don’t factor in the fact that they are completely reliant on foreign trade for their economy.
Russia is pretty much in war economy now, they have no choice but to escalate and invade Eastern Europe. They have no chance of winning, but that never matters to crazy people.
If China cut trade ties with the US, which country do you think will still be able to produce everything it needs? People like to think of China as just a source of cheap consumer goods, but we are much more reliant on them than that. Every power plant has Chinese components that keep it functioning. Every farm, automobile, communication network, aircraft, factory.. they all rely on Chinese components and equipment. The list touches every facet of modern American life.
China could make the US unrecognizable within 5 years, without ever launching a single missile
Things would get a little more expensive. We are already seeing that with Trump's trade policies. But if the west-aligned world stopped trading with China their entire economy would collapse overnight, with mass unemployment.
It is a shame that Trump is deadset on alienating all of our natural allies in this conflict - especially those in the apac region.
If things get to that level of 'touchy' what makes you think shipping through that area wouldn't be interfered with? South Korea, Japan and arguably the Philippines are the main countries that wouldn't be going through areas that China regularly tries to claim or at least exercise authority over.
China hasn't fought a war in anyone's living memory. That is a hard place to fight nearly the whole world from.
Just an example from today:
"N8n raises $180M (n8n.io)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45525336
That's what the US (and Europe?) seems to invest in - but things like that doesn't make the US any more competitive with China.
What if instead it was $180M in new green mining tech or something.
They are now the manufacturing capital of the world, and our position of being the preeminent consumer in the world lasts only as long as our consumers can afford to purchase things.
China runs a precarious political situation which is only as strong as the country is economically stable - which currently it is veering to unstable. It goes without saying the US is also in a precarious situation - it is much more publicized due to the nature of the US airing all its dirty laundry publicly.
My main concern as a European is Russia. It is a historical truth that once a country goes through the process of starting a war economy it doesn’t usually dissolve or sit idle - conflict is going to happen there.
For America, watching from the outside, a civil war seems much more likely than direct war with china.
We are likely in pre-war era right now, dismissing it as "internet phenomenon" is shortsighted.
The Ukrainian war has been presented to me as a mad man trying to take over the world a la Hitler. I think it's more complicated and concerns about NATO expansion, the US Dollar as the world reserve currency, and Russia controlling warm water naval access make sense as motivations for the war, even though they are also be tools of propaganda. It seems clear that Russia believed they had the opportunity to establish themselves as a great power once again alongside China and the US in the "new multipolar world" they harp about.
My question is this: In light of this information, why has the Ukrainian conflict become seemingly (based on resources allocated and increasingly provocative drone incursions into NATO territories) existential for Russia? Are the us sanctions crippling long term without Ukrankan resources? Why are they willing to sacrifice so much if they already have Crimea free and clear?
This crashes with the western view where countries and populations have a right to self determination. Some of the countries that Russia want to fall under their sphere are also members of the EU, which make this even more problematic. Seen from Moscow, EU and western countries have encroached on their turf and this is a problem for them. Seen from the western side, this is wrong, and if Russia is such a bad neighbor that its neighbor join defensive alliances to get out from under their thumb, that is their own fault, and the way the world is supposed to work.
Russia also has a geographic vulnerability where there is no geographic chokepoints from at least Poland and straight to Moscow, which historically has given Russia problems.
Give this, there is actually a rational for what Russia is doing, personally I think it is a bad rational, but there is logic in the madness, even if from my perspective, it is based on a deeply wrong world view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
It's the idea that fraudulent elections in former Soviet states were not merely the result of fed-up populations, but were actually western backed conspiracies with the aim of eroding the Russian sphere of influence.
It’s really time to retire this type of statement. For example, are you aware the CIA or US government has officially acknowledged its involvement, or declassified documents pertaining to coups, overthrows, and assassinations in Iran, the Congo, South Vietnam, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Afghanistan?
Maybe this enlightened point of view is promoted by Western academics and (some) think tank types. But that is not how Western governments have been acting for at least the past 75 years.
Ukraine matters to NATO because they are turning more and more to our classical liberal values of freedom, and that is something NATO wants to encourage in general. (in general - note that Turkey and Hungary are part of NATO that don't want to encourage this, and there are other countries not sure)
We can only guess why Russia/Putin thinks Ukraine is existential to Russia. Our best guess is because they were a historical part of the Soviet Union that they are trying to restore. Putin cannot fulfill his vision without Ukraine. NATO countries like Latvia were also part of the Soviet union and so we expect they are next.
They can barely hold on to Eastern Ukraine, them taking the entirety of Ukraine is not likely at all given that they have had to slog for many years just to take and hold one small part of the country.
If they can’t even take all of Ukraine, I don’t think it’s very likely they try to attack any more of Europe.
And despite of 23k of sanctions they've imposed on Russia, which is the absolute record by a looooooong margin on its own.
And you conveniently forgot that Hitler was from Germany - Europe. And he was the one who invaded USSR - Russia. Not the other way around. As well as he, indirectly, invaded China - by the help of Japan.
The Internet and social media in its current form makes it easier for social groups to get larger and more intellectually and ideologically homogenous. As these groups get larger, it becomes harder for individuals to communicate across groups or think for themselves because there are various in-group moderation mechanisms (filtering, banning, ranking, deplatforming, cancel culture, etc). Eventually, the echo chambers become large enough to fight over who gets to run a nation's government. The winner turns into a government that moderates its people (like it always did before it became the government). Multiple such governments emerge around the world. This happened in cycles in the past as well, but modern technology facilitates the process.
To prevent this, we must realize two democratic principles simultaneously: "one shall have the freedom to decide what one sees and hears" and "one shall have the freedom to express whatever they like". It wasn't possible to realize both principles simultaneously in the past without a central authority because if someone is doing something in a public space, you cannot selectively filter them out. If you cover your eyes and ears, you block out not just that person, but everyone else as well. So we came up with rules for behavior in public spaces and wrote them into law. This didn't drastically raise the probability of a democratic society turning authoritarian because there were physical limits on practical group size. It was very hard to rally a large group of intellectually homogenous people. But the Internet and social media completely broke this safeguard imposed by physics. Now, echo chambers form naturally and grow rapidly.
To fix this, we must normalize not moderating or filtering content online in any centralized manner. Instead, we build user-configurable client-side content filters and ranking algorithms so that each individual can decide what they see and post, but nobody can decide what anybody else sees or posts.
We need to replace server-side content filters and ranking algorithms with offline solutions controlled by each individual on their own device. Get rid of likes and dislikes, and get rid of server-curated feeds. Have the server send a raw RSS feed of everything posted in the past day (or whatever time window, sparsely randomly sampled if there's too much) at once, then get it ranked and filtered on the user's device based on the user's preferences and viewing history, and then fetch the actual media associated with those feed entries.
This will, somewhat counterintuitively, increase social cohesion by limiting the inter-group rift between individuals and prevent the formation of large echo chambers. People will be more likely to engage with eachother in good faith. Authoritarian patterns will be more likely to naturally dissolve.
I think I'm missing something here. Why would people not just choose to remain in their echo chambers?
It would speed up the rate at which individuals become delusional. But once a certain divergence threshold is reached, they get corrected by reality. The proposed solution hypercharges this delusion-correction process and contains it at the individual level so that it's less likely to grow to the nation-state level where most of the violence and oppression is siloed.
In a democratic society where each person gets a vote, individual delusions of this sort cancel eachother out like random noise. What ends up being voted into law will be what people want in common.
?
They are unlikely to pass it directly without changes though. They are a minority government, and the Conservatives have been backed by foreign actors in various capacities in election cycles and are a strong enough opposition that they'll resent the crackdown, and the leftists are generally not fans of the local telecom industry (or the Liberal pandering to industry in general) and will probably want either less protection for telecoms or more protection for individuals.