Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Social Networks

Canada To Compel Digital Platforms To Remove Harmful Content (marketscreener.com) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the requiring-platforms-to-do-better dept.
According to the Wall Street Journal (paywalled), Canada has proposed new rules that would compel digital platforms to remove online content that features the sexual exploitation of children or intimate images without consent of the individuals involved. From a report: The rules were years in the making, and represent the third and possibly final installment of measures aimed at regulating digital platforms. Measures introduced since 2022 aim to increase the amount of domestic, Canadian-made content on streaming services, such as Netflix, and require digital platforms to help Canadian news-media outlets finance their newsroom operations. The legislation needs to be approved by Canada's Parliament before it takes effect.

Canada said its rules are based on concepts introduced by the European Union, the U.K. and Australia. Canadian officials say the proposed measures would apply to social-media platforms, adult-entertainment sites where users can upload content, and live-streaming services. These services, officials said, are expected to expeditiously remove two categories of content: That which sexually exploits a child or an abuse survivor, and intimate content broadcast without an individual's consent. The latter incorporates so-called revenge porn, or the nonconsensual posting or dissemination of intimate images, often after the end of a romantic relationship. Officials said private and encrypted messaging services are excluded from the proposed regulations.

Canadian officials said platforms will have a duty to either ensure the material is not published, or take it down once notified. Canada also intends to set up a new agency, the Digital Safety Commission, to enforce the rules, order harmful content taken down, and hold digital services accountable. Platforms that violate the rules could face a maximum penalty of up to 25 million Canadian dollars, or the equivalent of $18.5 million, officials said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada To Compel Digital Platforms To Remove Harmful Content More

Canada To Compel Digital Platforms To Remove Harmful Content

Comments Filter:

  • It's not like child porn and harassment weren't already covered by existing laws.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      This is because Trudeau's administration intends to use this on fringe minority with unacceptable views and after courts declared the first use unlawful, they won't be able to use war measures act again.
      • Nothing about that ruling will prevent him or anyone else from using it again in the exact same way if he can get the support of enough MPs and Senators. The ruling would certainly make it harder to garner the support needed and maybe the Supreme Court would crush it after the vote but I wouldn't count on that since they didn't do anything last time.

        That ruling is also likely to face an appeal. Covid really exposed how useless the Canadian charter is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by farrellj ( 563 )

        This is because Trudeau's administration intends to use this on fringe minority with unacceptable views

        Oh, true, where "fringe minority" means racists, fascists, misogynists, etc. And "unacceptable views" means hatred and intolerance. Right on, 100% true!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        This is because Trudeau's administration intends to use this on fringe minority with unacceptable views and after courts declared the first use unlawful, they won't be able to use war measures act again.

        As opposed to the Pierre Pollieve (Conservative) plan on requiring all "adult sites" do age verification. Where "adult" consists of anything involving abortion, LGBTQ2+ issues, medical services related to same, pronoun usage, etc.

        Which was promptly blasted because the plan involved scanning government issued

    • I can see the porn one requiring an update. Their silly dialogue boxes asking if you are over 18 seem to be enough to keep them in line with the law. It makes me wonder though if adult video stores in the past could have gotten away with simply asking a minor was over 18 without making them show ID.

      • Re:It surprises me that new laws are needed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday February 26, 2024 @09:56PM (#64271286)

        Yes, but *any* online age verification scheme will automatically mean the end of privacy for adults. Period. It is not the same as in the old days when you showed an ID and all the person got from it was a validation of age. They didn't scan and retain all the info on the ID and put it in a database that was networked to various different "partners" of the business and the government. That are later misused, or disclosed with a security breech. I am very tired of people comparing on-line age verification with being "carded" at a store 40 years ago.

        Policing children should be and must be the job of parents (and agents in which they leave their children). If the parents don't, then other family and finally the government should step in to do it. I have said it before and will over and over- children should *NOT* have open access to the Internet on *ANY* device. It isn't just about porn. To me, doing so is outright child abuse. We don't let children have unsupervised access to TONS of physical things in the real world, including tons of things that do not need an ID to obtain.

        • The end of privacy for adults wanting to use domestic porn services yes. Gambling sites requiring me to send a photo of myself holding my ID didn't end all privacy for me. Crypto exchanges would be another example. It's going to create a new type of black/grey market for sure, well not even new I guess there are likely many sites already serving up porn that won't change anything since the canadian gov holds no power over them. It will really suck if Poilievre comes to power and implements site blocking

          • Re:It surprises me that new laws are needed (Score:4, Insightful)

            by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday February 26, 2024 @10:15PM (#64271326)

            >"The end of privacy for adults wanting to use domestic porn services yes."

            It goes far beyond just that, as you well know. Again, *any* site could expose minors to porn, gambling, violence, drugs, disturbing concepts, or any number of hundreds of things they are not ready to see/read/experience. How will you stop the gross and nasty spam in Email? Require every Email user to submit an ID and fingerprints before having a mailbox? We shouldn't be locking up "the world" for *adults*, and violating THEIR privacy because parents won't do their job....

          • Gambling sites requiring me to send a photo of myself holding my ID didn't end all privacy for me.

            Not all but certainly a shit ton.

            • Which ones don't? Do you mean crypto gambling sites? Any site I've come across dealing in dollars has made me show ID. I suspect they also want to stop sharp money from hitting their sportsbooks beyond the KYC regulatory stuff.
        • Not necessarily, you could use a trusted identity provider (IP). Could even be a governmental one. All that the porn site gets from the IP is "yup, this person is over 18". You could even add an intermediary provider to ensure that the IP doesn't learn which porn site you visit (it'll still know you are looking at porn, there being few other use cases for online age verification).

          • Some entity in the chain will still know both sides. Granted, there is probably some very complex way it could be done. But that assumes a lot of correct stuff, which, in the real world, I doubt would happen.

        • Yes, but *any* online age verification scheme will automatically mean the end of privacy for adults. Period.

          Is that absolutely true? I think perhaps not. Imagine a government site (or delegated by the government) that keeps data on individuals/ citizens. The government already has that, so no loss of privacy. Citizens get an account, they can log in, somehow. Mister X logs on. He wants to visit a site which needs to check his age. His device gets a cookie or token that contains the type of validation that

          • >"So what did I miss?"

            That you have no way to know that the token the site ultimately gets can't be traced back to your identity from the issuer. Or the other way around (the site discloses itself to the authority and so now there is a record). I don't have trust it would be done right.

            And let's be real. Such a system probably isn't going to be made. And even if it were, it is also a choke-point the government can create to deny you access to something because they want to. And it encourages sites t

            • I see your point and agree that it's better to be safe than sorry. However, if the token can be inspected on my end before passing it on, it could be okay, right? The reason I ask is that such a system has been proposed or is again in proposal in Switzerland.

        • Yes, but *any* online age verification scheme will automatically mean the end of privacy for adults. Period.

          Not necessarily. For instance, here's one.

          I, an adult, go into a registry service, show my id and am let into a room.

          At that point, I pull a single card from a large box of cards and walk out (no way to easily see who got which card).

          That card has an ID code on it, and by entering that ID code into a website it means I'm an adult and can look at adult content. If that ID code gets used too many times (ie, it's obviously being shared) it gets cancelled and I need to get a new one.

          There ya go. Anonymity prote

          • >"That card has an ID code on it, and by entering that ID code into a website it means I'm an adult and can look at adult content. If that ID code gets used too many times (ie, it's obviously being shared) it gets cancelled and I need to get a new one."

            So how do you do that completely online? That is kinda the assumption with my statement. Neat idea, though, even if impractical. Of course, someone will also immediately point out that the card could just be straw-purchased.

            >"So parents don't have th

            • >"That card has an ID code on it, and by entering that ID code into a website it means I'm an adult and can look at adult content. If that ID code gets used too many times (ie, it's obviously being shared) it gets cancelled and I need to get a new one."

              So how do you do that completely online? That is kinda the assumption with my statement.

              You could have trusted 3rd parties do verification and hand out the codes, you're stuck in the position of trusting the 3rd party so not completely anonymous, but it's a partial solution.

              Neat idea, though, even if impractical. Of course, someone will also immediately point out that the card could just be straw-purchased.

              True, but straw purchasing doesn't scale well (recall, codes get cancelled if they're used too much / from too many locations).

              >"So parents don't have the right to let their child have unrestricted Internet access?

              Should parents have the "right" to let their kids play with live guns unsupervised? Or have sex with adults? Watch any TV program/movie/channel they want? Allow a 4 year old to cross a busy street alone? View nude magazines? Have unsupervised time with a total stranger? This isn't about "rights" it is about responsibility.

              Some yes, some no, some not sure.

              I think Internet falls in the realm of parental discretion.

              Now say that with all the other things they should be doing as parents to protect their children. It should be all of them, as best they can.

              Computers are MUCH more complicated to secure.

              • >"Computers are MUCH more complicated to secure."

                Secure from children being able to get into them to use devices they shouldn't? No. All phones/tablets/computers have logins now. Just use it (and with a non-obvious/non-findable password).

                Secure WHILE children are using them? Yes, but not insanely so. It is a lot easier to do that securing them from determined black-hats, though. But I wouldn't expect any typical parents to have to develop it themselves.

                I have some experience with using forced proxi

                • >"Computers are MUCH more complicated to secure."

                  Secure from children being able to get into them to use devices they shouldn't? No. All phones/tablets/computers have logins now. Just use it (and with a non-obvious/non-findable password).

                  Secure WHILE children are using them? Yes, but not insanely so. It is a lot easier to do that securing them from determined black-hats, though.

                  Many people can't even change their browser defaults, there's a lot of parents who will struggle with settings.

                  But I wouldn't expect any typical parents to have to develop it themselves.

                  I have some experience with using forced proxies and whitelists. And the rest is basic OS security- preventing installation of apps, choosing which apps that are installed can be run by whom and when, preventing changing settings, etc.

                  So you're prefacing this on a system/product that doesn't even exist yet.

                  Email only through structured program and only to/from approved contacts. If phone- texting and calls only to/from approved contacts.

                  That exists already.

                  And it won't be perfect- for example, you can't ever just allow youtube or wikipedia, because there can be no appropriate sub-filtering (currently, that I know of).

                  Yet YouTube kids is a thing that lots of parents rely on.

                  For supervised access, it is far easier because the adult is co-navigating and can help prevent bad exposure and/or explain accidental exposure.

                  Yes, it would take some effort. But, with an appropriate device, I suspect no more effort than helping a child with homework for a few nights.

                  Do you have kids? Half the reason for devices is so that the parents can do something other than actively supervise the kids 24/7.

                  Sure, parents needs to be involved. But they can't be co-navigating the whole time.

                  • >"Many people can't even change their browser defaults, there's a lot of parents who will struggle with settings."

                    Of course. A lot can't fix plumbing or change a tire or cut hair. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

                    >"So you're prefacing this on a system/product that doesn't even exist yet."

                    Yes and no. You can do this now, it just might not be a good as it could be. No unsupervised access at all is better than no restrictions.

                    >"Half the reason for devices is so that the parents can do somet

    • Probably like most liberal's bill's, that isn't what its ment for. They probably using that as claim what its intended for but what its ment for is other stuff.

      • Following in the good old conservative path of "accuse them of what we do so we don't look so bad".

    • It's not like child porn and harassment weren't already covered by existing laws.

      They are. That's not the problem. The problem is that interwebs pipes corporations are getting away with flouting/not complying with those laws. Time to let them know they're not so special anymore. I'm sure there'll be some overly entitled pushback from the interwebs bro's about this but for the vast majority of people it's a good thing to hold corporations accountable for spreading child pornography, revenge porn, & other things that are effectively regulated elsewhere.

      • Depends a lot on how the law is worded. It's fine that content providers are obliged to take down offending material when they are made aware of it. It's quite another thing to make content providers responsible for finding offending content, and levying harsh fines if they miss something. This is what was proposed earlier in the EU, and it can lead to censorship-by-proxy if it is coupled with vague boundaries: hosting companies will err on the side of caution. Once those laws cover not only kiddie porn

  • Pornhub is Canadian (Score:4, Informative)

    by mkwan ( 2589113 ) on Monday February 26, 2024 @09:22PM (#64271210)
    Pornhub's parent company, Aylo (formerly MindGeek), is based in Montreal.

    So this could have global implications ... unless they just shift their operations to another country.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mapcan ( 1051372 )
      No sex please. We're British.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      PornHub already went through a purge due to lawsuits for involuntary pornography. The law is catching up with what they were forced to do by the victims anyway.

  • Define harmful.

  • Fuck right off.

  • The bill is limited and well defined. So you can get into trouble for advocating genocide. What civilized society wouldn't do such a thing?

    Frankly this isn't egregious. Only the paranoid who get their Canadian news from Rebel News will think otherwise,.and continue to throw their support to the party that wants to implement a digital id just to access Reddit.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sinij ( 911942 )

      The bill is limited and well defined. So you can get into trouble for advocating genocide. What civilized society wouldn't do such a thing?

      You lack imagination. If this passes, people will be prosecuted for advocating 'climate genocide' or 'trans genocide' for simply criticizing government policies.

      • No they won't. There is nothing in the law that suggests this to be the case.

        Saying for example that you disagree with gay marriage is not equivalent to advocating killing all gay people.

        The former is not punishable while the latter is.

        • Re: Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday February 26, 2024 @10:21PM (#64271338)
          It is already illegal to misgender someone in Canada (Bill C-16), and they already declared genocide against Indigenous Peoples. It is not a stretch to imagine that, for example, opposing puberty blockers in prepubescent kids would be called trans genocide.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sinij ( 911942 )
            Here is another probable example - criticizing IDF's [wikipedia.org] conduct in Gaza would be equated with genocide of Jews.

          • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            I was going to bring up Bill C-16. Not a single person has been prosecuted for merely misgendering someone. Despite what Jordan Peterson and others claimed, it hasn't compelled anyone to speak.

            If you read the actual law, it just allows for repeated and deliberate misgendering to be used as part of a wider case of discrimination or harassment, and it must be supported by other evidence. Nobody is compelled to do anything, as they can simply avoid using pronouns if they feel that they are unable to utter the

    • Yes, "survivor of abuse" sounds limited and well defined.

  • Cat and mouse game... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    All this will do is ensure people wind up going to Telegram or Tik-Tok where enforcement is out of Canadian hands. Of course, the next step would be SOPA/PIPA blocking of offshore sites, but then VPNs... and the government then starts working on a GFC-like thing to detect and block those.

    Overall, this won't end well.

  • ...Free Speech.

    Fixed this headline too

    • ...Free Speech.

      Fixed this headline too

      Yeah, that's about right.

      And if the platforms being censored by Canadian officials don't like it they might just BLOCK THEIR CONTENT from access in Canada. Not like that hasn't happened before.

  • Prediction:

    Everything that is intentionally harmful to white people will be ignored, and everything that could be construed even vaguely, potentially, maybe be of some disadvantage to their enemies will be persecuted to the fullest extent possible. Including of course criticism to the regime, because they can't continue with that if they're deposed some day.

  • i found this software that detects child porn windows machines PinPoint Auditor delivers powerful automated scanning technology to help organizations detect and control inappropriate material such as pornography and other illicit files in the workplace. It can remotely scan the machines and has a free trial available at https://pinpoint.hyperdynesoft... [hyperdynesoftware.com]

  • Everything not compulsory is forbidden.

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.

Close