[natoliniak]

> any site or service that makes sexually explicit materials available

so basically, the internet.

> Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible

At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. So yes, censorship under the cloak of "age verification" and "protecting kids". We have heard it all before. I'm surprised they didn't somehow stuff the "terrorism" angle in there as well.

[99_00]

>At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites.

It hasn't happened with any other censorship bill Canada has passed.

This includes laws on pronoun use:

Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained

>through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...

[bccdee]

That's not a censorship bill, that's an anti-harassment bill. Harassment is illegal everywhere: I'm not free to follow you around calling you an asshole. I could get charged for that, especially if you're my employee, tenant, or in the presence of other exacerbating factors. Canadian hate law says I'm not free to follow you around making disparaging comments about your race. C-16 expands that to say that I'm not allowed to follow you around disparaging your gender identity. That's it.

This bill, conversely, gives the government explicit power to block websites that host content that is not child-appropriate. Completely different.