this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7133 readers
357 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A House of Commons committee is set to study legislation proposed by Independent Sen. Julie Miville-DechΓͺne that would require Canadians to verify their age to access porn online.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

At this point there are people in their forties who had access to online porn as minors. Have any actual studies been done to show that a significant portion of the many, many people who've grown up in the last 20-30 years have been harmed by having access to online porn while they were younger, or are these laws just something that's trendy at the moment?

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'm in my 50's and never had issues finding porn/alcohol/drugs when I was under 18, even though I was in a religious area for part of it.

These people are sniffing glue if they actually think this bill will do anything other than erode privacy.

At best all it will do is lead kids away from normal sites and towards the sketchy parts of the web where things get even weirder.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The goal is to erode privacy, and the pearl clutching about children is always the excuse. There are a lot of groups who want to eliminate privacy online: cops, copyright holders, and religious nuts to name a few. They're the ones driving this stuff.

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm kind of disappointed that the Ndp voted in favor of this bullshit plan.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ugh. I hadn't heard. I expected better, but the NDP have been a terrible disappointment in the last decade or so.

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago

Ya, it seems every time they take a step or two forward they somehow end up taking a step back again.

[–] SheerDumbLuck@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's a HUGE lobbying effort to convince the people in power that this is a good idea. Lots of tech-surveillance companies bidding for this to go through, so everyone is forced to use their services. You think identity theft is bad now? Wait until you need to put your ID on the internet and that gets leaked.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If age verification is really the intent then it ought to be possible to develop a service these websites can call into that gives some kind of zero-knowledge age check. The age check service doesn't need to know the identity of the service that's asking, and the requesting service doesn't need to know the identity of the person whose age they're checking. You'd authenticate on a site that only knows someone's doing an age check, and the verifying site would just get a token indicating that the age check was successful.

Am I missing some reason why this wouldn't be possible? It seems to be a problem ripe for zero-knowledge solutions.

If it is possible, there's really no need for an age check requirement to involve disclosing your identity to the site you're visiting, or to disclose your viewing habits to anyone. And if governments or lobbyists are pushing for everyone to upload their full identity to web sites, it suggests either they're ignorant or their motives aren't what they claim.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

There are many studies that indicate porn use can negatively affect your brain, sexual performance, and pro-social behaviour.

Porn linked to decreased grey matter

Porn addiction linked to lower executive functioning

Porn linked to negative social behaviour

Meta analysis on research into adolescents porn use discusses a range of negative outcomes such as anxiety, suicidal ideation, social isolation, and academic disengagement

I'm not really sure this law will "solve" the problem, or if it's a good solution to the problem. But there are real, negative outcomes of internet porn

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There seems to be a lot of issues with the methodology used in those studies.

For example, "...reported hours of pornography consumption per week....". Hours seems excessive. What's the average duration for all visitors?

And, "Women were excluded from the research, because men more easily encounter such problems due to their frequent contact with pornographic materials.". That's an assumption. Women can also have "frequent contact " with porn, so they should have included women.

And one of them seemed to suggest that men who watched more porn had ED. But maybe men with ED first, have had to use porn to help? Chicken and egg situation.

I'm not defending porn, and I tend to make data driven choices.

But I'm acutely aware that methodology can have averse effects on the conclusion, and I tend to be highly skeptical of studies that appear to manipulate the outcome with their selection bias.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I agree some are problematic. The first one is based on brain scans, which is hard to refute. And there are many more like it

The porn industry has a vested interest in suppressing this, and billions of dollars to spend muddying the waters.

[–] Doubleohdonut@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

There's also a huge spectrum of consumption between porn addiction and adolescant curiosity. These studies seem to reference several consumption quantities which go beyond the scope of the original question.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

The first one is based on brain scans, which is hard to refute.

Yes, but the participant selection was dubious.

Also, while brain scans are used, it's impossible to form a conclusion based on it.

For instance, do men with less grey matter watch more porn? Or does watching more porn cause men to have less grey matter?

A similar study was done on vegetarians. I don't recall the details, but it went somewhere along the lines of "vegetarians have more brain activity associated with empathy". Does that mean vegetarianism improves empathy? Or do empathetic people naturally gravitate towards vegetarianism?

Behavioral studies are so much harder to do compared to health studies. I don't envy the study coordinators!

But more data can always bring us closer to answers, so I'm glad that at least some informational gaps are being filled.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Same with Alcohol for those points you listed.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

And the alcohol providers are legally responsible for checking the age of the people they sell it to and can face fines if they don't.

That's the crux of the issue, if you provide age restricted material anywhere outside the internet you can lose your right to sell it if you don't make sure people aren't underage and now there's Canadian companies that face no consequences for doing so because they operate on the web.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Fake IDs though, have always been a thing. Banning / Age restriction does not work with the Internet.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I fear internet ID is coming whether we like it or not. AI powered bots will pass all captchas and be indistinguishable from humans. The open, pseudonymous internet cannot survive under those conditions. You could spend all day without seeing a comment by a real human.

[–] Numpty@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

You could spend all day without seeing a comment by a real human.

Have you been playing on Reddit again?

[–] cheezits@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

And theyre calling it ArriveCam

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

It's the year 2024 and legislators STILL don't understand that the internet doesn't have borders. They can regulate PH because its a Canadian company, but good luck getting every other porn site on the internet to comply

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There is Very Probably No way to get around this kind of thing. You know until GovCan allows Bell and Rogers to filter "hackers" traffic to protect Canadians.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

And then you just upgrade your VPN software, and look for sketchier providers. We could switch to an intranet like Cuba, but then our economy might end up like Cuba because it will suck. And I would switch to pirate radio bursts to move content around, so I'm still going to be able to get my scientific papers without buying them. Or porn.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If there were a standardized large scale mesh network I would be all over that. Like if everyone agreed (before governments get too handsy) on a TCP/IP over HAM setup, a 'free' internet could be built and ready to go when the corporate owned networks go 1984.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So on a second read, I think you might be talking about a situation where the government still allows an alternate system to operate, at least if it's established. I already wrote this up from the same worst-case perspective as in OP.

For daily driving, the trick with that would be offering something commercial providers can't, other than an abstract long-term argument. Without that, you're basically just trying to start your own ISP, but without any investors. For enthusiast use, see APRS below, which is a thing.


APRS is kind of the relevant current standard. The trick is that being carried by radios that are unpredictable, it has no upper bound on latency (I think). If you want the same browsing experience (TCP especially needs a lot of back and forth) that's really hard, because presumably big brother isn't going to let you have a mesh station online for very long.

The burst thing I was talking about is genuinely how spies do it in locked-down places like Eritrea or Turkmenistan - you go to a busy public place and absolutely hog bandwidth for just one second, using a disguised radio, and then wander out with your groceries before the radio detectors can catch up. I suppose open-source resources for that would be good, if they don't already exist.

I'd love to look at the transport layer of NATO's system. It's designed for both wartime (so arbitrary failure rate, type and pattern) and extensibility, and I'd be fascinated to know how they did it. Unfortunately, it's also a big damn secret, to the point it's the main thing they bring up when the media asks about China getting their hands on a working F-35. I'd also anticipate that it relies on every user registered as friendly acting friendly, at least over the long term.

One of the things that's on my future project list is over-the-air crypto, so you can pay someone to transmit your 50 meg thoughtcrime video slowly but persistently. As far as I know there's no prohibition on digital sigs (like there is on encryption), so it should be doable somehow.