[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

So what's the deal with Poilievre floating the idea of requiring proof of age to browse porn in Canada?

Does he genuinely believe there is a significant problem, and this is a good solution?

Does he think it's a vote getter?

Does he not really care and owes someone action on this brief, and he figures his lead is big enough that he can deliver without jeopardizing his shot at becoming Prime Minister?

What's going on here?

[HVC]

But then you can't block everyone else and make baby Jesus happy

That's really the main issue.
Same with abortion.  People can't keep it zipped, so they have to control women's bodies.

Hey, he's the guy you're going to vote for, not me

pfft.  I'm not going to vote for any of these clowns.

Then I gave you less credit then you deserved

[HVC]

So what's the deal with Poilievre floating the idea of requiring proof of age to browse porn in Canada?

Does he genuinely believe there is a significant problem, and this is a good solution?

Does he think it's a vote getter?

Does he not really care and owes someone action on this brief, and he figures his lead is big enough that he can deliver without jeopardizing his shot at becoming Prime Minister?

What's going on here?

He seems to be going for election by sound bite (or YouTube clip). Throwing stuff out there to see what sticks without any actual plans to accomplish any of his claims, or it seems, conviction. Which in of itself is dangerous since with his core demographic the further to American right the better, and he seems to be the type to run with that tide. Trump of the north.

[Sheilbh]

So what's the deal with Poilievre floating the idea of requiring proof of age to browse porn in Canada?

To an extent it may be something that's on its way to Canada anyway.

There's a similar law in the UK (Online Safety Act) and the EU (Digital Services Act). Both of which have been very, very limited so far and it's proving difficult to roll out. My understanding is that Californian legislators have also been looking at this - if it happens in California and the EU then it'll basically happen everywhere unless it's a very shady site or very, very Canadian focused porn

In both the UK and the EU it's been mainly focused on responsibilities of platforms and the theory has been that whatever is lawful or unlawful in the real world should also be lawful or unlawful in the digital world. But so far I don't think age gating has actually been required because it's really difficult to do - here there's definitely lots of preparatory legislation to eventually introduce a form of digial ID that you would be able to use online in the way you could use your driving licence to buy a porn mag in person. But we're a long way off that and there's lots of issues with it.

Does he genuinely believe there is a significant problem, and this is a good solution?

I'm not a parent and I'm late-30s. I think there's real concerns around what underage kids can see online and the effect that's having - in particular on boys. I've read many pieces by young women about how their sexual experience with boys and the sexual expectations of those boys have been kind of fucked up by porn. I don't know the extent to which it's really an issue.

Most women around my age who I know have all had choking in sex, but also hair-pulling, face slap, spitting - all were in the context of consensual sex, with normal guys. But generally it wasn't something that those women particularly wanted (it was in the context of complaining about men) or enjoyed, but was ultimately seen by them and the men as ultimately relatively normal acts in sex (at around the line of light spanking). I think some of that at least is shaped by the easy access to porn and what porn sex looks like (and who it's for: men). I do think we probably need conversation around it. And there is a big generational shift - I think women over 40 find that shocking but anecdotally from those same women around my age, I've heard that they've had (from their pov) alarming chats with younger women and what's "normal" for them. Again I think it's around the extent to which porn is perhaps actually creating the sense for boys of what is normal in sex.

Having said that I'm not sure age-gating will work. I think there are wider, bigger problems with age-gating as an idea. Also this may just be a shift in sexual mores - although I'm not overly thrilled if the shift in sexual mores seems to be for the men (groundbreaking)... And, frankly, I think it's a wider common thing (not to terrify the parents on here ) of not really knowing what their kids see online. It may be something that actually there is a conversation about around consent within consensual sex - and also, the purpose of sex, which should be both people enjoying themselves. But I've spoken to colleagues in their 50s who have no idea where their late teen kids get their news. And can you have a conversation about something if you don't know what's been seen?

[Grey Fox]

Imo, you've put your finger in the proverbial finger in the wound. Parents do not know, or when they know understand, what their children are doing online. Since today's parents are the first children/teens with the internet, they know what we did back then with the internet. It's now an on going concern with their children.

Everything they interact with on the internet is problematic.

[Jacob]

All the bits about the impact of pornography, sure.

It's just that I'm not sure that digital ID gatekeeping is going to be 1) effective nor 2) popular in Canada; and I don't think it's a topic that's high on public priorities either.

[Jacob]

Imo, you've put your finger in the proverbial finger in the wound. Parents do not know, or when they know understand, what their children are doing online. Since today's parents are the first children/teens with the internet, they know what we did back then with the internet. It's now an on going concern with their children.

Everything they interact with on the internet is problematic.

Exactly.

I'm massively concerned with the impact of the internet and social media on my children. I don't really have a good plan for how to manage it, and sure I'm in the market for solutions.

It's just that porn - while definitely part of it - doesn't rank that high on the lists of concerns; and that "digital ID age-gating access to porn" doesn't seem like it'll be particular effective. And at the same time, data-collection and privacy are also a massive concern (including for my children), and in that problem-space a digital ID is pretty concerning.

[Sheilbh]

I'm massively concerned with the impact of the internet and social media on my children. I don't really have a good plan for how to manage it, and sure I'm in the market for solutions.

It's just that porn - while definitely part of it - doesn't rank that high on the lists of concerns; and that "digital ID age-gating access to porn" doesn't seem like it'll be particular effective. And at the same time, data-collection and privacy are also a massive concern (including for my children), and in that problem-space a digital ID is pretty concerning.

Yeah - so this is the other side. I think Canada is reforming its privacy laws but it's that bit which is partly why the twin drivers are Europe and California, not just market size. And it's very nuanced and sort of developing. I think this is where there are two sides coming together on digital ID/age gating.

Part of the attraction of digital ID or age-gating more generally is you could, in effect, create a less intrusive internet that does not collect data or track people, or target them for advertising. If you know the user is an adult or a child then you can design a different space and experience. Not just because legally children can't access porn but also because legally it's meant to be very difficult to track children online, it's broadly more difficult to collect their data (in Europe and California) and you're not allowed to profile or targeting advertising at them.

The defence of Google (or Pornhub for that matter) is, we do not know who accessing our service. We are not targeting children and we don't intend them to use our services (this is the argument that TikTok have run). But we've done all we can, we can't stop them - we just don't know. There's some tools that are used so Google flags requests from an educational IP address as children but it's limited and practically I'm not sure how effective it is.

So you have this argument coming from children's rights activists. For example, you might have a data-light version of your product for children, you might know you can just block "lawful but harmful content" like the self-harm or eating disorder promoting accounts on social media. You then also have the what is illegal in person is illegal online argument about age-gating porn specifically (and once you've done porn - it's a lot easier to turn that on for the rest of the internet). I think those two sides are coalescing around porn - in Europe and California - but I think it will be the thin end of the wedge.

And it's part of the wider online harms, disinformation, intimidation, abuse regulatory changes particularly in Europe - because a digital ID helps remove a lot of the platform's defence that we just don't know. The exchange is the platforms would now know - and, I'd argue, be performing a quasi-regulatory/judicial function as a private company. The other bit in Europe is that there is a lot of ideas about how this could also tie to you welfare entitlements, healthcare etc and could you use a digital ID with the private sector to access the internet appropriate for your age, for your online banking etc but also could it be used with a more digital (cheaper) state. That's what a lot of the digital ID legislation is looking towards but it's not there yet.

I should say I am massively cynical and concerned about most of these laws. I think they're concentrating power in the hands of the major platforms who created the internet we currently live in, which I'm not sure is great. As ever there's a bit of a "even Google support this" about it - of course Google support it, it makes them more central to the infrastructure of the internet. I think it's all well meaning on its own, but collectively I think is a genuine risk from a civil liberties and free speech perspective. I am, however aware, that there is no political position with less popular support than caring about civil liberties

[HVC]

It's funny that one type of the morally indignant target, drugs, we're moving to the understanding that outlawing or hindering the minor (say pot), we open up the possibility of access to harder drugs. Same dealers.  But, going by sheilbh, we're doing the opposite to another morally indignant target. Pushing porn into the darker corners of the internet will just make the hard core shit more available to the passive user.

People like porn, people will find porn. People won't want to give ID. The further you push it down the weirder shit you'll get. Look at the victorians. They were sickos

[Sheilbh]

I have to be honest the thing I find weird about drugs is that we're slow but there is conversation about more decriminalisation. Which is good if it's taken too long.

At the same time a Conservative government (a Conservative government!) is planning to ban smoking (basically the age you can by cigarettes will increase a year every year until no-one can smoke). Or, say, very detailed rules about what types of food supermarkets can put on offer or how you can advertise them (the High in Fat, Sugar or Salt foods), or the sugar tax on soft drinks.

I find it two very, very weird tracks. And as with the internet because I am basically a bit dubious on these laws, it all turns me into a libertarian of some sort which is regrettable

[HVC]

People like to control others actions. Makes them feel better about themselves. I'm good and moral, you're bad. As you take away what they can use, drugs, sexuality, whatever, they find new things (either brand new, or old things that they can put a new shine on)

[Sheilbh]

People like to control others actions. Makes them feel better about themselves. I'm good and moral, you're bad. As you take away what they can use, drugs, sexuality, whatever, they find new things (either brand new, or old things that they can put a new shine on)

I often think about the poll done recently that found that 20% of British people would support the covid lockdown restrictions being imposed again. 25% supported restricting meetings to outdoors with no more than 6 people. About a third supported closing down nightclubs permanently.

Just reading it made me feel like I was living in They Live - obviously I've no issue with any of those restrictions in the context of a global pandemic, but just generally...  

[HVC]

How many of those people were Presbyterian?

[Sheilbh]

How many of those people were Presbyterian?

The haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having fun.

[HVC]

Say what you will about Catholics, but at least they are the fun Christians