Canada’s proposed Bill S-209, which addresses online age verification, is currently making its way through the Senate, and its passage would be yet another mistake in tech policy.

The bill is intended to restrict young peoples’ access to online pornography and to hold providers to account for making it available to anyone under 18. It may be well-intentioned, but the manner of its proposed enforcement – mandating age verification or what is being called “age-estimation technologies” – is troubling.

Globally, age-verification tools are a popular business, and many companies are in favour of S-209, particularly because it requires that websites and organizations rely on third parties for these tools. However, they bring up long-standing concerns over privacy, especially when you consider potential leaks or hacks of this information, which in some cases include biometrics that can identify us by our faces or fingerprints. [...]

all 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 76 points 11 months ago*

Its not "well intentioned”, the silpery slope is the point. Getting porn sites to essentially self censor by restricting what geographic regions have accesss until one day its the majority of places and suddenly banning porn sites in the remaining hold outs doesnt seem like such a hard sell, and then on to other subjects they dont like.

  • source
  • [–] 55 points 11 months ago* (20 children)

    It's always referred to as age verification, but it's ID verification. It's the introduction of a regime where you can't use the internet without everyone knowing exactly who you are, and without the government being able to track your activity via your ID. Governments around the world are making what must surely be a coordinated effort to end anonymity, and thus privacy, online. In other countries this has gone along with a push to end encryption for phone calls and chat, and a push to outlaw VPNs. Canada's government is embarking on a program that's very hostile to its own population.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago* (18 children)

    What's the difference? I use ID verification to buy alcohol and marijuana. They have no idea I'm old enough for sure, they trust the license.

    The scenario you describe about using the internet with a regime knowing everything, has been the default in North America for about a decade.

    This slippery slope argument is nonsense. There is a problem, and this is the tool we have to attempt to fix it with. Half the people on here seem to want to argue that porn has no negative effects on developing children and teens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (17 children)

    You don't store and track who buys alcohol by that ID when you go to a shop, you just show them it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    They scan my ID and absolutely save it and sell the data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (15 children)

    Didn't know the dude at the liquor store you flashed your ID to was rocking the meta raybands

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    I'm not going to keep explaining, believe me or dont.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (13 children)

    Do you have proof that the LCBO or gas stations scan and resell your ID?

    That sounds like the very definition of 'big if true'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (12 children)

    I never said they resell the ID. Are you saying porn sites are reselling IDs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (11 children)

    Collecting and reselling any data is far easier done by a website than it would be by the corner LCBO.

    But did you or did you not say the LCBO scans the ID and sells the data? I have to admit I've never seen that happen. What do they scan it with?

    Anyway there is no way to argue that handing a guy your ID for a glance to buy cigs, weed or alcohol is less safe than uploading to some random porn site on the internet, even if they didn't store your data (and I believe strongly that they would store your data for documenting the verification... either they would, or the third party that does the service)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (10 children)

    I'm saying they are the same safety. There's alternative ways to get porn without giving an ID and its not even illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (9 children)

    If they implement age verification on porn sites, what will be the other nonillegal ways to get porn without ID?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (8 children)

    Is it illegal to download directly from one person? Is filesharing illegal? What about torrents?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (7 children)

    Yes torrent and file-sharing in most cases violates copyright and is therefore illegal.

    That fact won't stop people, especially teens, from doing it. But it is a fact.

    As with most things involving kids, open, healthy and honest communication is the best way. If you don't have that then no constraints will really contain them, they will find a way around them, they will sneak around behind your back, and you will lose their trust.

    Edit - I'm curious, do you believe it's acceptable to spank children?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (6 children)

    Not all porn is copyright.

    If parents can't keep track of their kids, there needs to be a way for society to make up for it. We can't have a bunch of drunk kids running around just because some parents are shitty.

    Parents should keep their kids off of porn, porn sharing websites should also do their part to keep kids off their service.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

    You're acting as if there aren't negative impacts to privacy. Adults should not have to give their identity over to web sites to enjoy content. Identification theft is a real thing.

    Moreover, we already have solutions for this. Parents can block content at the router, and at this point every ISP allows you to set up security and content filters.

    This is puritan, social conservative bullshit. It's a thin edge of the wedge ultimately aimed at making pornography illegal.

    I'm curious - are you religious?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Then dont use the content if you dont think its worth sharing your ID.

    Its funny you think that all parents have the knowledge and capability to block content at their router. Its also funny you think pre-teens and teenagers only access the internet in their own home. Guess they can't have friends either, or use the computer their school requires them to have.

    This isn't puritan, it's the most basic amount of friction that could be added to make something less convenient, so that less kids will be tempted to just open up pornhub and scroll.

    You are being selfish, you dont care about children, or society, you make that very clear. YOU dont want to give up YOUR ID, so it must be a bad thing right?

    Edit: not religious. You think I'm arguing on behalf of god here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    I have a great relationship with my kids that is built on communication and honesty. You don't know anything about me, try not to be presumptuous about my character. Did I attack your character?

    I asked about religiosity because I was curious about correlation, for the same reason I asked about spanking - whether you support it or practice it - which I noticed you didn't answer, but frankly I'm still curious given your claims to protecting children at all costs.

    Now I'm curious about another correlation: Which party do you generally support?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Counter-question: which flavor of mountain dew do you like the least.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't drink soda drinks - which, unlike my questions, is irrelevant.

    Unless you can assert a link between soda and child safety and well-being, or between soda and social conservative beliefs.

    Edit to add we should leave this discussion, it's dead at this point. I wish you the best of luck with your kids, sorry to hear you feel like you need to protect them to the point of sacrificing your privacy. I suggested there are other ways to do this that don't affect your privacy but it seems your attitudes towards pornography are sufficiently negative that you won't consider them.

    I suggest you worry about your own kids and stop worrying about mine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    The dark web became known as the hideout of internet criminals. Once we're all internet criminals, it will just be the hideout of everyone. Time to drop all these commercial services that we've let take over the internet and go back to being anonymous weirdos talking to other anonymous weirdos on websites run by anonymous weirdos. The web was ironically a nicer place. Also a shittier place, but at the same time a nicer place. This is why we can't have nice things.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    They will try to ban websites run by anonymous weirdos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    "Ban Website" sounds good in the news but those words together barely even parse to an idea.

    A website is just a bunch of files hosted on a computer, put them behind some kind of access control and the outside world can't even know that they exist. Unless ISPs decide to block all inbound traffic to subscribers you can always just apt install apache2.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It's never about porn or children. It's about control, money and a fear of ones own citizenry.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    For sure, only pure evil motives. Establishment needs to destroy Canada to pillage it. Wrap it up in war on China and Russia. Deliver Canadian slaves to Israel and US oligarchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Nooooo, I thought Canada was very far from this bull shit

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    Lmao we're a half step away from falling into fascism ourselves, no invasion needed.

    It's insane that NDP supports this. The minute we flip flop back to voting conservatives into power, anyone who gave up their personal information tied to this kind of stuff....do I really need to explain why it's a bad idea here? Nah.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    It is not a slippery slope, it is the intended purpose, with a different implementation.

    Anyone with a few braincells working knows that it is all bullshit this crusade against porn "for the kids" .

    In the end the objective is just ever more identification, tracking and control of everyone .

    It gets even worse when you think of how the improper access could be properly mitigated...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Anyone with a few braincells working knows that it is all bullshit this crusade against porn “for the kids” .

    Normies think "for the kids" is a 100% reasonable excuse to restrict freedoms and install authoritarian policy. That's why it works.

    I know it's bullshit, you know it's bullshit. Go convince someone who doesn't understand that it is bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Stop that garbage bill that will expose your data to criminals in data breaches.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Probably time we just stop using porn streaming sites. This has turned into an addiction similar to social media. We can all go back to tormenting full DVDs, or sending clips back and forth on the dark web.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 49 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    I was never excited for Carney (and the Liberals' continuation of power), but I really didn't think they'd anger me as much as they have been*. Yes, I'm happy we don't have PP in power, but at times it's feeling like we may as well have reached the same outcome minus the culture war shit.

    I really hope the NDP makes a strong comeback**

    Edit (corrections):

    *Apparently it was not a bill put forward by Liberal MPs

    **The NDP actually supported the first bill of this kind so they're not much help in this situation

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Afaik this is a senate bill and similar to s210 from last parliament, the NDP voted in favour of that one last session which I'm extremely disappointed about, I recall the NDP being pro privacy in the past, which totally got some of my friends interested in them in the first place.

    It's even more disappointing that the liberals were the only party with Nay votes on that one. I realise that wasn't passing this bill but still, unimpressed.

    Edit. This showed up earlier too in s203 back a few parliaments ago. Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne is the sponsor on all of these.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I was never excited for Carney

    Politicians gonna politician. They will all will be in favour of this kind of citizen tracking because it makes enforcing policy easier, doesn't matter if it is Liberal, Conservative, or NDP.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Well no child I know could’ve ever found porn if an adult had only blocked access....lol. The more forbidden it is, the bigger the thrill/reward of getting it.

    When I was a kid, my parents always had big summer parties at our house and there was alcohol all over the place. I could try whatever I wanted (with lots of adults around - if not supervising, at least being nearby). I never cared about alcohol because casual “sampling” was never prohibited so who cares?

    My kids (both under 10) have both tried mild alcoholic drinks.

    When they get older into their teens, I'm making sure that as long as they are supervised, they can try any legal substance they want.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 17 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    How i feel about voting in general

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    You have to answer a skill testing question to obtain any contest winnings, there should be one for your vote to count.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I'll take it one step further.

    Every second of every politicians life should be publicly available and steamed 24/7 excepting matters of national security.

    If they want the kind of power that comes with being a politician then they should have to sacrifice their privacy. If they are public servants they need to be held accountable and serve the public.

    I sincerely believe that extreme personal sacrifice for politicians should become the norm, and the only way for us to have a healthy thriving democracy.

    The same way you sacrifice many rights when joining the military, or on being incarcerated. Service requires sacrifice. And the notion that politicians should be able to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us is a huge part of why corruption can flourish.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago

    It may be well-intentioned

    It may, but it is not.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago

    If they were serious about privacy-preserving age verification, they'd be looking at zero-knowledge proofs. Since ZKP is not on the table, this is really about control and surveillance.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    How about instead we ban propaganda and bots?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    But that would be impossible, you know. And we can't just go around controlling what people say and think and consume, you know. Because free speech and such and so forth and so on.

    collects lobbyist payment

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    "Those that trade privacy for security deserve neither."

    How about they start addressing the actual problem rather than half-measures from think tanks. If it was truly about children, they should be passing policies from a macro standpoint that encourage people to have a family and kids. Right now, it's economically grim and has been sliding that way for many decades. The rise of fascist and surveillance state policies is only going to make it worse. Say bye-bye to your birthrate and we're right back where we started again with the gov trying to pump the numbers via mass immigration.

    What does all this have to do with this bill? The intent may be framed as protecting/preventing kids from adult material, but it's also about making it desirable to have kids because "big brother is watching you/protecting you" (SMH here on how stupid this all is). These legislators are out of touch. We as a society need to address the root of the problem - why do we have a CSAM problem in the first place? It's a horrific thing to have, and to be honest, those that turn to it likely have a mental illness.

    As for kids accessing adult material online - why is the government being a nanny state? This is the parent's job.

    I have zero confidence that they can keep everyone's data private and safe given how many breaches there are.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Yes and no

    Call it a nanny state but companies have been abusing kids to help and back with social media which, IMHO is a much, MUCH bigger problem than porn. I'm all for a ban on social media for kids under 18 at least.

    I fully agree that we need privacy and a system should be put in place that does t spy on the citizens bu at the same time we do need protections for the citizens

    The entire "he who sacrifices privacy for security" is a bad faith argument. Tell that to a 70yo granny who just lost all of her life savings to scammers. Tell that to the 15 year old that just committed suicide due to some social media bullshit. Tell that to the countless teenagers wrestling with anxiety and can't get themselves away from social media anymore because companies refined their algorithms so far that they're addicting as fuck.

    That is where governments are supposed to step in. Not everything should be legal or else we should also permit owning weapons grade plutonium. Yes, that is an extreme, but its to show that we need limits and the question is where

    Yes, government can be abusive and very much on the wrong side, like with the marijuana prohibition that broke and ended countless lives. Now Europe wants to spy in all chats FFS.

    Those are great examples.of bad government control but just because these bad examples exist doesn't meant hat any government control is bad

    I would favor an age verification system that is guaranteed anonymous. That shouldn't be too hard to setup if the government gives out codes to the citizens, and they can give independent non profit foundations a list of the codes with only the birthdate. Citizen supplies the anonymous code to website, website requests age at foundation, that's it.

    Foundation can't legally reveal to government (or anyone for that matter) what code visited what, and the foundation doesn't know what code is what citizen

    It's just a random idea written on the toilet, I'm sure there are better algorithms out there to do this, but the point is that it can be done in a fair, dependable and anonymous way.

    We need SOME control, no control just doesn't work.

    At least apply the controls to all the big players for starters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Your code would still be unchanging and unique to you, which would be easy to correlate activity with. It's basically a government-issued ID number.

    And if it could somehow be anonymous, there's nothing to stop people from sharing it. It just becomes a password you need to access the internet, except all sotes must accept any of 20 million passwords, and you definitely know a bunch of people who will share.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I know, and as I said, it's something that I was writing as a quick idea, there are better ways, for sure

    My point was though that social media is ruining kids, and that is something that needs a fix.

    I'm not saying my way is perfect (still better than what governments are trying), I'm saying we need something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I can't think of any method of restricting content from children that couldn't be leveraged to restrict content in general, or collect personal information.

    The dangerous parts of social media affect adults too. Maybe we need to regulate social media platforms in some way.

    Or just have better and more widely available local parental control systems. I can block specifically all social media without affecting other sites, but that's because I know how. Perhaps DNS blockers need to be government recommended?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I can agree with some points, but disagree with a lot of the other things.

    Black mail and scams are not new. Just that the internet has enabled it on turbo speed. The culprit we know is social media algorithms aimed initially to maximize engagement and now completely refined to twist reality. It's funny because during the time I commented and now, Australia banned anyone younger than 16 y/o from all social media. I can agree with this - I have no idea right now as how they will implement this flawlessly though. Companies that are structured for maximum "engagement" should be regulated. Look at theme parks and they have age and height restrictions on certain rides for safety - for the sake of mental health in youth, social media should be regulated in the same manner and attitude. But do video games fall into the same category - at what point are they considered more social media than game? All of these will have to be clearly defined - which I have no faith in politicians to be able to do so. As for the elderly, I can only say, the world changes fast and we must always be vigilant - especially in the age of AI. Fake phone calls, fake videos - what about all that? Even before the internet and social media people were already getting scammed - remember the Nigerian prince in your emails? There just wasn't enough political will to truly fix the problem. The government is playing whack-a-mole by legislating it via invasion of privacy - I predict this is going to be a policy failure.

    Our government can't even keep the big telecoms in line to stop spam calls, what makes you think that they will even be able to stop some sophisticated scam? We can't even manage to tax media companies properly. But sure, let's all give government even more mass surveillance tools. Also, the weakest link in cyber security these days isn't the computer itself - it's you/the person.

    If this ever becomes a thing, I'd want the spirit of this law written out in plain language on what this can and can't be used for - especially in court. Also a sunset clause that this topic will be review every couple of years. Anything short of that is just asking for it to be abused.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Manwin is based out of Montreal, i.e. Pornhub. I can't see this passing. Canada is quite literally the porn capital of the world, trust me I know I worked for 3 separate porn companies here in Canada. I just don't see it happening.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    I'd rather this type of legislation not even be entertained in Parliament and treated the same way as if someone tried to propose banning oxygen. I'll be writing to my MP tomorrow and I encourage everyone reading this to do the same. If you let them take a centimetre of our privacy, they'll take an entire kilometre.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    That's always been the point.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure if it is a 'slippery slope'. It sounds more like a fixed plan.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Now we deal with this shit even here?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    If it happens I'll bulk buy flash drives, fill em with useful tools to get around all this... Then just hand them out for free on the street corner next to a highschool.

    Fuck age verification, may the people who push it die from a horrible rare cancer.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Not to be that guy, but teaching high school students to just plug a random flash drive into their PC probably isn't the best security practice to be imparting...

    Maybe a booth teaching them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Maybe a booth teaching them?

    Hey, kids! Come in my booth and I'll show you how to access porn!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Well... lol. You could make it hey kids learn how to access things in other countries that needs a VPN, and maybe they'd be smart enough to connect the dots, but ya that's no longer as effective heh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    People already, incorrectly, assume that VPN == Safety thanks to a ridiculous volume of advertising, no need to make that worse.

    A VPN only hides your traffic from the people running the equipment between you and the VPN. If your VPN provider is evil, or just lazy, it's the same as not using one at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Other than USB killers a flash drives are no more dangerous than a CD. No OS autoruns any more and you can always inspect a file before opening it. Better to teach kids to think before they open any file from a source they don't trust rather than to just avoid one type of media.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    You won't need to. Students find ways around content blocks and share it out themselves. Super sketchy free VPNs in mass use, tethering to phones, using ISP-based free wifi access points piggybacking on home connections from neighbours to the school—or, in one case, the school itself, logging in with guest accounts/incognito mode, running random executables from a (frequently virus-infested) Flash drive (aforementioned VPNs, web browser, or P2P web tunnel/Tor), torrenting, DNS swapping, and also old school "sneaker net" sharing contraband files directly. I've seen it all. The worse part is that they, largely, don't know enough about computers to understand what they're doing, so they end up sharing viruses and spyware with each other. Hell, I've told students to stop using their sketchy janky tools and taught them how to find safe/reputable ones (like ProtonVPN) or just use a different DNS to bypass the school filter entirely. They're doing it anyway; at least teach them how to use a condom.

    Kids will find a way past the blocks and share it out. Not to access porn—that'll just be a byproduct—they'll do it to chat with friends and play games.

    This is a fool's errand. A massive money pit that will inevitably lead to a massive data breach and resulting scandal. And it won't prevent a single teenager from watching porn.

    It's ridiculous that this is still being talked about in 2025, let alone being implemented by clueless Boomer politicians around the world. Ask any computers teacher in Canada if their school has ever successfully blocked students from playing games on school computers—even without web access, lol. It doesn't even take a computer expert to know this will never work.

    What a pointless waste.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    its not by accident that all the porn verification are happening in multiple countries all at the same time.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The only way this would be acceptable is if they built a trustless authenticator. Until then they can fuck the hell off.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    The tech exists and has for decades and is battle hardened. It is called zero proof knowledge but Centralized power wants nothing to do with it as it is a decentralized technology. It is ok, as we will be forced to move towards decentralized services the more we wade into the new AI/Quantum Age as anything Centralized is a sitting duck for being hacked and hacked often to the point that they become useless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Conspiracy: We just learned a large, organized, and barely secret pedophile ring consisting of high level government officials and business people is/was controlling the American government and probably most large western corporations

    Sounds like they actually want everyone back onto the sites that don’t verify ages or content because it will destroy the regulated porn industry entirely.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    It doesn't matter what Canada does. It seems the rest of the world is going this way and we we'll be dragged behind whether we do something or not. I have no idea what is happening the fall of our era?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Time to boost a specific local business and go back (...I mean, not really, I only ever had one and I won it, fun story actually) to buying porn DVDs.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago*

    This bill is garbage.

    If it's protecting teens, believe me they know how to sail the high seas.

    This is puritan security state nonsense. It's meant to appeal to the socons

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    When I buy weed online, I have to input my date of birth. But I always wonder, is anything stopping someone from lying?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Because kids won't access porn from other countries websites where they don't require age verification?

    It's like MAGIC!

  • source
  • 22 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    3 comments in c/canadapolitics@lemmy.ca view that post