From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne that there was no consultation on Bill C-8, which is touted by Liberals as a way to stop ‘unprecedented cyber-threats.’

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner admitted that he was never consulted on a recent bill introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney that became law and would grant officials the power to ban anyone deemed a dissident from accessing the internet.

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne said last week that in regard to Bill C-8, titled “An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts,” that there was no consultation.

“We are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled,” he told the House of Commons ethics committee, adding, “I don’t want privacy to be an obstacle to transparency.”

Bill C-8, which is now in its second reading in the House of Commons, was introduced in June by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and has a provision in which the federal government could stop “any specified person” from accessing the internet.

All that would be needed is the OK from Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly for an individual to be denied internet service.

The federal government under Carney claims that the bill is a way to stop “unprecedented cyber-threats.”

The bill, as written, claims that the government would need the power to cut someone off from the internet, as it could be “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”

While questioning Dufresne, Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised concerns that no warrant would be needed for agents to go after those officials who want to be banned from the internet or phone service.

“Without meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret, warrantless powers over Canadians’ communications,” he told the committee, adding the bill, as written is a “serious setback for privacy,” as well as a “setback for democracy.”

Barrett asked if the goal of the bill is for Parliament to be granted “sweeping powers of surveillance to the government without a formal review?

Dufresne said, “It’s not a legal obligation under the Privacy Act.”

Experts have warned that Bill C-8 is flawed and must be “fixed.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) blasted the bill as troublesome, saying it needs to “fix” the “dangerous flaws” in the bill before it becomes law.

“Experts and civil society have warned that the legislation would confer ministerial powers that could be used to deliberately or inadvertently compromise the security of encryption standards within telecommunications networks that people, governments, and businesses across Canada rely upon, every day,” the CCLA wrote in a recent press release.

Canada’s own intelligence commissioner has warned that the bill, if passed as is, would potentially not be constitutionally justified, as it would allow for warrantless seizure of a person’s sensitive information.

Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has brought forth many new bills that, in effect, censor internet content as well as go after people’s ability to speak their minds.

Recently, Canadian Conservative Party MP Leslyn Lewis blasted another new Liberal “hate crime” bill, calling it a “dangerous” piece of legislation that she says will open the door for authorities to possibly prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful.”

She also criticized it for being silent regarding rising “Christian hate.”

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

A new report reveals social media platform TikTok’s algorithm directs 13-year-olds to explicit content within clicks

Social media is now one of the primary pipelines to porn addiction for both children and young adults.

Global Witness, a campaign organization that investigates the impact of Big Tech on human rights, recently conducted a number of tests to determine how quickly children could access pornography on social media platforms.

According to the Guardian, Global Witness conducted one test before the implementation of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act in July, and one after. In just a few clicks, TikTok directed children’s accounts to pornography.

“Global Witness set up fake accounts using a 13-year-old’s birth date and turned on the video app’s ‘restricted mode,’ which limits exposure to ‘sexually suggestive’ content,” the Guardian reported. “Researchers found TikTok suggested sexualised and explicit search terms to seven test accounts that were created on clean phones with no search history.”

I have seen similar tests conducted myself – a completely new account set up, with no history, and no algorithm as of yet – and highly sexual content was recommended within minutes. The Global Witness investigation found that the “you may like” feature for the children’s accounts included “very, very rude skimpy outfits,” “very rude babes,” and “hardcore” porn.

A few clicks later, the researchers reported, the pornographic content escalated from “softcore” pornography of bare breasts to hardcore pornography of “penetrative sex.” The group emphasized that “the content attempted to evade moderation, usually showing the clip within an innocuous picture or video. For one account, the process took two clicks after logging on: one click on the search bar and then one on the suggested search.”

Even more disturbingly, Global Witness reported that two of the videos appeared to feature minors; both were sent to the Internet Watch Foundation as potentially criminal online child sexual abuse material.” Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, stated that Global Witness’s report has prompted an investigation into potential breaches of the Online Services Act.

But parents should not wait for the government to step in. I have encountered countless young people who were first exposed to pornographic material on social media; many teenagers have told me that Instagram is a key on-ramp into pornography.

If they so much as pause for a fraction of a second as they scroll past a sexually explicit image, the pause is detected by the algorithm, and more sexual content is pushed into their feed. That content escalates in explicitness, and the algorithm almost literally reels them in with a conveyor belt of sexual imagery. Many young men who had successfully freed themselves from pornography have told me that going onto Instagram caused relapses into addiction.

Snapchat is no better. Pornography is easily accessible within five clicks without ever leaving the app. The National Centre on Sexual Exploitation has been urging parents to keep children off of Snapchat for years, and lists the social media app as one of the worst offenders on its annual “Dirty Dozen” list. Snapchat has consistently ignored warnings from lawmakers concerning the dangers of its app as a primary mechanism of sexting, sextortion, and worse offences.

Having spoken to thousands of teens on pornography, I can state that this abdication of responsibility has led to enormous misery, addiction, and genuine damage, during the formative developmental years.

READ: Elon Musk joins condemnations of Netflix show pushing transgender propaganda on young children

As Tim Challies wrote years ago already when begging parents not to give their children smartphones: “Please don’t give them porn for Christmas.”

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.