Looks like Toyota and Honda are going out of business.

Most of the downvotes are from baby accounts, pitbull nutters love their astroturfing.

Do you have a source for the second claim?

Even if you don’t like Jeff Bezos, the fact of this existing opens the door for smaller competitors to enter the scene.

Canada is getting 3% more ev competition due the recent 49k chinese imports deal even if they’re banned from entering the USA, Americans will have an easier time checking out the models on their travels and then they will ask their-out of-touch politicians why they don’t also have similar options.

The future is EV!

Federal corrupt politicians cannot bear the thought of state representatives making decisions they disagree with.

The iphone 11 would have 7 years of software support and iphone se 2 would have 6 years.

Australia already made a mistake with a similar bill and saw a 22% drop in R&D investment. We can’t afford the same here for both our businesses and our citizens.

I believe Canberra has signed a deal with Washington to allow the American authorities access to Australian data from Australian companies and the Canadian government has been planning on a similar agreement since 2022. It’s bad enough we’re part of the 5 eyes.

“Pitbulls are safe”

#57…I gotta post less.

I don’t remember what it’s called 😢

No kidding I saw that you were the most active poster on the forumverse and that I was second 😳

It is widely known that, since 2022, Canada has been negotiating, behind closed doors, a cross-border data-sharing agreement with the United States under the US Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act—or the CLOUD Act. The agreement is controversial. It would require Canada to change its laws to allow US law enforcement to directly issue demands for personal data held by Canadian technology providers.

The big tech social media companies are bad. Their business model is bad; it is based on mass surveillance and manipulation, and they cooperate with governments in mapping entire populations. But age verification is fundamentally the wrong approach to preventing children from using big tech social media platforms. Introducing age verification is based on the state being able to force social media companies to verify their users’ identities. But the big tech social media platforms already know which of their users are children. Their business model depends on knowing this. They know how old users are, who their friends are and what ice cream they like. As age verification is based on coercion of the social media platforms, politicians could instead force them to stop doing the things politicians consider harmful to children, or force them to block children (again, they know who they are) from using their services. But instead, politicians seek to massively invade everyone’s privacy and undermine democratic rights on a global scale. In other words, the latter is the real objective – they do not want to protect children; they want to impose control.

Australia has already introduced a social media age restriction for users under 16. The same applies to Indonesia and Brazil. Age restrictions have been approved but not yet implemented in Denmark, Portugal, and Malaysia. In France, an agreement has been reached, though details are still being discussed. Proposals are on the table in Spain and Turkey. In Germany, the major parties agree on introducing age restrictions, and in Sweden the issue is under investigation. The topic is also being discussed in countries such as the Czech Republic, Greece, Austria, Poland, Canada, Slovenia, and the Netherlands. In April 2026, the European Commission launched an EU age verification app, and one month later Ursula von der Leyen presented plans for EU-wide age restrictions. In the United States, half of all states either have pending legislation or have already introduced laws imposing age restrictions for inappropriate content and/or social media. The number of countries preparing age verification measures is growing rapidly. Updates can be followed on Techpolicy.press.

The consequence of introducing identity verification is therefore that freedom of information is restricted (you can no longer visit regulated websites anonymously) and that you can no longer post anonymously on social media. You cannot be certain that your criticism of the government will not be followed up by the authorities. You can no longer start a digital initiative on a social media platform aimed at gathering people to criticize an authority without facing a significant risk of consequences. Depending on the country you live in, this could even endanger your life. In its current form, social media identity verification removes important tools for activists in countries where criticizing those in power is dangerous.

Broad and arbitrary legislation, along with mandatory ID tagging for every post, hardly provides a strong foundation for freedom of expression. Today, 30 people are arrested every day in the United Kingdom for posting something online that authorities classify as “grossly offensive.” In Germany, police conduct raids on people’s homes for insulting politicians online. One infamous example is the so-called “Pimmelgate,” where a person was subject to a police search after calling a German politician a term for male genitalia. In the United States, authorities are trying to pressure tech companies into revealing the identities behind accounts protesting ICE. Another example is when Canada introduced emergency acts during the 2022 trucker protests and then used social media to identify demonstrators and freeze the bank accounts of people who financially supported the protest.

Restrictions introduced at the national level can be bypassed by changing one’s geographic location digitally, using tools such as VPNs, virtual phone numbers, eSIM cards, Tor and dedicated services. This has already led politicians in several countries to consider introducing identity verification for VPN services (presumably because VPNs are the most common and accessible method of changing digital location).

In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords sent an amendment in early 2026 (regarding the the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill) to the House of Commons, proposing an 18-year age limit for using VPN services. The House of Commons rejected the House of Lords amendment four separate times. However, the House of Commons instead introduced its own proposal, which was passed and has now become law. This agreement grants the government the power to introduce restrictions through secondary legislation, with only limited parliamentary scrutiny. The government has confirmed that it intends to act on this and introduce some form of social media restriction for children under 16. The government has also hinted that it may consider introducing identity verification for VPN usage, effectively joining countries such as China and Russia in opposing VPN services.

The issue has also been raised in France. As Minister for AI and Digital Affairs Anne Le Hénanff put it: “If [this legislation] allows us to protect a very large majority of children, we will continue. And VPNs are the next topic on my list.”

Discussions about VPN restrictions have also occurred in the United States. Utah has gone the furthest by introducing a law making it illegal to circumvent restrictions using a VPN. Within the EU, VPN restrictions have been discussed both under the Going Dark initiative and in discussions related to age verification. In response to a direct question about VPNs as a tool for bypassing age verification, EU Commissioner Henna Virkkunen said in April: “Of course, it’s an important part of the next steps also to look at that it [age verification] shouldn’t be circumvented.”

If VPN providers were to impose an age limit on their service, this would also mean that underage users would effectively lose their right to online privacy. Ironically, one consequence would be that social media companies mapping people’s lives through third-party trackers on websites could continue monitoring young people’s online behavior via their IP addresses without any interference. In other words, politicians would remove one of the protections children have against the very companies they claim to want to protect children from.

It’s because of poor relations.

Oh great… more useful idiots for Mango Mussolini. I hope this doesn’t end up like Chile.

Good thing Carney promised to increase the rcmp’s funding…

Canadians love giving Carney free passes.

Gary Anandasangaree lies to your faces that bill c-22 was “never meant to breach encryption” when there’s a demand in there for a government backdoor in every service. Thus letting the government and hackers snoop through your messages.

The blonde one is Akiyama Mizuki

Down with tyrannical bill c-22!