EmbarrassedHelp

Firefox has a translation tool in the browser.

> The votes for this bill seem to indicate that nearly all MPs regardless of party voted in favour, and none of them voted against.

Where did you see that? Every non Liberal MP voted against C-22.

> If that's true, wouldn't it be a good thing? It would be repealed.

The Liberals will not be able to quickly reverse the legislation when that happens, and they may even be stupid/evil enough to double down on it. It can also take a year or more for the Supreme Court to strike down the legislation.

> But I don't think that's true. They will comply. They always comply.

It is true. Apple for example removes impacted services when a country targets it, like ADP in the UK. So iMessage will no longer work for Canadians.

WhatsApp will not compromise their global security and value of their brand for a tiny market like Canada.

> the only thing that could make a difference is if apple, whatsapp

That is literally what is going to happen if this legislation is allowed to pass. WhatsApp will block Canada, and Apple will remove any impacted service from Canada, like iMessage.

Raise awareness about the legislation and what it means for the average person (bans on iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, VPNs, etc...) You need to also start emailing and calling members of the Senate, telling them to reject the bill.

Canada is relatively unique among the common wealth countries as its founders were smart enough to remove parliamentary supremacy and have real judicial review.

I just wish that they would have also included a constitutional review council that reviews legislation before it comes law like France did (Constitutional Council), because a massive amount of damage can be done while waiting for the Canadian Supreme Court to rule on something.

Just recently there was a large number of anti-encryption and anti-private messaging news reports/articles in Canada. They all came from a single shitty article from The Canadian Press News that was written by Nono Shen.

* https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/national/tumbler-ridge-c...

Major Canadian news outlets like CTV News were blindly following that article, and saying "something has to be done" about encrypted messaging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLHkcOmcZOA

CTV news anchor Carolyn Jarvis was continuously pushing for AI-powered mass surveillance of all private messages in Canada throughout the news segment. And CTV News also falsely labeled Liz Repking as a "cybersecurity expert" and let her promote her anti-privacy views: https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/2026/10/07/they-have-a-shared-r...

Other articles on the subject had various anti-privacy/anti-encryption dog whistles like "going dark" included in them.

Canadian law enforcement have publicly stated that they intend to target encrypted messaging apps as soon as possible if the legislation become law.

It also hasn't stopped Australia's descent into tech authoritarianism either.

I don't think that's true. Even the privacy hating general public of the UK is against mass surveillance of private messaging.

https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/08/30/turns-out-br...

Paula Simons is almost certainly against Bill C-22, so it probably won't be of any use to contact her about rejecting it. I would focus efforts on other Senators.

Do you have a source for that?

Pretty much every group in Canada is opposed to this bill, except for law enforcement, the Brampton city mayor, and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P).

One of the main lobbyists behind Bill C-22, The Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P) has been trying to target Tor's funding for years now. So unfortunately it would be unsurprising to see them convince the Liberals to try and target Tor.

If the bill isn't dramatically changed or killed, all the major messaging services along with tons of other services will end up blocking Canada.

Macron's party has also been trying to require encryption backdoors for years, and are major supporters of Chat Control.

They only temporarily backed down on targeting VPNs, while also saying that online platforms should block all VPN users who don't verify their ages.

It was amended to make them less likely, but even the Liberals are saying that it can still be used to target encryption.

And the legislation still requires mandatory data retention and interception capabilities for all VPNs, encrypted messaging services, and every other online service.

The EU Commission at least seems comfortable with requiring that everyone uses Google approved versions of Android, because it makes their authoritarian push for mandatory age verification easier to enforce.

Most national governments in the EU are probably too authoritarian technology-wise to recognize the importance of supporting a project like GrapheneOS as well.

The UK government is extremely socially conservative when it comes to sex/porn online, and they never let an opportunity to violate privacy rights go to waste.

The rest of the world would be better off to just block the UK from online platforms rather than risky complying with their increasingly insane demands.

Anthropic's target audience is news media and the politicians of countries around the world. Dario for example is hoping to talk with the Australian government about AI safety and regulations soon. Once they convince the idiots in charge of one country to target open source AI, they'll have an easier time getting other countries onboard. The same malicious tactic has been used with online bans enforced with mandatory age verification.

There are already incidents from other non publicly released models.

They do however seem to have enough political capital to convince politicians in other countries to target open source AI, which is probably why Dario wants to speak with the idiots running the Australian government.

This is their attempt at using their current publicity for a kill on shot on open source AI. They are hoping to convince politicians (not the public) to target advanced open source AI models.

Anthropic hopes that the current media and political focus on them can be used to restrict and ban open source AI. They might even be able to achieve that in some countries.

I bet the reason Dario wants to meet with the Australian government, is because he feels like he can convince them to ban open source AI models. Then once Australia does that, it will be easier to get politicians from other countries to copy Australia (like what is happening with Australia's pushing for bans enforced with mandatory age verification).

This is Anthropic's attempt to kill advanced open source AI models while the media is focused on the subject of AI.

They are still trying to force that anti-privacy bullshit on everyone.

It also makes users feel more comfortable posting awful comments and comments that lack critical thinking skills.

Its a shame that Ursula von der Leyen never learned anything from this, and is now trying to force through legislation requiring mandatory age verification for everything (EU Kids Act).

> But apple also cannot just stop selling or supporting their product in the UK either.

They can do both of things. There's no law against leaving a country for not respecting human rights like privacy and encryption.