"HATE" crime legislation IS 'hate'-ful....

[Argus]

14 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If the legislators were to draw a line at recruitment to a criminal organisation then they could enforce that.  I can see ISIS being a problem as they have openly and quite proudly killed thousands, but how many has Combat18 seen off?  (Genuine question.

As far as I've been able to determine the only death attributed to them is when one of them stabbed another one to death about twenty years ago. There have been no actual terrorist incidents or events attributed to them.

The inclusion of these two groups was done to further the fear the Liberals are trying to stoke of the far right, even as they attempt to associate the Conservative Party with the far right.

 

[dialamah]

On 6/28/2019 at 7:18 AM, Scott Mayers said:

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/federal-support-for-innovative-online-initiative-to-prevent-radicalization-to-violence-699803901.html

The above is yesterday (or the day before?) topic in the news on this.

1.  It presented that Ralph Goodale is presenting powers to have what is considered 'hate' groups online to use what might be called 'triggers' of presumably prototype behavior of 'terrorists'. This is an EXCUSE to GET the power only, not to do what is merely being claimed.

2.  This is because it is being done IN SECRET and through political/religious/cultural interests.

3.  WE the people will have no means to know when or where we are being monitored AND, from my own researching and experiments, ARE being REDIRECTED away from our intentional searches already! An example relates to forums that are considered neutral non-affiliated political groups. We are being successfully redirected to sites that are only a subset of the actual sites and get blocked out of the actual ones that others may see from different areas. This is noticeable first if you notice more strict country interests rather than the topic. Oddly, for instance, we get a highly unusual redirection to Australia here in Canada for a lot of these (like the skeptic sites I like). I can tell you more but it would expose something about HOW I determined it. Start talking to your computer science friends more to learn.  

Thanks for the link.  

1.  According to the link, this is a known technology, already used in other countries, that identifies searches for violent/extremist content and presents results that are of a more positive and less violent nature.   From your link:  "The online space is a place where violent extremists can spread propaganda, recruit others and incite violence. The project, Canada Redirect, will provide alternative, positive content to vulnerable individuals searching for violent extremist material online. The technique, termed the "Redirect Method," uses online advertising tools and Internet video channels to direct individuals to content created by credible third parties that challenge ideologies that can motivate destructive attitudes and behaviour."   Here is a link to the organization that is providing these services:  http://moonshotcve.com/vision/

2.  There is a press release, so it is hardly 'in secret'.   There is an organization with a website explaining what they do, and why, again hardly 'in secret'.  

3.  I have noticed recently that my searches tend to present fewer fake news sites in the first page, although they can still be found if you scroll or go to the next page; I figured Google had done something to combat 'fake news'.  I just did a few searches, such as "how to make a bomb", and had no trouble finding information.  (If anyone is watching, I assume I'll get a knock on the door in a while).  I tried to imagine what a person might search for to find an extremist ideology, and didn't find anything suggesting I'd been redirected to a 'more positive' site - but that may be the fault of my search terms, rather than any 'redirecting'.   Given that Moonshot CVE is currently working in 28 countries, 15 languages and is headquartered in the UK, I suspect the goal is exactly as they say - combating online radicalization.   Of course, they *could* be engaging in nefarious censorship under the radar, but so could plenty of other organizations - with or without a press release or a website.   I could assume the worst every time the government blinks at the internet, or expresses some interest in ensuring that individuals are not drawn into extremist ideology, I suppose, but at least for now your argument lacks merit, in my opinion.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

I always find this argument to be particularly idiotic.

"Duh, duh, if da natives had said that back when we came here where would we be!? Duh! Duh!"

A better question would be where would they be. Maybe still in charge in their own lands.

Because the natives were short-sighted enough to welcome people to replace them and take over the place puts no obligation on us to be similarly short-sighted.

So tell your 'friend' it's too bad his ancestors were idiots. But that doesn't mean we have to be.

Actually it's looking like natives were smart to wait until our legal system evolved to the point it could be used against us.

Now they've got us right where they want us.

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by eyeball

[dialamah]

On 6/28/2019 at 7:18 AM, Scott Mayers said:

The second topic regarding today can be found at:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-hate-elections-canada-canadian-nationalist-party-1.5193358. Please tell me after watching what you see if you think just what the guy of the group they presented was actually saying anything with 'hate' or rationalization based on realistic human behaviors. [conspiracies are not ALL hard to not to be thought of as unreal or we wouldn't have had the 'Nationalist popularity of the past. Note that our 'pride' groups based on specific interests that tie ALL people of the same 'kind' as UNIQUE, whether it be of the Queen, the Catholic or Anglican stronghold of the established families here OR those, like the Jewish-nationalist (Pro-Israeli/Anti-Palestinian) groups, all OPT to promote ISOLATED laws: like to promote one's one distinct language and culture as though they were universal. ....reigniting dead or dying languages or cultures that the traditionalists fear they are losing to the majority PROGRESSIVE 'cultures'

Travis Patron wants to form a political party; he holds some far-right views.   He talks about the 'parasitic tribe' and says they should be removed from Canada.  The Canadian Anti-Hate Network thinks 'parasitic tribe' refers to Jews, and that this is hate speech.  Are they correct?   I don't know; presumably Travis knows exactly who he is referring to, but prefers not to name them too directly.  The Canadian Anti-Hate Network thinks Patron is engaging in hate speech has just as much right to their opinion as Patron has to his opinion about the "parasitic tribe', whoever he means.  Patron, concerned about this "parasitic tribe' (as well as LGBTQ+) wants to form a political party - which is within his rights.  The Canadian Anti-Hate Network, concerned about hate speech, reported him to authorities - also within their rights.  The investigation is happening, as it should.  This is how democracy works, is it not?

The article also points out that Canada is very reluctant to refuse political status to far-right or far-left groups:  

"Pauline Beange, an Elections Canada expert at the University of Toronto, believes Canadian governments would be "very reluctant" to pass legislation restricting access to political participation.

"Basically anybody can apply to be registered," she said. "They have to choose a name. They have to have a certain number of signatures. But after that, it is not Elections Canada's job to decide who should or who should not become a political party."

There is always a risk of extreme views on the left or right, she said, but whether the groups that espouse those views actually gain a political foothold is another matter.

"We have had parties on the extreme left like the Marxist-Leninist Party, the Communist Party of Canada. So, we have tolerated those. They have not hijacked democracy in any way, shape or form. And again, I rely on Canadian voters and their judgment." "

So again, it seems to me your argument fails due to your assumptions about 'what's really going on here'.

[dialamah]

On 6/28/2019 at 8:06 AM, Scott Mayers said:

Wait. The 'evangelical' Christian of any denomination believes in spreading their word. Most religions con money to send to remote places with a sales tactic of selling of the suffering when the intents are more devious indirectly. WE permit legal lying in almost all of our business oriented behavior that exploit the differences between what one 'knows' over another. Those groups, if they sincerely believe they have a beef, often DO extremes because that is all they have when the 'legit' powers DON'T need to for the fact that they HAVE the power. They just manipulate ways to try to EVOKE those poor sufferers INTO extremism. This censoring precisely does this. 

I agree with you that religions believe in spreading their word, and quite often con people out of money and lead them into behavior that is not always beneficial to society at large.  An awful lot of people still hold belief in a God (or Gods) of some kind, so outlawing religions overall would be very difficult.  

On the other hand, extremists come from every religion and no religion, and are the minority of any group.  Identifying them, while ignoring the larger group to which they belong, in order to reduce violence and death to innocents seems a laudable goal, to me.  

[GostHacked]

31 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Thanks for the link.  

1.  According to the link, this is a known technology, already used in other countries, that identifies searches for violent/extremist content and presents results that are of a more positive and less violent nature.   From your link:  "The online space is a place where violent extremists can spread propaganda, recruit others and incite violence. The project, Canada Redirect, will provide alternative, positive content to vulnerable individuals searching for violent extremist material online. The technique, termed the "Redirect Method," uses online advertising tools and Internet video channels to direct individuals to content created by credible third parties that challenge ideologies that can motivate destructive attitudes and behaviour."   Here is a link to the organization that is providing these services:  http://moonshotcve.com/vision/

2.  There is a press release, so it is hardly 'in secret'.   There is an organization with a website explaining what they do, and why, again hardly 'in secret'.  

3.  I have noticed recently that my searches tend to present fewer fake news sites in the first page, although they can still be found if you scroll or go to the next page; I figured Google had done something to combat 'fake news'.  I just did a few searches, such as "how to make a bomb", and had no trouble finding information.  (If anyone is watching, I assume I'll get a knock on the door in a while).  I tried to imagine what a person might search for to find an extremist ideology, and didn't find anything suggesting I'd been redirected to a 'more positive' site - but that may be the fault of my search terms, rather than any 'redirecting'.   Given that Moonshot CVE is currently working in 28 countries, 15 languages and is headquartered in the UK, I suspect the goal is exactly as they say - combating online radicalization.   Of course, they *could* be engaging in nefarious censorship under the radar, but so could plenty of other organizations - with or without a press release or a website.   I could assume the worst every time the government blinks at the internet, or expresses some interest in ensuring that individuals are not drawn into extremist ideology, I suppose, but at least for now your argument lacks merit, in my opinion.

Reading their Terms of Use ..  we get this

Quote

Do not rely on information on this site

The content on our site is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Although we make reasonable efforts to update the information on our site, we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that the content on our site is accurate, complete or up to date.

We are not responsible for websites we link to

Where our site contains links to other sites and resources provided by third parties, these links are provided for your information only. Such links should not be interpreted as approval by us of those linked websites or information you may obtain from them. We have no control over the contents of those sites or resources.

Essentially they can't protect themselves from trolling and stuff (as it seems to talk about user submitted content latter on in the Terms of Use... still no idea WHAT the use is). Whatever this entity is, it sounds very very shady.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Essentially they can't protect themselves from trolling and stuff (as it seems to talk about user submitted content latter on in the Terms of Use... still no idea WHAT the use is). Whatever this entity is, it sounds very very shady.

Looks to me like pretty standard CYA language.

From the CBC website TOU:   "CBC/Radio-Canada’s mandate is to inform, enlighten and entertain. Content provided on CBC/Radio-Canada digital services is not intended to replace professional advice when required, in any field whatsoever."

Fox News TOU:  "Company is not responsible for and makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the Third Party Services or the providers of such Third Party Services (including, but not limited to, the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by such Third Party Service or the privacy practices thereof). Inclusion of any Third Party Service or a link thereto on the Company Services does not imply approval or endorsement of the Third Party Service. Company is not responsible for the content or practices of any websites other than the Company Sites, even if the website links to the Company Sites and even if it is operated by a Company Affiliate or a company otherwise connected with the Company Sites. "

Royal Bank TOU:  "The Information is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide specific financial, investment, tax, legal, accounting or other advice to you, and should not be acted or relied upon in that regard without seeking the advice of a professional.    

None of the RBC Companies are responsible, and will not be liable to you or anyone else, for any damages whatsoever and howsoever caused (including direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, exemplary or punitive damages) arising out of or in connection with the Websites or the Information, or your ability on inability to access or use the Websites or the Information, or any action or decision made by you in reliance on the Websites or the Information, or any errors in or omissions from the Websites or the Information, or any unauthorized use or reproduction of the Websites or the Information, even if an RBC Company has been advised of the possibility of these damages.

Links from or to websites, including links to the Websites, are for convenience only. The RBC Companies do not review or control, and are not responsible for, any websites linked from or to the Websites, the content of those websites, the privacy practices of those websites, the third parties named therein, or their products or services. Linking to any other website is at your sole risk and the RBC Companies will not be responsible or liable for any damages in connection with such linking. In addition, the RBC Companies do not endorse or approve of any websites linked from or to the Websites, except for Websites of RBC Companies."

Mapleleafweb TOU:  Mapleleafweb contains external links to other websites. Mapleleafweb does not necessarily endorse the content of these other websites. You are subject to the privacy policy of each subsequent website you visit.

Under no circumstances shall Mapleleafweb be liable for any losses or damages whatsoever from the use of, or reliance on, information or content contained in Mapleleafweb, or obtained through an external link to another website contained in Mapleleafweb. For the purpose of this limitation of liability clause, the term “Mapleleafweb” shall include its employees, contributors, partners, sponsors, associated companies and organizations, and agents and representatives."

If you are going to determine a website as 'shady' because it's terms-of-use seek to avoid liability, you will consider virtually the entire internet shady.  Perhaps a good idea, but still can't pick out one as especially deserving of suspicion for doing exactly what virtually every other website does.

Edited June 29, 2019 by dialamah
fix-a-word

[taxme]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Travis Patron wants to form a political party; he holds some far-right views.   He talks about the 'parasitic tribe' and says they should be removed from Canada.  The Canadian Anti-Hate Network thinks 'parasitic tribe' refers to Jews, and that this is hate speech.  Are they correct?   I don't know; presumably Travis knows exactly who he is referring to, but prefers not to name them too directly.  The Canadian Anti-Hate Network thinks Patron is engaging in hate speech has just as much right to their opinion as Patron has to his opinion about the "parasitic tribe', whoever he means.  Patron, concerned about this "parasitic tribe' (as well as LGBTQ+) wants to form a political party - which is within his rights.  The Canadian Anti-Hate Network, concerned about hate speech, reported him to authorities - also within their rights.  The investigation is happening, as it should.  This is how democracy works, is it not?

The article also points out that Canada is very reluctant to refuse political status to far-right or far-left groups:  

"Pauline Beange, an Elections Canada expert at the University of Toronto, believes Canadian governments would be "very reluctant" to pass legislation restricting access to political participation.

"Basically anybody can apply to be registered," she said. "They have to choose a name. They have to have a certain number of signatures. But after that, it is not Elections Canada's job to decide who should or who should not become a political party."

There is always a risk of extreme views on the left or right, she said, but whether the groups that espouse those views actually gain a political foothold is another matter.

"We have had parties on the extreme left like the Marxist-Leninist Party, the Communist Party of Canada. So, we have tolerated those. They have not hijacked democracy in any way, shape or form. And again, I rely on Canadian voters and their judgment." "

So again, it seems to me your argument fails due to your assumptions about 'what's really going on here'.

As long as there is no one really trying to promote hatred or violence towards anyone then they should be allowed to speak their minds. Remember this? Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. If I say that I hate Trudeau and say that too many people in public square could that now be considered promoting hate speech? Just wondering. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Actually it's looking like natives were smart to wait until our legal system evolved to the point it could be used against us.

Now they've got us right where they want us.

 

It's the stupid politically correct white guilt ridden leftist liberal fools that gave them that power and now they are using that power to try and stop progress all in the name of preserving the environment. The Indians never knew what the word environment meant nor did they gave all that much of a chit about it until stupid old whitey brought it up. They can even use that power given to them to blackmail some project from going forward unless the project owners don't mind paying us a few bucks under the table if they want to proceed. Find an Indian bone in the ground on a new project site somewhere and all must come to a halt. It becomes sacred land now and must not be developed. Native Indians here in BC pretty much run and own all the land and they now must be consulted and approved before most projects can go forward. They are pretty much the masters now and we non Indians are their slaves.  

Dam right they have us right where they want us. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

It's the stupid politically correct white guilt ridden leftist liberal fools that gave them that power.

Well, conservatives keep letting us so...Why I wonder?

[taxme]

16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If the legislators were to draw a line at recruitment to a criminal organisation then they could enforce that.  I can see ISIS being a problem as they have openly and quite proudly killed thousands, but how many has Combat18 seen off?  (Genuine question.  I had never heard of them until I read the name on here).  I know all these groups are under surveillance, and when any of them goes too far they can be brought to heel.  But expressing support (not giving physical support (finances, succor, etc.)) should not be illegal, no matter how stupid.  If someone says they think either are doing a great job, I can argue, but I'm not going to advocate any kind of sanction.

Come on, eh? Let those guys in Combat 18 or Blood and Honor have a little fun and let some steam off, eh? Have they hurt anyone yet? The Islamist Muslims in Canada have killed more people than these guys could ever imagine doing. When thy start going out in the streets and start committing violence and killing people then something should be done about it. But until then, leave the guys alone and let them have their fun and play their games. 

[taxme]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Well, conservatives keep letting us so...Why I wonder?

The progressive conservative Scheer liberal party and the leftist liberal Trudeau party are one and the same. They both are in cahoots with each other as to how they can continue to screw we the people the most. The difference between Scheer and Trudeau is that Scheer will do it a little slower than Trudeau will but the end game is still the same. Shaft the idiots out there. 

No need to wonder anymore. They do not like us piss ons. 

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

I always find this argument to be particularly idiotic.

And yours is hypocritical, but what the heck, who really cares what we think. Happy Dominion Day. 

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/28/2019 at 2:46 PM, taxme said:

If one wants to immigrate to Canada then one should leave their past life behind them and become and try to appear to look Canadian. The problem going on in Canada today is that the federal government is telling new immigrants who immigrate here to carry on as you did from whence you came. We see today too many people from other countries trying to push their culture and religion on this Christian country. The government is making openings for them to allow them to push some of their religious beliefs onto Canadians and their beliefs and be able to ignore some of our laws.

Before Canada started bringing in all of the many languages and cultures and religions that are here today in Canada there was none of this hatred and violence going on these days. But thanks to the promotion of multiculturalism and diversity we now see what happens when a government caters to other minorities and tries to mix several cultures and religions together. It creates the many crimes of hatred and violence that we see happening today in Canada and in other European countries. Muslims are killing white people and white people are killing Muslims. Maybe it is not such a good idea to be mixing the two together because in reality Muslims will not assimilate and do not believe in our values and ways in life of doing things. They treat their women like chit and believe that all gays should be killed and that will never change in their bible. 

Our government is not creating peace, order and good government. They are doing just the opposite as far as I am concerned. But the politicians do not care. I think that they wnat division and hatred to exist. Just my opinion of course.   

Censorship is not something uniquely about 'communism'. Censorship also belonged to Christianity and what the Inquisition was about. I'm against censorship for the sake of the individuals, NOT groups, like Christians, who are as much FOR censorship IF they could have their way. While I share concerns with you, I wouldn't want a system dominated by ANY cult. These are systems of thought that LACK a means to disprove some person's motivational claims and morals. As such, religion should NOT be a function of government in any way. As to immigration, I also share concern but NOT our of fear of 'diversity' but out of the concern of diluting of the already diminished capacity of the poor HERE to get work. It is also more important that change occurs in the countries of origin of the immigrant because where 'unjust' systems of politics and/or economics of another country exist, the default behavior of the suffering animal is to reduce to reproducing without concern of whether the environment can maintain their offspring. This is an evolutionary fact and thus would only encourage MORE abuses of those other countries on their own BY OUR OWN encouragement. 

What we agree with regardless is a right to disagree with the capacity to argue our cases. Censorship even in subtle ways by 'media' controlled uniquely by others is counter to progress OR any means to conserve people's rights. (My meaning is the literal factors in between communicators. Air, for example is also a medium.) So this is NOT about any particular political ideology. Almost ALL people, individual or in groups, can tend to abuse other's means of communicating to one another by affecting successful communications between people. It's the one thing that has to be AGREED to by any cooperative system of management that is expected to be 'democratic'.

(Note that 'republic', that is named for the right-wing party in the U.S., chose that word to emphasize promoting a distinctly separate class of rulers based upon intelligence and wisdom (see Plato's Republic for the roots of this.) The concept of placing a priority of having leaders that are AUTHORITATIVE is precisely those who favor strict controls WITHOUT the 'democratic' concern of other's opinions. This top-down 'right-wing' preference IS THE means of any governments favoring this with priority, INCLUDING Communism, which FAVORS the concept of 'censorship'. Though the U.S. IS a 'republic', the emphatic interest of the right-wing in economically 'free-market' economies is to have the power TO manipulate the people though the power of 'ownership' of government (as a 'private' property of those privileged). As such, this NECESSITATES their interest in CENSORSHIP. In fact, I fear MORE our right-wing parties here in Canada MORE than the left- OR center- wings ....even IF we had to accept the stupidity of things going on today,...precisely because the right-wing ideologies ARE always intolerant of people being considered 'on par' with each other' welfare. And right-wingers ALWAYS spy and moderate people's media, thus are experts AT censoring. [Why else would Donald Trump have the preference to eliminate those people's views by firing those who don't 'censor' themselves against his own beliefs?] 

It is always greater for the minority sincere haters to NOT be censored. So this argument is strictly about the concept of DEMOCRATIC (people owned governments), not private personal ideas that counter the right of people to have freedoms collectively.

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/28/2019 at 3:08 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No worries....Canada values peace and order over civil rights including freedom of expression.   The Gay Pride parades and rainbow flags celebrated in Canada today came from violent riots and protests in the United States (e.g. Stonewall).   By controlling "hate speech" and banning groups from social media the government hopes to stop any such uprisings.   What they don't understand is that conflict and "hate" are the currency and energy of social media platforms to drive clicks and ad revenue.

Routine Canadian politics is otherwise quite boring.    Like sex, conflict sells.

This is what makes 'banned' books, for instance, MORE interesting. The 'martyr' effect also can only occur in reflection of some form of censor (and censure). The reason for the present censoring is coming from the minority GROUPS who are relatively newly empowered and censorship is a form of vengeance rather than justice. This effect is the 'peer' pressure power of the very highschool cliques. Regardless of today's MORE acceptance, the KIND of acceptance is being favored towards censorship of those stereotyped without logical cause of the prior states where these groups now empowered want to exclude absolutely. But this just TRADES abusers, not STOPS them. They still maintain stereotypes even if altered. But note that they demand the 'positive' ones for themselves in light of that past, and 'negative' ones upon those that remind them ever so remotely of that past.

[Scott Mayers]

23 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If the legislators were to draw a line at recruitment to a criminal organisation then they could enforce that.  I can see ISIS being a problem as they have openly and quite proudly killed thousands, but how many has Combat18 seen off?  (Genuine question.  I had never heard of them until I read the name on here).  I know all these groups are under surveillance, and when any of them goes too far they can be brought to heel.  But expressing support (not giving physical support (finances, succor, etc.)) should not be illegal, no matter how stupid.  If someone says they think either are doing a great job, I can argue, but I'm not going to advocate any kind of sanction.

This is just a side note on the term "ISIS". I don't like this one as it appears to be uniquely favored of the anti-Muslim, pro-Judaeo-Christians who know it can help to mask the actual Egyptian root of 'Isis' as the cause of all these religions. By linking a convenient acronym that reminds us of some neutral historical factor about the source of these religions, the hope may be to taint others from learning of these roots. Ironically, if actually understood, the "Israelis" were "Is-ra-els' (Assyrian rulers of the Egyptian favor of the sun's rays as reflective of ONE god/nature uniqutely). Though not 'censorship', fear of how rhetoric can be emotively empowering just as such conveniently re-labeled words, is why many FEAR others speaking freely. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

This is just a side note on the term "ISIS". I don't like this one as it appears to be uniquely favored of the anti-Muslim, pro-Judaeo-Christians who know it can help to mask the actual Egyptian root of 'Isis' as the cause of all these religions. By linking a convenient acronym that reminds us of some neutral historical factor about the source of these religions, the hope may be to taint others from learning of these roots. Ironically, if actually understood, the "Israelis" were "Is-ra-els' (Assyrian rulers of the Egyptian favor of the sun's rays as reflective of ONE god/nature uniqutely). Though not 'censorship', fear of how rhetoric can be emotively empowering just as such conveniently re-labeled words, is why many FEAR others speaking freely. 

Actually, I was just talking about the murdering bastards.

[Scott Mayers]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

Thanks for the link.  

1.  According to the link, this is a known technology, already used in other countries, that identifies searches for violent/extremist content and presents results that are of a more positive and less violent nature.   From your link:  "The online space is a place where violent extremists can spread propaganda, recruit others and incite violence. The project, Canada Redirect, will provide alternative, positive content to vulnerable individuals searching for violent extremist material online. The technique, termed the "Redirect Method," uses online advertising tools and Internet video channels to direct individuals to content created by credible third parties that challenge ideologies that can motivate destructive attitudes and behaviour."   Here is a link to the organization that is providing these services:  http://moonshotcve.com/vision/

2.  There is a press release, so it is hardly 'in secret'.   There is an organization with a website explaining what they do, and why, again hardly 'in secret'.  

3.  I have noticed recently that my searches tend to present fewer fake news sites in the first page, although they can still be found if you scroll or go to the next page; I figured Google had done something to combat 'fake news'.  I just did a few searches, such as "how to make a bomb", and had no trouble finding information.  (If anyone is watching, I assume I'll get a knock on the door in a while).  I tried to imagine what a person might search for to find an extremist ideology, and didn't find anything suggesting I'd been redirected to a 'more positive' site - but that may be the fault of my search terms, rather than any 'redirecting'.   Given that Moonshot CVE is currently working in 28 countries, 15 languages and is headquartered in the UK, I suspect the goal is exactly as they say - combating online radicalization.   Of course, they *could* be engaging in nefarious censorship under the radar, but so could plenty of other organizations - with or without a press release or a website.   I could assume the worst every time the government blinks at the internet, or expresses some interest in ensuring that individuals are not drawn into extremist ideology, I suppose, but at least for now your argument lacks merit, in my opinion.

It is 'hidden' in that the news is treated as though this was NEEDED technology uniquely about 'terrorism'. It hides that the means of power of the moderators to do this implies ABSOLUTE redirecting of any content by the SELECT people privileged to be empowered to do the spying. That means the USE of it is NOT restricted NOR able to BE restricted by those empowered to use this for ANY means favorable to them uniquely. It also requires absolute censor (spying) of our communications systems.....a directly OPPOSING reality that the U.S. had run into and what Snowden was all about. 

I also disagree with the presumed determination of what a 'terrorist' is according to our political powers and is  continuously being forced down our throats through media owners and/or run by the very KIND of people who resort to 'terrorism' itself (Specific genetic/environmental '[in]heritage' supporters). This is a form of forcing false stereotypes about others with an intentional association to race or sex more specifically. Others that believe their genetic roots are some 'right' to own but not necessarily that other groups should be denied are relatively 'moderate' about some groups but NEVER all. Targeting today's 'non-female' and 'non-minority race' is no different than those of the past thinking the opposite. "Terrorists" are relative "freedom-fighters" depending on perspective only AND more often hide the real economic abuses but making them out to be religious extremists. This makes it easier to call them 'terrorists'.

[Scott Mayers]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Actually it's looking like natives were smart to wait until our legal system evolved to the point it could be used against us.

Now they've got us right where they want us.

 

Doesn't it suck when we try to encourage others to 'apologize' but when or where it occurs, it gets used later as the needed evidence to get vengeance regardless? 

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Doesn't it suck when we try to encourage others to 'apologize' but when or where it occurs, it gets used later as the needed evidence to get vengeance regardless? 

I don't doubt vengeance sucks, around here natives prevented any from blowing back at them by not leaving survivors.  With justice though I think we all win eventually.

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I don't doubt vengeance sucks, around here natives prevented any from blowing back at them by not leaving survivors.  With justice though I think we all win eventually.

This response is unclear to me for some reason. (Fragmented phrases lacking specific interpretation?) Can you rephrase?

Edited June 30, 2019 by Scott Mayers

[Altai]

Excuse me, do you expect a society who invades other peoples homeland to be respectful to other people's rights ?  Canada is native lands that invaded by Europeans.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

This response is unclear to me for some reason. (Fragmented phrases lacking specific interpretation?) Can you rephrase?

Like your question I guess. Our justice system delivers just that, justice but I suspect critics see it as vengeance.

My reference to local natives stems from a local story I was told about a band hereabouts that wiped out the inhabitants of an entire neighbouring village,  every man woman and child. No survivors were allowed due to the tradition of vengeance. The reason for the conflict was to avenge the rape of a chiefs daughter.

[taxme]

16 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Censorship is not something uniquely about 'communism'. Censorship also belonged to Christianity and what the Inquisition was about. I'm against censorship for the sake of the individuals, NOT groups, like Christians, who are as much FOR censorship IF they could have their way. While I share concerns with you, I wouldn't want a system dominated by ANY cult. These are systems of thought that LACK a means to disprove some person's motivational claims and morals. As such, religion should NOT be a function of government in any way. As to immigration, I also share concern but NOT our of fear of 'diversity' but out of the concern of diluting of the already diminished capacity of the poor HERE to get work. It is also more important that change occurs in the countries of origin of the immigrant because where 'unjust' systems of politics and/or economics of another country exist, the default behavior of the suffering animal is to reduce to reproducing without concern of whether the environment can maintain their offspring. This is an evolutionary fact and thus would only encourage MORE abuses of those other countries on their own BY OUR OWN encouragement. 

What we agree with regardless is a right to disagree with the capacity to argue our cases. Censorship even in subtle ways by 'media' controlled uniquely by others is counter to progress OR any means to conserve people's rights. (My meaning is the literal factors in between communicators. Air, for example is also a medium.) So this is NOT about any particular political ideology. Almost ALL people, individual or in groups, can tend to abuse other's means of communicating to one another by affecting successful communications between people. It's the one thing that has to be AGREED to by any cooperative system of management that is expected to be 'democratic'.

(Note that 'republic', that is named for the right-wing party in the U.S., chose that word to emphasize promoting a distinctly separate class of rulers based upon intelligence and wisdom (see Plato's Republic for the roots of this.) The concept of placing a priority of having leaders that are AUTHORITATIVE is precisely those who favor strict controls WITHOUT the 'democratic' concern of other's opinions. This top-down 'right-wing' preference IS THE means of any governments favoring this with priority, INCLUDING Communism, which FAVORS the concept of 'censorship'. Though the U.S. IS a 'republic', the emphatic interest of the right-wing in economically 'free-market' economies is to have the power TO manipulate the people though the power of 'ownership' of government (as a 'private' property of those privileged). As such, this NECESSITATES their interest in CENSORSHIP. In fact, I fear MORE our right-wing parties here in Canada MORE than the left- OR center- wings ....even IF we had to accept the stupidity of things going on today,...precisely because the right-wing ideologies ARE always intolerant of people being considered 'on par' with each other' welfare. And right-wingers ALWAYS spy and moderate people's media, thus are experts AT censoring. [Why else would Donald Trump have the preference to eliminate those people's views by firing those who don't 'censor' themselves against his own beliefs?] 

It is always greater for the minority sincere haters to NOT be censored. So this argument is strictly about the concept of DEMOCRATIC (people owned governments), not private personal ideas that counter the right of people to have freedoms collectively.

There are no right wing political party's in Canada. But we do have plenty of alt-leftwing socialists/communists party's in Canada. I fear the alt-left political party's in Canada like the liberals and NDP socialists/communists party's because they tend to be more anti-freedom/freedom of speech and they all do push for more censorship. The Human Rights Commissions are a prime example of censorship. They seem to only go after what conservatives, Christians, straight white people and what they have to say or do and are willing to deny them their right to their opinions and points of view even if their opinions and points of view go about hurting some minorities sensitive hurt feelings. The people today that should be bitching are white people. They are always being made to look like a bunch of racists and haters. I always say that if white people are so racist and hate all non whites then why do the white people of Canada allow more non whites to immigrate to Canada rather than more white people immigrate to Canada? 

Many shows on TV and in many movies also white people are always being insulted, made to look bad, and always get beaten up by some non-white. But I do not run to the HRC and whine and cry about my hurt feelings and call for censorship. I just try and point these insults out to white people to try and make them wake the hell up. Lets put those white haters in Hollywood and the entertainment business out of business. It is the leftist liberal/socialists people who are the intolerant and bigoted and hater ones here. Conservatives are not the enemy. The leftist liberals/socialists/communists among our midst are the ones to fear and the enemy of conservatives and conservatism. They are the center right.   

[Scott Mayers]

17 hours ago, Altai said:

Excuse me, do you expect a society who invades other peoples homeland to be respectful to other people's rights ?  Canada is native lands that invaded by Europeans.

We are all from the same Earth. How does it matter whether one is at some place 'first'? Non-humans were more 'native' to almost most lands outside of Africa. Also, mentioning Africa, how far back is it appropriate to go to claim some 'ownership'? Note that I'm not for a lot of takeovers in recent times (like Israel's taking over Palestine). Also, what about people NOT fortunate to be born with inherent ownership? Are they aliens from Mars that should accept their 'fate' of requiring to be slaves simply because of bad luck. 

I'm FOR our Aboriginal natives here as individuals. I'm NOT for any 'cultural' inherentance' concepts (ie. 'heritage') though. But some think it is a crime here to speak against issues that merely relate to anyone 'conserved' in our Constitution. Why are these people so much 'truer' Canadians than others. I've never known any of those places my ancestors lived nor even know of most of my natural family. Do I own their culture if I was adopted by others? And, what about mixed nationalities? 

This topic is more about the freedom of people to speak. No amount of 'etiquette' laws should prevent even the more vile languages. For the most part, the treatment against people to force them to shut up is MORE violent and a cause for them to BE more violent for not being taken serious for their concerns.