Retroactive hate crime bill in Canada [Online Harms Bill C-63]
twitter.com
twitter.com
AFAICT from quick skim, the burdens on startup are onerous, the investigatory powers are invasive (and rife for abuse), and Commission orders seem to carry weight of the courts without being bound by the usual process of the courts.
Implicitly, I'm imagining complying in good faith, so the above initial impression was formed before I got to the penalties. Which penalties, AFAICT, seem to be an existential threat for startups, yet consciously capped to protect our larger competitors:
> 101 The maximum penalty for a violation is not more than 6% of the gross global revenue of the person that is believed to have committed the violation or $10 million, whichever is greater.
No -- is says whichever is greater, not smaller. So it's capped at $10M unless your GGR is more than $166M, then the cap is higher.
I don't understand the correction. Here's my groggy Monday morning thinking...
If they only said the cap was 6%, without the $10M part, then a small startup could probably survive that.
But by making it the greater of 6% or $10M, that can kill small startups, but remain capped to protect large companies.
Unless small startups are exempt?
This doesn't seem to fit my layperson's understanding of the spirit of (US) equal protection.
Maybe the HN post should be changed to link either the actual bill or a proper journalistic treatment of it.
[1] There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime…having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-under-fire-for-expre...
> Speaking to a sold-out crowd of women, Trudeau was responding to a question about which nation’s administration he most admired.
> The Liberal leader said: “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green … we need to start investing in solar.’”
His explanation also seems... kinda bad
> Trudeau took to social media Friday to explain himself.
>“I pointed out that globally, Canada is up against big countries (China, for one) that can address some major issues quickly,” he wrote on Twitter.
>“It’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest that I of all people would trade our rights and freedoms for any other system of (government).”
The original question was "which nation’s administration he most admired". Unless there was a detour that the ctvnews.ca article and himself omitted, it'd be weird to use that as a tangent to talk about how "Canada is up against big countries [...]".