"6,000 Violations" Elon Musk Found Guilty In Canada!? | "They Will End Up As Dystopia"

stop this silliness and not rather stop this democracy.

It really is so frustrating when you are trying to get clarity and answers out of somebody.And it doesn't matter how differently you pose your question.They just don't give in.But like my mom always said, actions speak louder than words.And these actions are absolutely screaming at us, especially after we said no time and time again.No.

So, eventually, they just found an argument that nobody is allowed to disagree with.Of course, I'm still going to.I'm Jasmine Lane.Like this video, comment your thoughts down below.It's going to be a juicy one.And I recently learned that about 70 % of this audience is not subscribed to the channel.

And I know it may seem kind of silly.It's just a dumb little button that you probably don't even think about.But those raw numbers really do help a lot.So could you imagine how much more impactful we could be in spreading truth and critical thinking if that number continued to climb?Make sure to double check.No pressure.

I won't be mad if you don't.I'm just saying, nudge nudge, you should.

This is unacceptable.We're failing our children.Enough is enough.Parents cannot face these challenges alone, and the safety of children can't be an afterthought.We need basic protection in place so every child in this country can be safe on platforms they use every day.This is why we are introducing the Safe Social Media Act.

The Act will establish a minimum age of 16 to have a social media account.The act will require social media platforms and AI chatbot services to do more to protect children and make their platforms safe by design.

I'm really happy that he just mentioned that because boy, oh boy, am I about to open your eyes.But first, a little summary of this C -34, the Safe Social Media Act introduced by thesaviors of the liberal government, gosh thank you guys so very much, which is legislation that would ban children 16 and under from being on social media, among a lot of other things of which we will be getting into because as per usual the devilish details are abhorrent.I don't really know how else to describe it.I do think it's rather rich though that that press conference.It's for the children.

Parent not trusted with children.Government trustworthy to save child.Government will protect you.Protect child.Government be parent.The government's own timeline has admitted that this is not going to be enforceable for potentially two or more years.

The bill introduces a new framework.Great, we need more of those.Enforcement, compliance, auditing and penalties.which are all downstream of a regulator that doesn't currently exist.We've seen how great the CRTC has done with C11 and C18, so can't wait for this one.The age verification method isn't even decided yet, and Miller had told reporters that there will be a back and forth with platforms to figure that part out.

I can't imagine that's gonna go over very well.

Social media and AI chat platforms will have a responsibility to protect children, from harmful content, including content that promotes self -harm, sexual exploitation, violence, hatred, bullying, or the non -consensual sharing of intimate images.

Okay, so the reason why I'm laughing at that is because in Section 11, private messaging exclusion.Even if a platform is captured by the bill, the duties imposed by the law do not apply to its private messaging feature.DMs, group chats, private messages, all of those are explicitly carved out.Why does this matter?Oh, I don't know.Perhaps if the underlying excuse for this bill is to protect children from harm online, why are the documented

harms, such as grooming, extortion, predatory contact, which happen overwhelmingly in private messaging, not public feeds, the very feature the bill exempts is where children are most at risk of every single one of those things he just listed.For the children, social media is responsible for all of these measures to protect the kids.Well, that's weird because Meta actually started giving teens under 16 who sign up for the platform private accounts with limited capabilities as the default setting since 2024, which blocks teens from being messaged by people that they aren't connected with, minimizes their exposure to sensitive content, such as posts that do certain things of which he just described.There's also parental supervision tools baked into the accounts which allow parents to see who their teen is messaging and how long they were on Instagram for.They can set screen limits, all of those things, and that can only change in the settings with parental approval on the app.Actually, Meta even said that the bans are counterproductive.

Their spokesperson, Julia Pereira, told Canadian Press in an email last month.about Snapchat?Well, turns out they already have these measures in place too.In fact, 13 to 17 years old, if you make an account on Snapchat, you are automatically placed into a teen account where location sharing is automatically off, tagging is automatically off, and only available to people if you are mutual friends.with them.You also cannot communicate with people unless you are mutually accepted friends or their numbers are already saved into your phone.

And in an op -ed to the Financial Times, the CEO of Snapchat mirrored a lot of what Meta had to say in terms of the fact that teens are going to talk to each other.They're going to be on social media, whether you like it or not.If anything, this just means that they're going to go towards lesser known apps that have way less safety precautions.What about TikTok?You may ask.Well, teen accounts on TikTok are private by default.

The app limits who follow, who can follow users between the ages of 13 to 17, as well as who views their videos and reads their bios.They also don't even send push notifications at night and have a default screen time limit of 60 minutes.Every single person between the ages of 13 to 15 have more restrictions on their account that doesn't even allow direct It doesn't allow people to download their videos, and it doesn't even allow people to comment on their posts.YouTube, same thing.They also have children protections, child accounts for people under 12.They have YouTube for Kids, which are totally different than the regular YouTube.

They also have people 13 to 17 who get accounts.There are limitations and protections put onto their account.Clark Rabier, YouTube Canada's head of government relations and public policy, said in an email last month that blanket bans like Australia's risk forcing kids out of age -appropriate environments and into less safe services on the internet.But what is Canada doing?Using Australia's model, which is reported to, and I quote, 16 years old.

the government just made it illegal for you to go on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X. Social media is now banned.But if you're under 16 years old and you wanted to change genders, that's perfectly legal and allowed.And if you're under 16 and wanted to go to the one of the government state sponsored supply sites where you get a safe supply of drugs, That's also legal.They have no age limit for that.Parents, this is how the liberal government wants to control how you get to raise your kids.

And I'm just going to call it exactly what it is because this has been such a consistent pattern.When you can only sell a policy by hiding behind children, you are not protecting them.You are exploiting them.And it is honestly really sad to me how weak and truly incompetent, lacking of courage, critical thought, their own autonomy even, where people defend this stuff as though they don't have control in their own lives and that of the family that they birthed, you know?Kiki writes, so should we not restrict children from accessing pop pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and green maple leaves?I wrote back, yeah, yeah, we should.

That's what parents do, actually.Mine did a great job.What about, what about you?I would love to know.And then she goes on to say, after saying, you know, like there's already kid mode settings, there's already parental modes on all of these things.And then Kiki writes, those suggestions actually are not low cost or easy to implement.

You're talking about changing the device and programming of millions of phones, millions of phones that parents chose to give their children.So those parents could just take it away.if it's impacting their child negatively.It's also pretty important to note though that Bill C -34 doesn't just ban kids under 16 from using social media.There's a whole lot more to it than that.It also forces platforms again, to implement age gates, which they already have with real consequences such as three percent of their global revenue in fines.

If I'm reading correctly, the maximum fine for a violation is something like three percent of the company's global revenues.How would the regulator be able to recover fines of that size, which could be very, very substantial?

You know, it'll depend on the severity of the infraction and the compliance or noncompliance that occurs, Laura, as you mentioned.But there and I suspect your referring to platforms that wouldn't have assets in Canada that could be immediately seized.But there are plenty of relationships that we have, legal relationships that we have with other countries to enforce jurisdiction and judgments.

And here's the thing that Gosh, it's just, it's so constant that it just repeats itself, right?So there's two versions of this bill.Bill C -34, the version that the government announced, version one, we'll call it, is where it establishes the institutions, it sets the age range for 16, and then it also sets the penalty ceilings for what people can be fined if I don't know, a 16 -year -old is found to be on their platform.I don't even know how any of that works, and neither do they, because they haven't clarified that or written into it.They say they're still figuring it out.Probably shouldn't have announced this bill then, just saying.

Version number two, which is the part that actually is going to govern and enforce all of this, gets written later by a new commission that nobody voted for.Who will have the power?to regulate social media platforms without parliamentary oversight?just like the CRTC.And don't be fooled because Section 12 -1 of this bill says explicitly that platforms don't have to proactively search content, which sounds very protective of free expression.That's a good thing, right?

But then in Section 12 -2, it immediately undercuts it, saying that the commission can, by regulation, require platforms to use technological means to prevent certain material from even being uploaded, which is literally the exact same legal infrastructure, legal mandates, and legal power that they have.So just as an example, let's do the bigger architecture.Let's just name this exactly what it is.Okay, Canada, wake up, everybody.You now have two interlocking regulatory systems.More than that, actually, which I'll get to in a second here.

CRTC, under Bill C -11, controls content discoverability.It's why you should subscribe to this channel, like, share, comment your thoughts down below for the algorithm, because the government's regulatory is literally shadow banning accounts that do not meet the definition of Canadian content as per the CRTC's discoverability mandates and definitions.They decide through C11 what gets surfaced, promoted, and recommended to Canadians after it's posted.What about C34?That now has the power to control uploadability.What can be posted in the first place via mandatory scanning technology It is back -end and front -end distribution and creation.

The government now has regulatory reach with this bill, if it passes, which I'm sure it will with that manufactured majority, and they will be able to reach both ends of the content pipeline, one through algorithmic promotion, one throughpre -publication filtering, that they can change at their discretion at any point in time.And neither bill was sold that way.Bill C -11 was sold as Canadian content, protecting Canadians.And C -34, protecting the children.Go through these bills yourself and read them.

You can find them on Canada .ca.Because together, they form, it appears to me at least, the most comprehensive government architecture for managing online speech in Canadian history, built piece by piece, bill by bill, crisis by crisis, across a decade.And not one piece of it was ever honestly described to the Canadian public for what it actually was.And yes, we should protect children.Good thing we already have laws in place that aren't enforced, which is the bad part.

that do exactly that.So why don't you worry about enforcing those laws, maybe, hey?Oh, and remember that the same guy in charge of figuring out all of the AI for this, our AI minister, Evan Solomon, this is him.

And the vote has just started.So this is it.So we have 10 minutes to vote and this is what it is.And then we can stop this silliness and not rather stop this democracy.It's got to make sure I know what the vote is.

Hold on.Hmm, so what could this really be about?Well, if this is any obvious sign to you, how convenient that just today, the same time that all of this news is breaking, Elon Musk's X content continues to violate Canadian privacy law with Grok deepfakes, watchdog fines.Or how about this?By Global News, Grok AI broke Canada's laws, created 6 ,000 S deepfakes per hour, according to Probe.I'm sorry, Grock broke laws?

Or did you mean to say that humans broke laws?not grok, which is the tool that they use to do so?I don't think you did because there's several articles now with the same headline saying it's Elon Musk and it's Grok and it's X, which is so dishonest because it does three things simultaneously.Number one, it removes human agency from a human crime, which is really nasty to do because this is a very serious topic and you are completely protecting the people who actually committed this offense.And it also then punishes people creates fear and public panic around a platform.solely to serve a regulatory narrative, when the fear and panic should be about those people who are running free in the streets and likely will not be prosecuted to any extent.

And most maliciously, it conflates corporate privacy violations with criminal content generation.Because what the OPC actually found, and this is coming from them directly, I'm sharing this, reading this from Global News, it says, Grok AI powered image generation tool without implementing appropriate safeguards at the outset.This lack of protection allowed users to create and share this content largely of women and children, which is absolutely sick.But even right there, the commissioner says, that users did this.And I don't think that this headline is an accident at all.There's a pattern here that we have seen for many years.

It reflects a very wide media framing choice that serves the regulatory agenda perfectly, does a disservice to the victims and not nearly enough service to the people who actually did this.AI did the harm, regulate AI.Platform did the harm, regulate the platform.Users utilizing those resources did the harm.Well, now that's complicated because, you know, that doesn't make for a good press conference.We can't enact any new bills that are going to control people and censor them and, you know, make us be a little bit more powerful and have our Savior God complex activated.

That would then require prosecution and resources, international cooperation, maybe.And, oh, gosh, man.Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the frame that generates the most government power, no matter how dishonest it is, is the one that gets chosen every single time.

Canada's in stage five.

I mean, I think that's basically what you're saying, right?Yeah, because it's a collection of all of the most dreadful ideas, right?So, idea one, let's have open border policies and let's let in as many people as possible that don't share any of our foundational values.That's going to go really well, right?Okay, idea one.Here's another one.

Let's not create a society rooted in meritocracy.As is more likely in the US, Canada has a lot more of a, you know, nanny state, social welfare system, socialist, communist ethos, right?Therefore, we're a lot more also internalizing those values than you have in the United States.You still have an entrepreneurial spirit in the United States.In Canada, the tall poppy syndrome is really internalized.

I mean, But, okay, so do you think there is no turning around?So Canada and the UK specifically, since those are the two, I mean, so what, they end up as just sort of broken, communist, Islamist, dysfunctional dystopians?I mean, dystopias?

Yeah, so let me give you the pessimistic and optimistic.The optimistic answer is that there is a templatewhich we could implement autocorrective strategies to turn the ship.So, and why is that optimistic?Because if you go to see your physician and God forbid, he or she says, you've got stage four pancreatic cancer, you've got three weeks left to live, there's absolutely no intervention, that would be the worst possible case.So in this case, there are prescriptive strategies that can autocorrect the ship.

Here's the pessimistic part.I see no evidence that Canada or the UK is willing to implement a millimeter of that template.If anything, they're doubling and tripling down on the insanity.So that's why I think they will end up as dystopia.

There is such a huge temptation when we hear news like this, when we are living like this and experiencing these things.And it is it's the scale of this quiet and deliberate almost patient power building to feel like the darkness is winning.But I just don't, I just don't believe that in this situation.They want you to think that way.Like they needed you not to pay attention, but you did.They needed the headline to be enough and it wasn't.

They needed child safety to end the conversation.but you kept going.Gad Saad, in that clip with Dave Rubin that we just played, is correct when he says that there is something deeply wrong.But stage five is not the end of the story unless we decide that it is, right?And I know that the truth has a very stubborn way of always surviving against all odds, and that light, even the smallest amount of it, changes the way that a dark room once looked.And suddenly you're like, oh,

look at that.There's a door that I can open.I didn't even see that if it wasn't for this tiny little ray of light that my eyes adjusted to.And so people who speak clearly and who refuse to be distracted and who say the uncomfortable thing with evidence, not with cruelty and without apology, they matter so much more than the architecture of the room that's being built around them.And that is why this show exists.That is why you are here.

And that is what makes you as a human So undeniably powerful.And I know that all of this in the worst case scenario projections is really scary and uncomfortable, unsettling even.And I hear you.I got pretty fired up today.I had like 27 other things I wanted to talk about and I ended up only talking about that bill for the most part.So apologies there if I hit you with some old news in a future episode because I had some stuff I wanted to get to.

But you know, The truth always has a way of becoming a widely accepted reality eventually.We just have to continue being the ones who say it first.And the government in this situation is counting on your silence.It's counting on you to be overwhelmed or to feel like there's nothing you can do to stop it.So don't you dare give that to them.Because none of this, people will try to write you off, none of this is a conspiracy theory.

This is in the legislation.I read the legislation back to you and explained what it meant in simple terms.This is real.This could potentially be really bad under the guise of protection, safety.And that's exactly why this show exists.That's why you're here.

And the fact that I'm not alone in seeing these really obvious things that nobody else seems to care about.be acknowledging or even just a little curious about.It's such a huge relief to me.If that's any, if that's any form of comfort for you, like the fact that, that we're doing this together means a lot.So thank you, truly, thank you for not making me do this by myself because I would if I had to, but it is far less fun to take a long walk down a gravel road by yourself than it is to have a friend by your side.So I'm Jasmine Lane.

Thank you so much for watching.Like, share, subscribe, comment your thoughts down below and I will talk to you very soon.