c-22 by Gary Anandasangaree. Will introduce 6 month metadata retention for internet service providers and share canadian data with US authorities.
s-209 by Julie Miville-Dechêne. Will introduce age verification.
c-32 by Marc Miller. Second way to introduce age verification. Yes that guy who called privacy critics of c-22 tinfoil hats.
If you see a source which you think is dubious and can't do your own research to see whether or not that holds up, you probably should stay away from the internet. On the other hand many people will respond more positively to resource request if your default settings is not to shit on references that are already presented because you don't like what is being said there.
Why would i waste my own time actively "researching" some irrelevant local party just to talk about it with strangers on Lemmy? I didn't know they existed prior and I'm certainly not going to vote for them regardless.
I dont know about you. But i have far better things to do. If you make claims. It's on you to provide your sources. Not on me to prove you wrong. If you provide shitty dubious sources, I'm gonna call you out on it. Because that's exactly how people fall victim to propaganda.
Someone else provided a link with lots of sources, most of which highly reliable, and i was able to form an unbiased opinion.
The guy is unhinged for more reasons than just his stance on immigration and immigrants, including the second generation.
This message cries "denial reflex" all over it. I mean look at it you have like everything: triple double quotations, the "So...". If you can't relay your intent in your messages correctly, that is on you not me. But you sure did give a very emotional reply for someone who does not care much about the topic. It doesn't have to be that you like or care about this party. Maybe you like Mullvad and don't like the idea of bearing the emotional responsibility of using it after these news. Maybe you don't like the fact that every month someone/some entity claiming to be pro privacy and pro human rights turn out to be connected in some way to a white supremacist right wing scum. I would not know why, that is for you to understand.
If you just skimmed through the topic, it would have taken you less time to find the other sources that I or someone else put here than to write this very emotional comment. Your snarky comment really has no foundation to stand on. If you are lazy and don't like to read or do research on your own terms, then you should perhaps learn to communicate to people. If you are so disinterested in the topic you have spent far more time talking about it than it would have taken you to find other links in this topic or on the internet. If your intent is to
In any case, I am sure most people will be willing to provide resources if you ask nicely. However if your default reflex is to try to shit on someone's comment, most times the answer you will get is "fuck you find your own resources".
You do you with your wall of text. Others who understand what reliable sources are have been commenting them and I've been able to form an opinion based on reliable information.
I have no qualms about shitting on those with dubious sources. That's how misinformation and propaganda is spread.
Your approval or lack there of means very little to me.
Like how you claim a news source you have seen for the first time is unreliable because it is "socialist"? I agree.
Nope.
https://medieombudsmannen.se/beslut/flamman-klandras-for-skadande-rattelse-om-skolentreprenoren-barbara-bergstrom/
https://medieombudsmannen.se/beslut/mediernas-etiknamnd-klandrar-flamman-for-text-i-nyhetsbrev/
The very fact that they are audited by a media ombudsman however goes on to prove that your previous statement
does not hold up. I agree with the ethical violations here but your reaction is clearly guided by "socialist news paper" as no one would discredit an entire newspaper just based on two audited violations (and to admit bad reactions to the audits). And the fact that nothing they have said in the previous article (i.e "parasites" or the donations) was fabricated remains.
I gave you but a selection of reasons why i dont find them reliable. In the other articles i viewed, I found their reporting of events to be obviously angled. Opinion pieces under the guise of being articles.
Me saying i find them closer to infowars than FOX News is my subjective opinion and where i place them on a scale between those two. It's not a question of it holding up or not.
That is fine, just telling you my opinion that it does not hold up. I agree they are on the aggressive ideology edge side but not on the fact fabricating side (and definitely not the fact we have been discussing).