this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
25 points (93.1% liked)

Fairvote Canada

787 readers
27 users here now

Matrix Chat

What is This Group is About?

De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?

The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.

🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.

Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.

🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.

Related Communities/Communautés Associées

Resources/Ressources

Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles

Content Moderation Policies

We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.

Politiques de modération de contenu

Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sunshine@lemmy.ca
AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca
Sunshine@piefed.ca
25
Bill S-222 would let 16 and 17 year olds vote. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 3 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/fairvote@lemmy.ca
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Young people already work, pay taxes, and live with the consequences of political decisions.

They deserve a voice. Send a message of support to the Senator from your province or territory!

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dermanus@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think this is a good idea. It just adds noise to the process. Granted, there's nothing magic about 18 years that makes someone mature but it's our age of majority.

If anything I'd like to limit the franchise to people who understand what they're voting for l but there isn't a just way to do that.

I don't accept the idea that more people voting is necessarily better. I feel the same about mandatory voting rules like Australia has.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

This might discourage politicians from trampling on young people's rights.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

So they want to restrict young people's access to the internet but also expand their voting rights?

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Most of the social media bans I've seen have been for those under the age of 16.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And people under 16 often do need to talk to others. Social media can be a massive cesspit, but there are uses for it and they can be critical for some.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Well I don't see why we would need to ban online chat for kids. That's not social media in my mind; there's no algorithmic feed.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Then we currently have a failure to communicate. Please define what is and what is not social media online. Are older PHP forums social media or not? Those were the first social media I did online and continued to be the main way I did any internet socializing for many years.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh sorry, I mean, I think we should ban algorithmic feeds (by which I mean anything non-trivial -- they usually have "latest unreads" etc. which is fine by me.). Possibly also systems which are both (a) not dedicated to a single topic, and (b) connect at least hundreds of thousands of people, and (c) have some built-in mechanism to facilitate forwarding content from others to other people directly adjacent to you on the graph (retweeting/reblogging/etc.).

SMS, IRC, BBS, online chat -- these all predate what are known as social media and they fit all my desiderata. No non-trivial algorithmic feed, and segregated into generally smaller communities.

Bluesky, twitter (latest-from-friends), Mastodon -- I am skeptical of these, even if they have no non-trivial algorithmic feeds. While individuals will typically have less than ten thousand "friends"/"following" per se, the friend graph still forms a network which comprises millions of people. Of course, traditional systems like email are similar, so this would probably be okay if not for reblogging/retweeting/etc., which is basically a human-powered recommender system.

Twitter (under normal usage), Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, tumblr -- hard no, these fit none of the desiderata, and I think they're clearly "social media" and also clearly harmful.

YouTube and Reddit I think are acceptable if we ban the non-trivial feeds (i.e. restrict to subscriptions-only, no recommender systems, no "best", "hot", etc.)

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's fair. I have to admit, to me social media was mostly about talking to others. I didn't get into TikTok or Instagram because I didn't see that option other than to watch short form videos, which is not something I like.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Well I think we shouldn't ban talking to other people in general. In my mind the harmful effects of social media is not what comes from chatting with specific people you are friends with.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The senate is not a monolith.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

They seem to be as far as stupidity goes.