Seems like a good idea, though what about people that choose to, or don’t have internet access? Also does this account for people who file taxes in braille.

This can already be done TBH, phones have something called private DNS settings, so all one would need to do is set your phones DNS to a appropriate DNS that blocks or allows a specific websites.

This DNS could potentially be curated by a local government. This would allow a parent to set their child’s phones DNS appropriately at their discretion.

This would be less privacy invasive and would remove the need for a “digital ID”. While at the same time checking the box of protection ones children at the parents discretion.

Parental controls have existed on home routes for years.

This leaves the ban of certain websites at your own discretion and allows you to raise your children the way you see fit.

Hell, parental controls can be tailored to only allow certain device on your home-network designated as “children’s devices” to only access a list of certain websites blocking everything else. This would the easiest option to implement for any parent as they see fit.

Handing over personal info so easily to corporately owned websites for the sake of convenience in a huge privacy issue.

Any of these solutions are similar to someone coming into my home and telling me how to raise my own kids.

Instead provide parents with routers that support parental controls, and a countries government can instead maintain a curated list of websites that are accessible for certain age groups.

This would be the most practical solution and would meet the “protect the children” narrative.

Anything more then this is a invasion or privacy and a way to monitor the public.

With free breakfast, dinner, and full refund of their tickets right?

“encouraged customers to be cautious and take steps to protect themselves.”

TF does a average customer know what to do to protect themselvests when a company they use gets hacked.

Can I ask a company to delete all their data on me after I signup? Probably not…

Replace the words e-scooter or e-bike with cars and trucks in this article and tell me there is no double standards…

And I suppose you might want to add public consensus as well.

I for one believe Canada should look to expand its energy sector, but within the scope of renewables and alternative power sources. Looking at wind, solar, thermal, wave and tidal energy.

For one it would make out countries grid more resilient in the long run for a multitude of reasons.

Last year the Province passed Bill 212, Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, which sought to remove 19 kilometres of Toronto’s protected bike lanes.

Together, we fought back and won.

But the court decision did not stop the Province from blocking new bike lanes. And now it is trying to do exactly that with Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act.

Bill 212 at least pretended it would set criteria for new bike lanes. Bill 60 drops the pretense. It lets the Province ban any reduction of motor vehicle lanes, and the wording is so broad that it will not just impact bike lanes but also affect bus priority lanes, patios, school streets, and other street improvements that rely on reallocating space. This isn’t just about settling grudges against Toronto. The consequences will be felt across Ontario.

Now the province intends to skip committee and rush the legislation through without hearing from feedback from the public.