jadero

You missed this pretty important part of “doing the job”: And when you are unable to do the job, make room for some else to try.

I wish more people had the self-awareness to realize when it’s time to hand off to someone else.

… more consistency with our competitors…

They don’t sound like competitors, but partners; collusion, no competition.

What happened to “competition lowers prices”?

I think that the active participation of members is how we get strong communities. One way to be an active participant is to take responsibility for what you want to see. If you don’t like the bot, block it.

This is analogous to walking out of a movie you dislike rather than calling for it to be banned.

As far as I can tell, it’s not breaking any terms of service or policy. That doesn’t mean that terms of service and policy can’t be modified, but that should be done only to address general principles, not specific cases. (Although it may be that a specific case makes obvious the need for change.)

Just so you know, judges are specifically not to look to the will of the people but to the law.

Legislators are the ones who are supposed to consider the will of the people.

If the will of the people really is to have a law like this, then the Sask Party is doing it’s job in bringing forward the legislation. That, of course, assumes that our provincial government has appropriate jurisdiction over everything the law covers.

And that gets us to the injunction. An injunction is not about “no you can’t do that” but about “hang on there, it doesn’t look like you’ve covered all the bases”.

Let each person business rise and fall according the merits of their work and quality of their duties. No person business is entitled to anything. Even respect has to be earned.

An interesting contrast here. Air Canada is forced to honour an erroneous committment made by its service department. Government of Canada is not forced to honour a committment made by its service department.

I could understand it if the error was discovered and acted upon in a reasonable time, but over 30 years? That’s just not acceptable.

How about instead of being “not trained to do” neck kneelings, they be trained not to do neck kneelings.

Self-care is important, though. Without caring about and for myself, I would never have left shitty employers behind. Now, of course, self-care is something pushed by those who want us to suck it up and live with shitty policies.

So now that police have a clear connection between the original threats and the people who made those threats via the presumably real identity of the person who made the freedom of information request. This means that the investigation into the original complaint can move forward quite easily, right? Right?

Also, since when is it reasonable to keep secret the identity of those making successful freedom of information requests.

This cannot work safely in the current legal and regulatory environment.

In principle, there seem to be ways to securely, anonymously, and privately handle age verification. To the best of my knowledge, no such system has been deployed or mandated.

Thus, we are left with only the requirement to hand over critical documents to those who have no “standards of care” that make it safe to do so.

Have none of these people ever heard of any company or government agency losing control of personal information? How about they put some effort into fixing that first.