The Alberta government should be careful when limiting the power of professional regulators to discipline speech. Regulators exist to protect the public, ensure ethical standards, and prevent harm or discrimination, especially in professions like healthcare, law, and education
26.01.2026 07:14 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
The U.S. should be cautious about intervening against Europeβs tech laws. While these regulations may limit the power or profits of American tech companies, they are often designed to protect usersβ privacy, reduce harmful content, and promote fair competition.
26.01.2026 07:13 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Social media platforms should have some responsibility to support and share professional news content because they play a major role in how people get information today. Quality journalism helps inform citizens, supports democracy, and reduces the spread of misinformation.
26.01.2026 07:13 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
To what extent should technology companies, rather than governments, be responsible for regulating harmful online content across different countries with conflicting free-speech laws?
26.01.2026 07:12 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Governments may want to ban social media for teens to protect them from harms like cyberbullying, addiction, and mental-health risks, but doing so raises serious concerns. While a ban could reduce exposure to harmful content, it also limits teensβ freedom of expression
24.01.2026 04:38 β π 2 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Banning social media for under-16s may reduce some harms, like exposure to cyberbullying, addictive algorithms, and inappropriate content, but it also creates new problems. Strict bans can push teens to use platforms secretly, making their online activity harder to monitor and potentially less safe.
24.01.2026 04:37 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
The government and many parents say the ban reduces exposure to harms like cyberbullying, addictive design features, grooming risks, and negative effects on sleep and wellbeing. Platforms must take βreasonable stepsβ to stop under-16s from having accounts, with big fines for non-compliance, and unde
24.01.2026 04:37 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Should governments ban under-16s from social media to protect them, even if it limits their access to information, community, and raises enforcement/privacy challenges?
This question gets at the heart of the policyβs goals, its impacts #UCWCOMM150 @houmanmehrabian.bsky.social
24.01.2026 04:31 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 3 π 0
Should governments ban under-16s from social media to protect them, even if it limits their access to information, community, and raises enforcement/privacy challenges?
This question gets at the heart of the policyβs goals, its impacts #UCWCOMM150 @houmanmehrabian.bsky.social
24.01.2026 04:30 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 2 π 0
Yes, Canadaβs government can be justified in banning a foreign surveillance company like Hikvision on national security grounds even without publicly disclosing detailed evidence, because revealing sensitive intelligence could compromise sources, methods, or ongoing investigations.
18.01.2026 23:38 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Yes, the U.K. should criminalize the creation or request of AI-generated non-consensual intimate images, even if they are never shared, because the harm begins at the moment of creation. These images violate a personβs dignity, autonomy, and consent, and the #UCWCOMM150 @houmanmehrabian.bsky.social
18.01.2026 23:37 β π 3 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Should schools use surveillance cameras for safety if there is a risk that the footage could be accessed online, potentially turning schools into a modern panopticon where students feel constantly watched?β
18.01.2026 23:36 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Does the mere possibility of being watched (rather than actual constant observation) change how people behave? Why or why not?
18.01.2026 23:36 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
17.01.2026 04:05 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
17.01.2026 04:05 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
17.01.2026 04:04 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Should police departments be allowed to use AI-powered facial recognition on body cameras despite privacy and bias concerns?
17.01.2026 04:04 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
Yes, U.S. tech companies should be held accountable because they often know their technology can be used to monitor and suppress people. If they continue to sell or support these tools, they help make harmful surveillance possible. Holding them responsible encourages ethical business practices and
17.01.2026 03:50 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
No, U.S. technology companies should not be held responsible because they do not control how foreign governments use their products. These tools are often designed for general or legal purposes, and misuse is the responsibility of the government that applies them.
17.01.2026 03:49 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Yes, they should be held responsible because some U.S. tech companies know their products can be used to spy on people or control them, especially in countries with weak human rights protections. If companies make money from these tools, they should also take responsibility for how they are used.
17.01.2026 03:48 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
οΏΌ
Should U.S. technology companies be held responsible for how their products are used in authoritarian surveillance systems like Chinaβs digital policing apparatus.
17.01.2026 03:42 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
#UCWCOMM150
17.01.2026 03:21 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
