[helloooooooo]

Rogers itself is an ISP. This order is Bell(also and ISP) targeting all other ISPs in the country.

Finally, I don’t get what purpose your final paragraph adds to the conversation? This is a court order. It has nothing to do with executive action from the government, rather a judge ruling that the ISPs must block pirated sports.

[mortenlwk]

Let's not be naiive here. The courts and the government are not totally disconnected. Everyone has at some point observed court rulings that they thought to have been impacted by political discourse. Instead of indulging myself into a loquacious sesquipedalian treatise on the nature of ethics and origin of judicial and political systems, I will, paraphrasing Hemingway, let go of my dick and just tell you what is there. The system is man-made and man controls every aspect of it. It is corrupt and everything is connected. This is obvious to anyone willing to step away from their ivory tower and just apply common sense.

I believe that last paragraph to be an observation that is obvious to most people.

[unfocused]

No one is naive here.

The person made a false assumption in their first paragraph, and then linked that false information to his second that is really not that relevant here.

If you read the article, it even states:

6. That didn't stop Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor, who went straight to the Federal Court in 2019, asking for an order against themselves to block a streaming service called GoldTV. They also asked the court to order other ISPs to do the same, including TekSavvy.

In addition, they have tried this twice before, through the Federal Government, and it didn't work:

2. For years, media companies in Canada have asked the government to use Internet filtering—or "site blocking"—to help enforce copyrights. In 2017, through a coalition called FairPlay, they asked the CRTC to create a site-blocking regime. They lost. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-384.htm

3. They made a similar pitch to the federal government committee reviewing the Copyright Act in 2018. I was there to oppose it. In its report, the INDU committee recommended studying a limited, copyright-specific injunction that balanced interests. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INDU/Reports...

So to write that ALL IS CORRUPT and the Government is the baddie is unnecessary. These corporate people, and I certainly am not on their side, are just trying the numbers game. They will keep asking their lawyers to keep trying in order to restrict their product/service so they "make more money". I certainly don't agree with Rogers and Bell, but let's not mislead people here.

[trinsic2]

Where is the misleading? Are you saying its misleading to say that government, by definition is corrupt?

[unfocused]

I'm saying that the entire original comment was misleading since it was based on a false assumption which lead to a false conclusion. The government has said No to this twice already! I do not believe the person who made the comments is malicious, it's just a simple error and I hold nothing against the person. But then another commenter jumped on board and continued on that false premise.

At this point, we are going off topic.

[ghostpepper]

> loquacious sesquipedalian treatise

This sounds like a species of fish.

I went fishing for marlin but we accidentally caught an endangered _loquacious sesquipedalian treatise_ and had to throw it back before the fish and game officer saw it