And if that's too complicated of a comparison for them: "Don't complain about Canadian smoke until you deal with American smoke"

This article came out yesterday: https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/us-wildfires-responsible-for-much-of-the-smoke-in-bc-region-officials/

“As wildfire activity increases, so has smoke across many areas of the region. Much of this smoke is originating from fires south of the Canada-U.S. border and will have varying impacts over the coming days,” an update Saturday evening said.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford was asked Friday about the growing number of American criticisms of wildfire management. In response, he alluded to Canada’s contributions to fighting U.S. fires, including those that ripped through California last year.

“Maybe what you should do, rather than complain, is send support, send help, because we have done the exact same thing for our American friends, and that’s what you’re supposed to do,” he said.

Just days before Trump’s post, 56-year-old Canadian pilot Nicholas Dale was killed while fighting a forest fire in Colorado.

I want to see Canadian countermeasures aimed specifically at the Republican regions that made comments like this.

I don't love the toggle, but some of the other components are fun, like the slider.

On the right type of site, these components could be a lot of fun

I would have expected people to be more angry at the US's actions than Argentina's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Trump%E2%80%93FIFA_red_card_controversy

During the 2026 World Cup, FIFA suspended the implementation of a one-game suspension that United States men's national soccer team player Folarin Balogun had received after he was sent off in a round of 32 match victory against the Bosnia and Herzegovina national team for a foul on Tarik Muharemović. Balogun's suspension was delayed for a probationary period of one year under the Article 27 authority of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. United States president Donald Trump had directly called FIFA president Gianni Infantino asking him to review the red card decision. The decision allowed Balogun to participate in the United States' Round of 16 match against Belgium despite the red card remaining in effect. Belgium won the match 4–1, with Balogun playing almost the entire match

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2026_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies

Another controversy, similar to when the events were hosted in Russia and Qatar, involves host countries immigration policies. The controversy during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, United States immigration and visa policies under the second Trump administration, which have affected players, officials, journalists, and fans from several qualified nations. A travel ban affecting citizens of 39 countries—including World Cup participants Haiti, Iran, Ivory Coast, and Senegal—has prevented most ordinary fans from those countries from obtaining visas to attend matches in the United States, though exemptions were granted for athletes, coaches, and essential support staff, as well as dual citizens, permanent residents, and valid visa holders. A separate visa bond program initially required fans from five African nations to pay deposits of up to $15,000, a requirement that was temporarily suspended in May 2026 for ticketed fans. Iraqi striker Aymen Hussein was detained for seven hours upon arrival at O'Hare International Airport, while Somali referee Omar Artan was denied entry and was unable to officiate at the tournament.

Wow, it's so full and colourful :)

Nice job everyone!

I have collected notes on the legal basis of each point, but we wanted to speak to legal professionals before writing that out officially. Additionally, there is some proposed legislation around online harms, and so we will need to wait before we can write something definitive around that. Depending on what ends up becoming law, we may move some rules down to "Prohibited by Fedecan Policy" instead.

It seems these rules, as drafted, are just “nice to have’s” without a corresponding enforcement avenue – assuming of course that all users are subject to Canadian law, which is probably not the case.

The focus for that section was more to do with what our legal responsibilities are, rather than those of the individual users. We do have users from all around the world.

Thank you! That is in line with what I would have said. I'll add on some remaining thoughts

I'll tag @ZERONOVABLOSSOM@sh.itjust.works for the reply as well, thank you for raising the discussion about these areas. There are already some lines that I want to improve based on the discussion here.

Mental health && Eating Disoders

As imaqtpie has mentioned, that bit was included because of past issues with social media platforms around those topics. I've also found that the culture on the Fediverse has a focus around tagging content so that it is easier for users to control their online experience, especially on the Mastodon side.

I agree with imaqtpie's stance on those questions. While I want to wait for more discussion before proposing changes, right now I'm leaning towards separating the mental health point from the other two. Graphic content and sexual content is easy to identify, and people expect that content to be labelled. Discussion around sensitive topics might sometimes need a label, but that would be situation dependent. We could include a line to say that people can use their best judgment on when to label such content, or most it to another section entirely.

An asterisk with a definition somewhere in the rules would be nice. I could look it up but I worry my understanding of these terms will differ from what you’re meaning.

That is a good point, we can definitely do that. Maybe some expandable cards (which look like this ) with the text "What is sockpuppetry", and a longer explanation with examples underneath. I could take from the examples @imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works shared if that would be ok?

There is likely a better term for the SEO point, but I'll have to think of what to call it. It's pretty obvious when it happens on Lemmy, since the account will primarily post links to the website that it is trying to promote. Before we enabled registration applications on Pixelfed.ca, we were getting a lot of accounts with bios that included links to gambling sites or sketchy online businesses.

I think that works, from a distance it still looks like two separate things

Hmm, I'm not sure what colour would work best on the top of the left side. I'll start on the other flags in the meantime, what do you prefer?

Oh nice, many cursors make light work 😄

Someone added a cool 3D effect to our flag, so I thought I'd add it to the other large flags too. I hope that's ok, I am happy to revert it :)

I'm not familiar with the wallets that you linked, but I might add

• RFID protection is often present in wallets, and it would be helpful
• I had a wallet with a coin pocket, but I stopped using it because I was starting to notice an imprint in the wallet from where the coins were sitting. I rarely need to use coins, and I have other places to keep coins, so it's not a big deal for me

As for recommendations, do any of these fulfill your requirements? They're pretty good

https://bellroy.com/

That is fair feedback. I was actually intentional with how I wrote that section:

We make up one part of the Fediverse, and we intend to have a positive influence on the rest of the network. Living in Canada, we've been shaped by frameworks such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its values naturally shape how we approach the decisions we make about our platforms.

My intent with that paragraph was to point out that our guidelines and enforcement may differ from how other jurisdictions handle similar content. The best way I thought to describe that was that as a Canadian team, those decisions will be guided by the social/cultural/legal frameworks that we are most familiar with, one of which is the Charter.

While doing the research for this, I came across the guidelines of some other platforms that explicitly tie their rules to the Charter. However, I didn't want to do that. While the Charter does offer protections that other parts of the world don't have, there is also plenty of academic discussion and criticism about the Charter and its limitations. It is a product of the political moment when it was created, and while it can shape some aspects of how a modern online platform should be run, there are going to be gaps that we need to address ourselves.

A related example is our Tier 1 Rule 2. We start with how the Criminal Code defines an "identifiable group", but extend it to any group that a reasonable person would recognize as a target of hatred. The list on the Criminal Code goes back decades, and it takes a lot of time and political will to update it. An online platform meanwhile will need to address issues around hate quickly, and so we will need to use our best judgment on when we need to act.

I would love to clarify the wording around the Charter (and any other sections) to address the concerns, if you have a moment to share more thoughts on what to work on :)