um... they is gone because they see a ball
look BlackJack! look Jillteenth!
see Polygon gone and run run on!
what fun they is having running after the ball!
lol
anyway, I effed that up
Jack 'n Jill ain't Dick and Jane!
so sue me
Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
look BlackJack! look Jillteenth!
see Polygon gone and run run on!
what fun they is having running after the ball!
lol
anyway, I effed that up
Jack 'n Jill ain't Dick and Jane!
so sue me
The working title for Barbarella was "Fun With Dick and Jane."
Disinformation, misinformation and fake news are real problems in a world that is now mainly online.
However, this shouldn’t blind us to the very real risk that comes from a government that aggressively polices information or becomes an arbitrator of the truth. It’s simply too easy to use this power to silence political opponents or people who hold unpopular opinions. Caution on this front is more important now that America is so politically polarized.
The consensus in favour of genuine free speech is eroding as the focus shifts towards fighting “disinformation.”
Separating truth from fiction has become more difficult in certain respects, but does that mean we should target speech that merely makes some people uncomfortable? If we interpret this speech as a form of violence — as many people now do — then a politically opportunistic government might well be tempted to classify those guilty of nothing more than being politically out of favour as dangerous (cough….Trucker Convoy Goat-Rodeo).
This is why a Department of Homeland Security “anti-terrorism” program, which distributed approximately $40 million to groups with a tendency to demonize their political opponents, is worrisome. For instance, the agency has funded a program that has produced material classifying mainstream conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Fox News and the GOP as only a few steps removed from neo-Nazis and far-right terrorists in terms of the threat of radicalization they represent.
I sometimes criticize conservative political rhetoric, but it’s far-fetched to believe that simply watching Fox News puts one on the road to radicalization any more than watching MSNBC does. People are always entitled to their opinions. A government that forgets this could end up normalizing censorship while rendering us all less alert to real threats of radicalization.
apple.news
Also problematic is government support for the so-called Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a United Kingdom-based group reportedly funded through State Department-backed entities. The group was the recent target of a multi-part investigation by the Washington Examiner for building questionable and secret advertiser “exclusion lists” targeting conservative and libertarian media.
According to GDI’s assessment, among the highest-risk sites were the New York Post, RealClearPolitics and Reason. I not only write for Reason, but it employs many of my friends. Simply suggesting that a lab leak was to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic, a position that has now become relatively mainstream, was reason enough to be blacklisted.
Meanwhile, the outlets deemed “least risky” are all considered left-of-centre with the exception of The Wall Street Journal. Supposedly low-risk for disinformation was the now-defunct BuzzFeed News, infamous for publishing the falsehood-laden Steele dossier.
Methodological problems, such as arbitrary and ideological distinctions between acceptable criticism and “negative targeting” of people and institutions, account for part of the ranking. But simple sloppiness is also on display: GDI falsely justified Reason’s poor ranking by claiming “the site publishes no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section.”
A quick look at Reason’s website is all it takes to rebut these claims. The authorship of articles is clearly communicated to readers and corrections are issued when needed, as with The New York Times and other respectable publications. Contrary to GDI’s belief, the fact that Reason doesn’t police its comment section isn’t based on its desire to spread disinformation but rather its belief in “free minds and free markets.”
The people behind GDI are entitled to their own opinions and methodology, and advertisers are free to direct their dollars wherever they want, including for ideological reasons. Condoning this with taxpayr dollars is the problem, even if political demonization is not the government’s intent.
Government involvement, direct or indirect, sends a signal the recipient is trustworthy and neutral. Hence, some CEOs fell for the labelling. Xandr, a Microsoft-owned advertising firm, informed clients last year that it would no longer advertise on platforms with content considered by GDI to be “morally reprehensible” or “offensive.”
Following the Examiner’s reporting (a publication that was blacklisted), Xandr suspended its relationship with GDI pending review.
The government involvement also exacerbates suspicions that public institutions have been corrupted, especially among those whose favourite outlets were targeted. It could also incite some conservatives, whenever they regain power, to intensify their own efforts to use government against progressive adversaries. That in turn creates even more polarization.
While not a unique occurrence, it is a good reminder that a government that sits in judgment of what is proper or improper information is inconsistent with the values of a free society.
However, this shouldn’t blind us to the very real risk that comes from a government that aggressively polices information or becomes an arbitrator of the truth. It’s simply too easy to use this power to silence political opponents or people who hold unpopular opinions. Caution on this front is more important now that America is so politically polarized.
The consensus in favour of genuine free speech is eroding as the focus shifts towards fighting “disinformation.”
Separating truth from fiction has become more difficult in certain respects, but does that mean we should target speech that merely makes some people uncomfortable? If we interpret this speech as a form of violence — as many people now do — then a politically opportunistic government might well be tempted to classify those guilty of nothing more than being politically out of favour as dangerous (cough….Trucker Convoy Goat-Rodeo).
This is why a Department of Homeland Security “anti-terrorism” program, which distributed approximately $40 million to groups with a tendency to demonize their political opponents, is worrisome. For instance, the agency has funded a program that has produced material classifying mainstream conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Fox News and the GOP as only a few steps removed from neo-Nazis and far-right terrorists in terms of the threat of radicalization they represent.
I sometimes criticize conservative political rhetoric, but it’s far-fetched to believe that simply watching Fox News puts one on the road to radicalization any more than watching MSNBC does. People are always entitled to their opinions. A government that forgets this could end up normalizing censorship while rendering us all less alert to real threats of radicalization.
DE RUGY: Government censors confuse ‘disinformation’ with mainstream opinions — Toronto Sun
Disinformation, misinformation and fake news are real problems in a world that is now mainly online. However, this shouldn’t blind us to the very real risk that comes from a government that aggressively polices information or becomes an arbitrator of the truth. It’s simply too easy to use this...
Also problematic is government support for the so-called Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a United Kingdom-based group reportedly funded through State Department-backed entities. The group was the recent target of a multi-part investigation by the Washington Examiner for building questionable and secret advertiser “exclusion lists” targeting conservative and libertarian media.
According to GDI’s assessment, among the highest-risk sites were the New York Post, RealClearPolitics and Reason. I not only write for Reason, but it employs many of my friends. Simply suggesting that a lab leak was to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic, a position that has now become relatively mainstream, was reason enough to be blacklisted.
Meanwhile, the outlets deemed “least risky” are all considered left-of-centre with the exception of The Wall Street Journal. Supposedly low-risk for disinformation was the now-defunct BuzzFeed News, infamous for publishing the falsehood-laden Steele dossier.
Methodological problems, such as arbitrary and ideological distinctions between acceptable criticism and “negative targeting” of people and institutions, account for part of the ranking. But simple sloppiness is also on display: GDI falsely justified Reason’s poor ranking by claiming “the site publishes no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section.”
A quick look at Reason’s website is all it takes to rebut these claims. The authorship of articles is clearly communicated to readers and corrections are issued when needed, as with The New York Times and other respectable publications. Contrary to GDI’s belief, the fact that Reason doesn’t police its comment section isn’t based on its desire to spread disinformation but rather its belief in “free minds and free markets.”
The people behind GDI are entitled to their own opinions and methodology, and advertisers are free to direct their dollars wherever they want, including for ideological reasons. Condoning this with taxpayr dollars is the problem, even if political demonization is not the government’s intent.
Government involvement, direct or indirect, sends a signal the recipient is trustworthy and neutral. Hence, some CEOs fell for the labelling. Xandr, a Microsoft-owned advertising firm, informed clients last year that it would no longer advertise on platforms with content considered by GDI to be “morally reprehensible” or “offensive.”
Following the Examiner’s reporting (a publication that was blacklisted), Xandr suspended its relationship with GDI pending review.
The government involvement also exacerbates suspicions that public institutions have been corrupted, especially among those whose favourite outlets were targeted. It could also incite some conservatives, whenever they regain power, to intensify their own efforts to use government against progressive adversaries. That in turn creates even more polarization.
While not a unique occurrence, it is a good reminder that a government that sits in judgment of what is proper or improper information is inconsistent with the values of a free society.
The Liberal Party of Canada launched more than a dozen ads on Facebook to promote the government’s messaging just days after the Trudeau government announced it would stop advertising on Meta-owned platforms because of the ongoing conflict over the Online News Act.
According to the Meta’s ad library, the Liberal party launched targeted ads in Atlantic Canada earlier this week to promote federal carbon pricing amid criticism from premiers on anticipated energy cost increases with the start of the Clean Fuel Regulations on July 1.
Specific messages were crafted to reach residents in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island in an attempt to push the idea that the carbon tax will put more money in their pockets and help fight climate change.
The Liberal party also paid for ads to promote their candidate in the Calgary Heritage byelection, set to take place on July 24.
apple.news
In total, these 13 advertisements were paid for and promoted in the week following Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez’s announcement on July 5 that the government would stop advertising on Meta after the company began blocking news contents on its platform following the passing of C-18.
The Liberal party, however, told the National Post at the time that the government’s decision would not extend to the party.
On Thursday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre mocked the Liberal Party’s decision to continue advertising on Meta-owned platforms despite Trudeau saying the company did not respect the pillars of democracy. “As usual, with Justin Trudeau, this is all theatre,” he said.
According to the Meta’s ad library, the Liberal party launched targeted ads in Atlantic Canada earlier this week to promote federal carbon pricing amid criticism from premiers on anticipated energy cost increases with the start of the Clean Fuel Regulations on July 1.
Specific messages were crafted to reach residents in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island in an attempt to push the idea that the carbon tax will put more money in their pockets and help fight climate change.
The Liberal party also paid for ads to promote their candidate in the Calgary Heritage byelection, set to take place on July 24.
Liberal party launched over a dozen Facebook ads after government Meta boycott — National Post
The party launched targeted ads in Atlantic Canada to promote federal carbon pricing and support a byelection candidate in Calgary
The Liberal party, however, told the National Post at the time that the government’s decision would not extend to the party.
On Thursday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre mocked the Liberal Party’s decision to continue advertising on Meta-owned platforms despite Trudeau saying the company did not respect the pillars of democracy. “As usual, with Justin Trudeau, this is all theatre,” he said.
Tell me PP is wrong on this .The Liberal Party of Canada launched more than a dozen ads on Facebook to promote the government’s messaging just days after the Trudeau government announced it would stop advertising on Meta-owned platforms because of the ongoing conflict over the Online News Act.
According to the Meta’s ad library, the Liberal party launched targeted ads in Atlantic Canada earlier this week to promote federal carbon pricing amid criticism from premiers on anticipated energy cost increases with the start of the Clean Fuel Regulations on July 1.
Specific messages were crafted to reach residents in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island in an attempt to push the idea that the carbon tax will put more money in their pockets and help fight climate change.
The Liberal party also paid for ads to promote their candidate in the Calgary Heritage byelection, set to take place on July 24.
In total, these 13 advertisements were paid for and promoted in the week following Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez’s announcement on July 5 that the government would stop advertising on Meta after the company began blocking news contents on its platform following the passing of C-18.Liberal party launched over a dozen Facebook ads after government Meta boycott — National Post
The party launched targeted ads in Atlantic Canada to promote federal carbon pricing and support a byelection candidate in Calgary
The Liberal party, however, told the National Post at the time that the government’s decision would not extend to the party.
On Thursday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre mocked the Liberal Party’s decision to continue advertising on Meta-owned platforms despite Trudeau saying the company did not respect the pillars of democracy. “As usual, with Justin Trudeau, this is all theatre,” he said.
The CRTC just announced that any “online undertakings” with annual revenues of more than $10 million must now register with Ottawa. This includes social media sites such as Facebook or Instagram, streaming sites such as YouTube and Netflix, and even podcast providers.
The round-up is all part of the implementation of Bill C-11, the Liberals’ new law to extend Canadian content controls to the internet. All registrants will soon need to obey CRTC guidelines on Canadian content, which will include artificially hiding podcasts and videos from users that don’t meet Ottawa’s definition of what is “Canadian.”
As was asserted multiple times throughout C-11’s passage through Parliament, this is a level of state control of the internet that doesn’t really exist anywhere else in the democratic world.
In the link below at “other news”…
apple.news
The round-up is all part of the implementation of Bill C-11, the Liberals’ new law to extend Canadian content controls to the internet. All registrants will soon need to obey CRTC guidelines on Canadian content, which will include artificially hiding podcasts and videos from users that don’t meet Ottawa’s definition of what is “Canadian.”
As was asserted multiple times throughout C-11’s passage through Parliament, this is a level of state control of the internet that doesn’t really exist anywhere else in the democratic world.
In the link below at “other news”…
FIRST READING: Manitoba PC re-election pitch — You don't have to tell people you voted for us — National Post
Facing defeat, the Manitoba PCs told voters they don't have to tell anyone they voted conservative
Don’t worry, supporters of this policy claim; there’s nothing to worry about, it’s not about individual podcasters — it’s only companies earning more than $10 million per year. The players making more than $10 million per year are the platforms that content producers like me and millions of others rely on to get our message out to the public.
Saying you won’t regulate an individual podcaster, just the platforms they stream on, is like saying you won’t regulate individual drivers, just the highways they drive on.
The result is the same.
apple.news
Saying you won’t regulate an individual podcaster, just the platforms they stream on, is like saying you won’t regulate individual drivers, just the highways they drive on.
The result is the same.
LILLEY: Yes, the CRTC's podcast registry could lead to censorship — Toronto Sun
Bill C-11 gave the CRTC sweeping powers to regulate the online world, expect them to dig deep.
So if I understand this correctly, this is just a tax grab to continue financing TurdOWEs approved media outlets. And he gets to brag that they are not taxpayer financed.
How is this not unconstitutional? What happened to Freedom of expression? Sigh, apparently Trudeau will get his wish - Canada being much like China in that he'll be able to "turn things around on a dime" if he has his way - "dick tator" Trudeau! How can we allow this to happen? Wake up people! OMG.The CRTC just announced that any “online undertakings” with annual revenues of more than $10 million must now register with Ottawa. This includes social media sites such as Facebook or Instagram, streaming sites such as YouTube and Netflix, and even podcast providers.
The round-up is all part of the implementation of Bill C-11, the Liberals’ new law to extend Canadian content controls to the internet. All registrants will soon need to obey CRTC guidelines on Canadian content, which will include artificially hiding podcasts and videos from users that don’t meet Ottawa’s definition of what is “Canadian.”
As was asserted multiple times throughout C-11’s passage through Parliament, this is a level of state control of the internet that doesn’t really exist anywhere else in the democratic world.
In the link below at “other news”…
FIRST READING: Manitoba PC re-election pitch — You don't have to tell people you voted for us — National Post
Facing defeat, the Manitoba PCs told voters they don't have to tell anyone they voted conservative
On Friday, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued new “registration regulations,” as part of its expanded mandate under the Online Streaming Act.
The new rules oblige all streaming, social media and online subscription television and radio stations that live-stream over the internet, as well as services that offer both free and paid podcasts, to register with the CRTC by Nov. 28, unless they earn less than $10 million a year in broadcasting revenues in Canada.
In other words, creators who upload content are not required to register, as they are not subject to the Broadcasting Act, but the behemoths who carry their work, and help them pay the bills, will.
The internet promptly exploded with outrage. Most angry were podcasters, who suddenly found themselves in the glare of the CRTC’s outsized headlights.
Naturally, politicians got in on the action: Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre tweeted, “We warned that Justin Trudeau’s online censorship law was coming to censor what people can see and say online. Liberals denied it. Now, it is exactly what they’re doing. Conservatives will repeal Trudeau’s censorship, and restore freedom of expression online for all.”
Will these regulations lead to censorship? Arguably, yes. That’s because the CRTC’s mandate isn’t just to ensure that broadcasters include a certain amount of Canadian content, but it does set the parameters of the Canadian broadcasting landscape.
Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act states that the Canadian broadcasting system should, “through its programming and … employment opportunities … serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from Black or other racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples and languages within that society.”
apple.news
Link, above, more, etc…
While Canada is a diverse country, the reflection of the circumstances, aspirations and interests of its diverse populations is subjective. Who defines them? Are communities monolithic? What if they are divided on important issues?
Do all members of the LGBTQ community, Muslim community, South Asian community and Black community think the same way about every issue? Who decides what the official tolerant thoughts will be and which ones are the fringe minority with unacceptable views?
The new rules oblige all streaming, social media and online subscription television and radio stations that live-stream over the internet, as well as services that offer both free and paid podcasts, to register with the CRTC by Nov. 28, unless they earn less than $10 million a year in broadcasting revenues in Canada.
In other words, creators who upload content are not required to register, as they are not subject to the Broadcasting Act, but the behemoths who carry their work, and help them pay the bills, will.
The internet promptly exploded with outrage. Most angry were podcasters, who suddenly found themselves in the glare of the CRTC’s outsized headlights.
Naturally, politicians got in on the action: Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre tweeted, “We warned that Justin Trudeau’s online censorship law was coming to censor what people can see and say online. Liberals denied it. Now, it is exactly what they’re doing. Conservatives will repeal Trudeau’s censorship, and restore freedom of expression online for all.”
Will these regulations lead to censorship? Arguably, yes. That’s because the CRTC’s mandate isn’t just to ensure that broadcasters include a certain amount of Canadian content, but it does set the parameters of the Canadian broadcasting landscape.
Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act states that the Canadian broadcasting system should, “through its programming and … employment opportunities … serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from Black or other racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples and languages within that society.”
Tasha Kheiriddin: Streaming over-reach another reason for Conservatives to disband the CRTC — National Post
New regulations will usher in an era of online censorship
While Canada is a diverse country, the reflection of the circumstances, aspirations and interests of its diverse populations is subjective. Who defines them? Are communities monolithic? What if they are divided on important issues?
Do all members of the LGBTQ community, Muslim community, South Asian community and Black community think the same way about every issue? Who decides what the official tolerant thoughts will be and which ones are the fringe minority with unacceptable views?
On Friday, the CRTC announced the first step of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act. Any “online streaming services” — be they podcast providers or video platforms — were given until Nov. 28 to make their first-ever registration with the CRTC.
It’s just a quick form laying out contact details and the name of a “designated representative” who can be expected to carry out subsequent CRTC instructions. But if the form isn’t received by then, it’s a Bill C-11 violation and thus a possible $10 million fine.
The announcement immediately attracted attention well beyond the usual circles that care about CRTC regulatory changes. Perennial world’s wealthiest man Elon Musk declared “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”
Investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald wrote a viral social media post branding the registration as the opening salvo of “one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes.”
To this, defenders of the move shot back that the registration only applies to companies with annual revenues of more than $10 million. “That is very few companies offering podcasts in Canada,” wrote CBC Business reporter Anis R. Heydari.
But the $10 million threshold is a bit of a red herring given that the explicit end-goal of C-11 is to have all of Canada’s primary podcast and video platforms subject to federal controls. While very few Canadian podcasters and video streamers can claim eight-figure revenues, almost all of them rely on a distributor (such as Spotify or YouTube) that does — and it’s those distributors who will likely be mandated by Ottawa to enforce the requirements of C-11 on their users.
More. Link. Etc…
apple.news
It’s just a quick form laying out contact details and the name of a “designated representative” who can be expected to carry out subsequent CRTC instructions. But if the form isn’t received by then, it’s a Bill C-11 violation and thus a possible $10 million fine.
The announcement immediately attracted attention well beyond the usual circles that care about CRTC regulatory changes. Perennial world’s wealthiest man Elon Musk declared “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”
Investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald wrote a viral social media post branding the registration as the opening salvo of “one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes.”
To this, defenders of the move shot back that the registration only applies to companies with annual revenues of more than $10 million. “That is very few companies offering podcasts in Canada,” wrote CBC Business reporter Anis R. Heydari.
But the $10 million threshold is a bit of a red herring given that the explicit end-goal of C-11 is to have all of Canada’s primary podcast and video platforms subject to federal controls. While very few Canadian podcasters and video streamers can claim eight-figure revenues, almost all of them rely on a distributor (such as Spotify or YouTube) that does — and it’s those distributors who will likely be mandated by Ottawa to enforce the requirements of C-11 on their users.
More. Link. Etc…
FIRST READING: Yes, the Liberals are absolutely coming for your podcasts — National Post
The whole point of C-11 is to force federal content controls on as much of the internet as possible
When they discover that very few "Podcasters" likely make over $10M, the amount will be reduced to $5M then $1M then $100,000K et al. Just wait for it! They absolutely need absolute control over everything said. We're not a democracy anymore.On Friday, the CRTC announced the first step of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act. Any “online streaming services” — be they podcast providers or video platforms — were given until Nov. 28 to make their first-ever registration with the CRTC.
It’s just a quick form laying out contact details and the name of a “designated representative” who can be expected to carry out subsequent CRTC instructions. But if the form isn’t received by then, it’s a Bill C-11 violation and thus a possible $10 million fine.
The announcement immediately attracted attention well beyond the usual circles that care about CRTC regulatory changes. Perennial world’s wealthiest man Elon Musk declared “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”
Investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald wrote a viral social media post branding the registration as the opening salvo of “one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes.”
To this, defenders of the move shot back that the registration only applies to companies with annual revenues of more than $10 million. “That is very few companies offering podcasts in Canada,” wrote CBC Business reporter Anis R. Heydari.
But the $10 million threshold is a bit of a red herring given that the explicit end-goal of C-11 is to have all of Canada’s primary podcast and video platforms subject to federal controls. While very few Canadian podcasters and video streamers can claim eight-figure revenues, almost all of them rely on a distributor (such as Spotify or YouTube) that does — and it’s those distributors who will likely be mandated by Ottawa to enforce the requirements of C-11 on their users.
More. Link. Etc…
FIRST READING: Yes, the Liberals are absolutely coming for your podcasts — National Post
The whole point of C-11 is to force federal content controls on as much of the internet as possible
Podcasters use the services of the companies that are targeted, so it gets them all regardless of the $10M thing. That’s just optics.
Like so:
While very few Canadian podcasters and video streamers can claim eight-figure revenues, almost all of them rely on a distributor (such as Spotify or YouTube) that does — and it’s those distributors who will likely be mandated by Ottawa to enforce the requirements of C-11 on their users.
More. Link. Etc…
FIRST READING: Yes, the Liberals are absolutely coming for your podcasts — National Post
The whole point of C-11 is to force federal content controls on as much of the internet as possible
Well, more than a year later, & the Conservatives have a new leader.Summer is nearly at an end. Parliament is about to resume. The Conservatives are about to elect a new leader. And our politics are about to enter a period of sharper definition, with clearer differences between the two main parties. Nowhere is this more true, seemingly, than over the issue of government involvement in the media: broadcast, print and internet-based.
The Liberals built much of the current apparatus of subsidies and regulations, and remain unrepentant advocates of it. Not content with regulating radio and television broadcasters – particularly with a view to what proportion of their content meets the regulator’s definition of “Canadian” – the Trudeau government proposes to extend the same regime to the global internet.
Bill C-11, now before the Senate, would regulate audio and visual streaming services as if they were conventional broadcasters: not only the large distributors, such as Netflix or Spotify, but also social-media sites; not only domestic services, but foreign-based ones; and not only provider-generated content, but user-created content as well. All would now have to answer to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, just as the broadcasters have for decades.
Opinion: The coming confrontation over government intervention in the media
Will Pierre Poilievre fully commit his party to the principle that the state has no place in the newsrooms of the nation? And if he does, will the media punish him for it?www.theglobeandmail.com
Not content, likewise, with subsidizing the CBC – plus the private broadcasters, plus the magazine industry – the Liberals have lately sought to extend state funding to the newspaper industry as well, with the enthusiastic support of many publishers. The first tranche of aid was provided in 2019 through a five-year, $595-million suite of tax credits known colloquially, and accurately, as the newspaper bailout.
Now the Liberals are proposing to entrench state aid to newspapers through Bill C-18, still before the Commons. Only instead of providing the aid directly out of government coffers, it will be laundered through the major search and social-media platforms, notably Google and Facebook.
Technically the bill would only mandate negotiations on how much the platforms should have to pay to use newspaper content. But who’s kidding whom? Not only would the newspapers be empowered to bargain collectively, as if they were a union, but in the event of an impasse, the issue would fall to the CRTC to decide. One guess whose side it would be likely to take.
That would be troublesome enough, if the platforms were in fact using our content, without paying for it. But as they do not – they merely link to it, to our enormous benefit – the program is revealed for what it is: a crass shakedown. Facebook and Google have money. The publishers want it. So the government will force FacebookGoogle to give the publishers some of it. It’s as simple as that.
Finally, there is the online harms bill, still in the drafting – or indeed redrafting – stage. As originally envisaged, the bill would have given the state vast new powers to regulate or delete content – or even suppress it before it appeared – either directly or via complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The ensuing flap has apparently caused something of a rethink, but how extensive it has been remains to be seen.
….& Bill C-11 (formerly Bill C-10) received royal assent on April 27, 2023, after the consideration of amendments by the House. It adds undertakings that conduct "broadcasting" over the internetCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), giving it the power to impose "conditions" on their operation.
Alongside this, the bill also removes the seven-year term limit for CRTC-issued broadcast licences (a regulatory process which will not apply to internet broadcasters), adds a mechanism of imposing "conditions" on broadcasters without them being bound to a licence term, and introduces monetary fines for violating orders and regulations issued by the CRTC. Needless to say, the CRTC’s power & authority have been strengthened.
Despite 92 per cent of Canadians who grew up non-Christian saying in a poll that they were not offended by the greeting “Merry Christmas,” and despite the protection of freedom of religion in our Constitution and charter, the grinches at the Canadian Human Rights Commission insist that we must be offended by Christmas and Easter as statutory holidays because they are evidence of Canada’s “colonialist” religious intolerance. How will the CRTC enforce the declaration from the CHRC? Will it, with its new-found power and authority? It’ll be interesting to look back at this in another year or so.
FIRST READING: Federal commission declares Christmas holiday is 'religious intolerance' — National Post
The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which wields broad quasi-judicial powers, argued that a day off on Christmas is 'discriminatory'
“Podcasters” don’t have to make over $10,000,000, they just have to have their content hosted on a service that makes over $10M to get caught up in this.
The Trudeau government has also developed a habit of reacting to almost every criticism or setback as an example of “misinformation and disinformation.” In just the last year, Liberal MPs have uttered the word “misinformation” in the House of Commons or in Parliamentary committees no less than 278 times….so far.
apple.news
FIRST READING: The Liberal habit of calling everything they don't like 'misinformation' — National Post
Here's some objectively true things from just the last 12 months that had the 'm word' thrown at them in the House of Commons
Propaganda.The Trudeau government has also developed a habit of reacting to almost every criticism or setback as an example of “misinformation and disinformation.” In just the last year, Liberal MPs have uttered the word “misinformation” in the House of Commons or in Parliamentary committees no less than 278 times….so far.
FIRST READING: The Liberal habit of calling everything they don't like 'misinformation' — National Post
Here's some objectively true things from just the last 12 months that had the 'm word' thrown at them in the House of Commons