Bill C-10

[hobbyguy]

Unfortunately only something like 26% of people practice good information hygiene. That makes fake news and misinformation a serious threat.

What exactly do you consider good information hygiene ? Would that be official press releases from the Liberal government, or guest editorials sent into all the MSM news organizations directly from the PMO ?
And what do you consider fake news and misinformation ? Any comments stemming from the opposition criticizing the Liberal government ?

https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer

2021 EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER
HOW WE MEASURED
INFORMATION HYGIENE
1. News engagement (does one or more of these several times a week or more)
• “Read, view or listen to news and information produced by major news organizations or
publications at the original source” MED_SEG_OFTr1
• “Read news and information from major news organizations sent to me by others or pushed to
me on a news feed, social network platform or application” MED_SEG_OFTr2
• “Read, view or listen to news and information put out by major corporations regarding important
social and political issues and events” MED_SEG_OFTr16

SNIPPED

That's as good a definition as I have seen. It basically says, be skeptical and check out the veracity of what you hear, don't get stuck in echo chambers, and don't pass on nonsense. In other words, use critical thinking.

I agree that the state is in tough spot with this. However, if you consider that before internet we did not have an issue with freedom of expression despite defamation laws, slander laws and hate speech laws... it can be done.

It still means that you have you have to cast a skeptical eye on things and inform yourself, but at least the loose guidelines of defamation, slander, and hate laws keep the nonsense down to a dull roar.

Somehow the "wild west" of "social media" needs a toning down as a large chunk of it has become "anti-social media". C-10 isn't going to get us there, but it might at least start the process.

[featfan]

Trudeau accuses Canadians concerned with internet censorship of wearing 'tin foil hats'

https://thepostmillennial.com/gaslighti ... -foil-hats

[featfan]

Found this on the web today.


The few people defending #C10 seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression the purpose of the bill is to block "harmful" content. It isn't. It's to steer eyeballs to the government's *preferred* content.

There is no sound policy rationale for this.

[mikest2]

In simple terms, I would like to read the news myself from whatever sources I choose, not have the news read to me by the government.

[Smurf]

I agree Mikesf2. I want to read all different opinions, facts etc. and make a decision for myself not be fed something someone else thinks.

[Gone_Fishin]

The criminal Guilbeault was chirping in an interview that the CRTC is "arm's-length" from government, but when Evan Solomon asked him what happens if the CRTC takes it too far, he said the government would make them back off. Errrrrrrrr........

[Glacier]

JWR gives the bill a thumbs down...

[attachment=0]FB_IMG_1620601256383.jpg[/attachment]

EDIT: I have no idea why this won't attached

[hobbyguy]

Trudeau accuses Canadians concerned with internet censorship of wearing 'tin foil hats'

https://thepostmillennial.com/gaslighti ... -foil-hats

If'n yer quoting thepostmillenial propaganda echo site....

However, what gets forgotten is that the legislation has been amended to ensure that private person usage is not regulated. Yes, there will be a limitation that defines when a "private blogger" or "uploader" becomes a professional. There are indeed those folks out there.

Those issues need to be debated seriously, not with the tinfoil hat nonsense hyperbole coming from some quarters.

Are there tinfoil hats among the CPC caucus? Probably... Derek Sloan certainly is. Michael Cooper is borderline. Cathay Waganthal is certainly "out there".

There are tinfoil hats in all the parties. Former MP Kennedy Stewart is pretty darn close. There were times when I wondered about Stephane Dion. They come and go.

So Trudeau is correct, but unwise to express that publicly.

[Septuagenarian]

Self removed.

[rustled]

Trudeau accuses Canadians concerned with internet censorship of wearing 'tin foil hats'

https://thepostmillennial.com/gaslighti ... -foil-hats

If'n yer quoting thepostmillenial propaganda echo site....

However, what gets forgotten is that the legislation has been amended to ensure that private person usage is not regulated. Yes, there will be a limitation that defines when a "private blogger" or "uploader" becomes a professional. There are indeed those folks out there.

Those issues need to be debated seriously, not with the tinfoil hat nonsense hyperbole coming from some quarters.

You bet they do. Trudeau's "tinfoil hat" hyperbole is disgusting.

So Trudeau is correct, but unwise to express that publicly.

So here, you are simultaneously saying the issue does deserve serious discussion, while attempting to defend the Trudeau Liberals for approaching the discussion with the foregone conclusion that those expressing their genuine concerns about Bill C-10 are "tinfoil hat" wearers.

You're basically telling us it's ok that Trudeau arrogantly presumes to think that of us as tinfoil hat wearers, as long as he doesn't admit it - he should pretend to seriously consider our concerns while keeping his mockery of our concerns to himself.

Rank.

Bill C-10 is a terrible tool. No government should be granted this authority.

[The Green Barbarian]

So Trudeau is correct, but unwise to express that publicly.

Trudeau is not "correct", by any means. He is a disgrace. A total and utter disgrace to every value that Canadians hold dear. We can't rid of the Liberals soon enough.

[hobbyguy]

rustlked - OK then, what would you propose to deal with the threat of constant misinformation and deliberately false stories that are a huge problem with anti-social media?

Like I said, the CRTC may or may not be the best agency to deal with it, but you have to start somewhere, and you need it to be at arm's length from politicians.

You might also want to look at this: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/p ... e/c10.html

"The Bill clarifies that the Act applies on the Internet. Clause 1 would add online undertakings as a distinct class of broadcasting undertaking subject to the Act."

SNIP

"Users of social media services who upload programs for sharing with other users, and are not affiliated with the service provider, would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in that respect."

SNIP

"Users of social media who upload programs for sharing with other users and are not affiliated with the service provider will not be subject to regulation."

Now that's the Charter Statement. Bear in mind that the Canadian Charter of Rights does allow some discretion insofar as government actions that are consistent with a free and fair democracy.

However, the committee changed that https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c ... -1.6007192

"But the exclusion for user-generated content was removed by members of the heritage committee last Friday. Another amendment approved by the committee on Monday would grant the CRTC the power to regulate smartphone apps as well."

So who sits on the committee? https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/CHPC/Members

Some of the criticisms are hyperbolic, some are not. Tom Kmiec raises some key points, partly philosophic, especially if you ignore the digressions into attacks on the government: https://openparliament.ca/bills/43-2/C-10/

"There is a role for the government to play in ensuring that regulations and laws are in place to offset disinformation and attempts by foreign governments, or entities with a nefarious purpose, to spread disinformation with the objective of achieving discord or chaos in our country, or causing economic harm."

"I do not think there is as much of a place for the government to deal with misinformation, because Canadians are excellent at dealing with it themselves."

SNIP

"I question whether ensuring the social cohesion of a country is the right role for the government to be taking on. Our citizens, NGOs and civic organizations do the job of protecting our civic virtues already."

SNIP

"First, I am concerned that the bill chooses to limit the oversight powers of parliamentary committees with respect to directives and regulations that would be adopted by the CRTC."

SNIP

"This is an expansion of what the government is trying to do. A lot of independent media are saying they are very concerned that they are going to be regulated directly by the government. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? What I see happening, mostly from parties on the left but all over the spectrum, is that misinformation is now whatever someone does not like, or whatever opinion one does not agree with. "

When I look at this, I note that Tom is contradicting himself with his first two statements as disinformation and misinformation are the same thing.

Does government have a role in the social cohesion of the country? Of course it does, as without government there is no country or social cohesion at all.

Limiting the oversight powers of the parliamentary committee in the specifics of what the CRTC does is a good thing in my opinion as it makes the CRTC more of an "at arms length" body not nearly as subject to political whim. The changes to the act place the onus for appeal decision making on the legal process and the courts, which takes it right out of the hands of politicians - and therefore less subject to abuse.

Tom confuses opinion with misinformation. If I say, "I think this is wrong" - that is opinion. If I misinterpret factual information to support my assertion, then that also is opinion (not misinformation). If I say, Tom is 125 years old" - that is misinformation. If I got that misinformation from source "x", say the CBC website for argument's sake, then I am not the responsible party - but the CBC could be held to account in this example. (The same would apply to the numerous for profit web sites such as DesSmog - who now become "publishers/broadcasters".)

Have to say I appreciate how Tom has wrapped up the key issues of contention.

[The Green Barbarian]

.

[rustled]

rustlked - OK then, what would you propose to deal with the threat of constant misinformation and deliberately false stories that are a huge problem with anti-social media?

Like I said, the CRTC may or may not be the best agency to deal with it, but you have to start somewhere, and you need it to be at arm's length from politicians.

The CRTC is NOT at arm's length. See previous posts.

You've decided it's a problem that must be addressed? I haven't.

To me, this is "it's a threat" akin to "the threat" of climate change in that it is a very hazy bogeyman, immeasurable and based on emotional responses to the suggestion that we should all be afraid of this threat, and ready to do what it takes to eliminate the threat.

The threat IMO isn't social media - it's journalism run amok.

[featfan]

This bill is not for our culture or musicians. It is to kill any voices and sites that the Lieberals do not like.