Bill C-10

[Gone_Fishin]

What tangible advantage is there for Regular Joe Canuck to be forced to see more Canadian content on the internet? Really, how will it make his life any better?

[fluffy]

Why do we need to regulate at all? The internet is great because it reduces the barriers to entry such that minorities and even minorities within minorities who would not have a voice in a regulated market can easily produce content.

Even content promoting hatred and violence, and other illegal content ? There needs be some type of mechanism to keep those posting dangerous content accountable.

[fluffy]

If I may make a suggestion, begin by quantifying and clarifying the NEED for regulation.

Don't be silly, it's thirty years out of date. The Broadcasting was last ammended in 1991, when the internet was in its infancy. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see what will happen if Canada gets a reputation of the wild west of the internet.

Have a look at Australia, they first started legislating internet content in 2015, and their world isn't falling apart.

[The Green Barbarian]

Even content promoting hatred and violence, and other illegal content ? There needs be some type of mechanism to keep those posting dangerous content accountable.

Who decides what is "hate", and what is "promoting violence"? You see on US social media the right being censored, and yet there are those who aren't affiliated with the right calling for the death of Israel and for people to go out and riot and loot in the name of Antifa, who somehow are good to go - it's this double-standard that really has to be avoided. Either every call to violence falls under this law, or it really is just another bunch of hypocritical useless legislation championed only by people who don't want any other point of view but their own to make it through the government censors.

[The Green Barbarian]

Why do we need to regulate at all? The internet is great because it reduces the barriers to entry such that minorities and even minorities within minorities who would not have a voice in a regulated market can easily produce content.

I don't know what percentage of my online media consumption is "Canadian content," but if it's not enough to meet their threshold, and they force me to watch Canadian produced cat videos to fill in the void, I will just leave my internet streaming at night when I'm sleep to get my Canadian content. Or I might just use a VPN.

The point is:
1) It shouldn't be regulated.
2) It cannot be regulated if it were the right thing to do.

Therefore, this bill is not going to change anything, and is just a waste of time.

Exactly. This bill is being promoted by people who want the nanny-state involved in our daily lives.

[rustled]

If I may make a suggestion, begin by quantifying and clarifying the NEED for regulation.

Don't be silly, it's thirty years out of date. The Broadcasting was last ammended in 1991, when the internet was in its infancy. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see what will happen if Canada gets a reputation of the wild west of the internet.

Have a look at Australia, they first started legislating internet content in 2015, and their world isn't falling apart.

It's interesting that you find it necessary to dismiss a basic requirement for any good policy as "silly", while engaging in what may qualify as silliness. For example, you've claimed the current regulation for Canadian broadcasters is 30 years out of date, suggesting it expired at about the time it was implemented. One could call this "silly".

I'm asking you simply to provide genuine, quantifiable evidence that we do need the internet regulation you claim we need.

Perhaps you can't, perhaps you won't. At any rate, you've chosen instead you denigrate that expectation as "silly", and go on with "what will happen if Canada gets a reputation" - a bit of a crystal ball kitsch that may be of vital significance to you, I suppose. For most of us this sort of dramatic statement is no substitute for evidence to show why we need this particular piece of regulation.

No one here has said legislating internet content will cause anyone's world to fall apart - more drama.

We have simply asked you to show this regulation is needed, and how Bill C-10 meets that need. While apparently you can't do that, you continue to denigrate those who choose not to support Bill C-10. To me this is backward - you are supporting the implementation of policy and regulation you do not understand, and denigrate those who don't support the implementation of policy and regulation without evidence it's necessary and will be effective without doing more harm than good.

When you DO understand it, and you ARE able to make a rational, evidence-based case for it, you may be able to show others why they, too, should support it.

[Glacier]

Why do we need to regulate at all? The internet is great because it reduces the barriers to entry such that minorities and even minorities within minorities who would not have a voice in a regulated market can easily produce content.

Even content promoting hatred and violence, and other illegal content ? There needs be some type of mechanism to keep those posting dangerous content accountable.

Don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well that illegal activity is already taken care of as best as possible.
The regulations that we are all talking about have nothing to do with violent and illegal content. The bill is idiological in that it wants channels that throw in some social justice talking points to boost their ratings, and those who just have a cooking chanel that doesn't make political statements will probably get downgraded or considered to be "not good Canadian content."

The problem with Bill C-10 is that it will stifle creativity and kill future growth on YouTube in Canada.

This is the best article on the Bill that I've found, and it's written by a Canadian who would benefit from the Bill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... uilbeault/

If Bill C-10 passes, satisfying the needs of audiences — the formula that has produced countless Canadian YouTube success stories, including my own — may soon take a back seat to satisfying government regulators. Those of us who have benefited from a golden era of creative freedom online should feel obligated to ensure it continues for others.

[fluffy]

I'm asking you simply to provide genuine, quantifiable evidence that we do need the internet regulation you claim we need.

Of course you can supply genuine, quantifiable evidence that we do not need internet regulation.

[fluffy]

The Broadcasting Bill, the tempest & the teapot

"Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister the last time Canada updated the Broadcasting Act. Back in 1981. In the era before the Internet. Broadcasting signals were transferred through cable lines, over the air and the big new thing, via satellite."

>snip<

"Beating back American cultural dominance has always been at the core of Canadian broadcasting legislation, dating back to the first Broadcasting Act introduced by the Pearson government in 1968. We are the only country that shares a language, a culture and importantly, an accent, with the US, making their programming indistinguishable from ours, but because it is better financed, it is often higher quality. In other words it’s very hard to compete with.

So the question is, do we want to continue to have Canadian programs? If yes, we need regulation to help. And to be clear most countries in the world have some form of regulation to protect and grow domestic cultural product – so as to help their own culture and the protect local jobs."

http://thepearsoncentre.ca/platform/bro ... p-cardozo/

[Merry]

If beating back “American cultural dominance” is the issue, I’d say we’ve failed miserably on all fronts in that regard.

Even in schools, American spelling is widespread in Canada. As is American pronunciation of many words. And American style evangelism, American style politics, American TV and movies, are all prevalent in Canada, despite decades of trying to use bodies like the CRTC to make it not so.

And I highly doubt Bill C-10 is going to change that trend.

[fluffy]

If beating back “American cultural dominance” is the issue, I’d say we’ve failed miserably on all fronts in that regard.

Even in schools, American spelling is widespread in Canada. As is American pronunciation of many words. And American style evangelism, American style politics, American TV and movies, are all prevalent in Canada, despite decades of trying to use bodies like the CRTC to make it not so.

And I highly doubt Bill C-10 is going to change that trend.

It does come down to an individual choice. I actively resist "Americanization" and I don't think I'm alone in that. US culture in the entertainment industry is pervasive, especially in the television and film sector, but Canada has a pretty good track record in music. My go-to online radio station is RadioParadise.com, a small one-man operation from California that has a huge following and I've lost count of the Canadian artists he has introduced me to.

There most certainly is a "Canadian Identity" for those willing to pursue it. The US is not a particularly inspiring role model these days, in fact they have become a pretty good example of what not to do.

[rustled]

I'm asking you simply to provide genuine, quantifiable evidence that we do need the internet regulation you claim we need.

Of course you can supply genuine, quantifiable evidence that we do not need internet regulation.

It's not up to me to do that. It's up to those of you supporting this Bill and its implementation to prove it's necessary.

This seems to me to be an acknowledgement that you are unable to show it is necessary.

[fluffy]

I don't "expect" anyone to support the bill, I was voicing an opinion as to why I support it. I have no responsibility to do your homework for you.

[rustled]

Of course you can supply genuine, quantifiable evidence that we do not need internet regulation.

It's not up to me to do that. It's up to those of you supporting this Bill and its implementation to prove it's necessary.

So it's a silly request ?

I'd frame it more as another rather obvious attempt to avoid your responsibilities as the person who expects others to support Bill C-10. You seem unable to make a coherent case for supporting Bill C-10.

Formulating good public policy takes far more than "it sounds like a good idea" and "look who else thinks it's a good idea".

Formulating good public policy begins with understanding what the proposed policy is intended to achieve, how it will go about achieving it, and a proper consideration of the unintended consequences.

When the citizens in any democracy are willing to allow their government to implement whatever policies they can convince us "sound good", we citizens are abdicating our responsibilities.

[hobbyguy]

Why do we need to regulate at all? The internet is great because it reduces the barriers to entry such that minorities and even minorities within minorities who would not have a voice in a regulated market can easily produce content.

I don't know what percentage of my online media consumption is "Canadian content," but if it's not enough to meet their threshold, and they force me to watch Canadian produced cat videos to fill in the void, I will just leave my internet streaming at night when I'm sleep to get my Canadian content. Or I might just use a VPN.

The point is:
1) It shouldn't be regulated.
2) It cannot be regulated if it were the right thing to do.

Therefore, this bill is not going to change anything, and is just a waste of time.

Exactly. This bill is being promoted by people who want the nanny-state involved in our daily lives.

Interestingly, increased regulation of big tech is gaining popularity ground as people tire of the nonsense and harms caused by the "wild west" of social media. In the US 57% of people want more government regulation of big tech. Oddly enough, that sentiment is strongest among Republicans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/vie ... ation.aspx

My guess is that there is a similar sentiment in Canada, although I haven't seen a poll.