Bill C-10

[fluffy]

Decent information from one of the stakeholders in Bill C-10:

C-10 and social media: let’s get the facts straight

"Now more than ever, Canadians engage with their media, be it audio, audiovisual, or social, online. These realities demand that Canada’s regulatory system be adapted to ensure online services pay their fair share and contribute to the Canadian broadcasting ecosystem. Bill C-10 remains an essential step towards this goal.

In recent days, some have critiqued this Bill as an “affront to freedom of expression” resulting in an “open ended censorship regime for the internet.” The Conservative Party of Canada has made clear its opposition to this Bill. Each point to recent amendments to article 4.1.(1) as infringing on Canadians’ rights. These comments have put in jeopardy the progress of Bill C-10 through Parliament in advance of the summer.

Let us be clear: these characterizations are both factually incorrect and dangerously misleading. They represent neither the text nor the purpose of Bill C-10."

https://cimamusic.ca/news/recent-news/r ... m-the-cdce

Suspicion and innuendo doth not an argument make.

[rustled]

Decent information from one of the stakeholders in Bill C-10:

C-10 and social media: let’s get the facts straight

Now more than ever, Canadians engage with their media, be it audio, audiovisual, or social, online. These realities demand that Canada’s regulatory system be adapted to ensure online services pay their fair share and contribute to the Canadian broadcasting ecosystem. Bill C-10 remains an essential step towards this goal.

In recent days, some have critiqued this Bill as an “affront to freedom of expression” resulting in an “open ended censorship regime for the internet.” The Conservative Party of Canada has made clear its opposition to this Bill. Each point to recent amendments to article 4.1.(1) as infringing on Canadians’ rights. These comments have put in jeopardy the progress of Bill C-10 through Parliament in advance of the summer.

Let us be clear: these characterizations are both factually incorrect and dangerously misleading. They represent neither the text nor the purpose of Bill C-10.

https://cimamusic.ca/news/recent-news/r ... m-the-cdce

Suspicion and innuendo doth not an argument make.

That stakeholder has a vested interest to defend. The bias of anyone who relies on taxpayer-funded support of Canadian artists will prompt them to tell us how vital it is for the taxpayers to fund Canadian artists. (This statement may contain some suspicion and innuendo - it's also common sense. That's where they're coming from in defending Bill C-10.)

Their "exclusion" claim has already been shown to be faulty. Canadians have good reason to be wary. Haste is not in out best

[fluffy]

That stakeholder has a vested interest to defend.

Of course they do, that's why I posted it. Someone with information on what the bill will actually do for them as opposed to political posturing.

[rustled]

That stakeholder has a vested interest to defend.

Of course they do, that's why I posted it. Someone with information on what the bill will actually do for them as opposed to political posturing.

Yes, what it will do for them.

It's simply someone else's posturing: their objective is to make a case for a Bill that will benefits them through greater access to taxpayer funds to support artists who can't generate enough financial support for their art and rely instead on government-managed charity, regardless of the unintended consequences for Canadians - not the least of which is how Canadians are exposed to art produced by through government-managed funding.

I'd be interested to know if you can, in your own words, state the actual purpose of Bill C-10.

[hobbyguy]

Sorry, I will have to agree to disagree. Everything the Liberals do is carefully gauged for their political advantage. They would not even look at this if they did not think there was some advantage to be gained. They are playing to their base all the way.

Yes and no. Every political party will try to frame their positions for political advantage.

The difference with the Liberals (and the NDP) versus the CPC is that the Liberal party (and the NDP party) have mechanisms where the base indicates the policy positions and action imperatives to a large extent.

Those imperatives are then the range of choices that are used to produce platforms, and when in government, ministers mandate letters etc.

So those two parties (not sure about the Bloc or Greens) shift positions as society's concerns evolve. The Liberals have a very robust system for doing that, which is why they tend to be on the correct side of issues when polling is done.

The CPC is much, much more more "top down" and much more divided because their processes are "top down". You won't see the Liberals ignore or contradict the party membership as obviously as we see with the CPC. The Liberal approach is generally to have policies that reflect what the majority of Canadians want, and get elected that way. The CPC approach tends to be a fixed and immutable ideological dogma that relies on political shenanigans and maneuvers to get elected.

In a nutshell that's why the Liberals are generally more responsive to concerns of the majority of Canadians.

C-10 is a response to that shifting concern of Canadians.

[rustled]

Sorry, I will have to agree to disagree. Everything the Liberals do is carefully gauged for their political advantage. They would not even look at this if they did not think there was some advantage to be gained. They are playing to their base all the way.

SNIP The Liberals have a very robust system for doing that, which is why they tend to be on the correct side of issues when polling is done.

The correct side according to the polling the Trudeau Liberals use to generate support for their agenda.

I suppose that's typical of the Trudeau Liberals to propose "polling" as a solid metric on which to base government policy.

C-10 is a response to that shifting concern of Canadians.

Again, "that shifting concern of Canadians" according to polling - in which the polls are set up to generate the results the Trudeau Liberals require in order to be "on the correct side of issues when polling is done".

[Gone_Fishin]

In a nutshell that's why the Liberals are generally more responsive to concerns of the majority of Canadians.

I didn't know the "majority of Canadians" are billionaires from the Laurentians.

Trudeau is crafting this legislation to strip away our Constitutional rights - the rights we THOUGHT we had, anyway. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did the exact same thing to their citizens. Justin Trudeau is after Absolute Power for the LPC, and his paid digital influencers on here will be sorry sods when they realize that $20/hour wasn't worth their lives as Canadians.

[fluffy]

C-10 is a response to that shifting concern of Canadians.

Yes, and a response to the changes in the way Canadians access media content. The idea that they do care about the concerns of the electorate as opposed to assuming they have the authority to decide for the electorate without consultation is what sets them apart from the CPC.

Plus the bill seeks to deal with corporate freeloading by leveling the playing field for all media broadcasters.

[Sparki55]

Must be a problem with bill C-10 or we wouldn't be talking about it so much.

The conservatives have nothing to gain if the bill doesn't go through.

What do the liberals have to gain if the bill does pass?

Seems to me the divide is worse than I thought. Seems to me the divide is stemmed from freedom. The liberals want to regulate the internet, have stricter gun laws, force gender diversity everywhere. The conservatives want to uphold free internet, keep gun laws as is and let people decide things for themselves.

People who vote liberal are afraid of freedom and others.

People who vote conservative thrive in a free environment.

[rustled]

C-10 is a response to that shifting concern of Canadians.

Yes, and a response to the changes in the way Canadians access media content. The idea that they do care about the concerns of the electorate as opposed to assuming they have the authority to decide for the electorate without consultation is what sets them apart from the CPC.

LOL.

What really sets the Trudeau Liberals apart from the Conservatives is how the Trudeau Liberals tell Canadians what Canadians are concerned about, and then engage in faux consultation about how they propose to deal with the concerns they've told us Canadians are concerned about.

If supporting mediocre Canadian artists was a genuine concern for ordinary Canadians, ordinary Canadians would not need to be forced through algorithms and taxation to support mediocre Canadian art.

Bill C-10 is for the Trudeau Liberals.

[Sparki55]

Yes, and a response to the changes in the way Canadians access media content. The idea that they do care about the concerns of the electorate as opposed to assuming they have the authority to decide for the electorate without consultation is what sets them apart from the CPC.

lol, so the CPC is some tyrannical government and they tell others how it is but the liberals get elected in and listen to the people?

Both parties do the same thing, pander to their base to get votes to get into office.

[Smurf]

One big difference between the Liberals and the CPC is that the liberals control their members, what they do and what they say. The CPC give them freedom. Just ask Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott what happens if you don't tow the party line.
I Think Justin and the liberals would love to get that same control over the media. A few "loopholes" as mentioned by Fluffy might be just what they were hoping for. Who knows. I certainly don't but I am happy to see them debated and hopefully closed.

[Glacier]

One big difference between the Liberals and the CPC is that the liberals control their members, what they do and what they say. The CPC give them freedom. Just ask Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott what happens if you don't tow the party line.
I Think Justin and the liberals would love to get that same control over the media. A few "loopholes" as mentioned by Fluffy might be just what they were hoping for. Who knows. I certainly don't but I am happy to see them debated and hopefully closed.

I agree that the Liberals are much more control freaks, but the Conservatives certainly do it too. Just ask Derek Sloan about that.

As for Bill C-10, I'm not worried about it because YouTube, Facebook, Castanut Forums, etc. are impossible to regulate. The government is basically giving a blank cheque to the CRTC because they have no idea how on earth it can be regulated. What they want is Canadian content EVEN THOUGH CANADIANS ALREADY SUPPLY A DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.

The million dollar question is: What constitutes Canadian content? Justin Beiber is Canadian content because he's from Canada? Neil Young is even though he lived in the USA for 50 years? Is Lauren Chen's political commentary "Canadian content" because she's Canadian and lives in Quebec but was born in Hong Kong? Steven Crowder is Canadian, and has the most successful political commentary on the internet. Is he Canadian content? He is also right wing while the main left-wing rival (The Young Turks) is American. Does this mean that Bill C-10 will punish left-wing commentators and promote right-wing commentators because the right-wing commentators are Canadian?

[hobbyguy]

Must be a problem with bill C-10 or we wouldn't be talking about it so much.

The conservatives have nothing to gain if the bill doesn't go through.

What do the liberals have to gain if the bill does pass?

Seems to me the divide is worse than I thought. Seems to me the divide is stemmed from freedom. The liberals want to regulate the internet, have stricter gun laws, force gender diversity everywhere. The conservatives want to uphold free internet, keep gun laws as is and let people decide things for themselves.

People who vote liberal are afraid of freedom and others.

People who vote conservative thrive in a free environment.

Actually, it is simplistic to think that "freedom" is anarchy.

The old cliche example: "What is difference between the BC Lions and Calgary Stampeders duking it out on a field, and the Hell's Angels and the Grim Reapers doing the same?" Answer: rules, regulations and referees.

The entire system of laws and governance is in fact the underpinning of personal freedoms.

Simple example: you want to free to walk down the street. So "we" agree to have a law that nobody can walk up to you and smack you with a baseball bat and steal your wallet. So what happens if they do? Well that needs police, courts, jails etc. etc.

It all goes to a system of shared responsibility. Yes, that is a limitation on your freedom, you are not allowed to bash your neighbor with a baseball bat - even if you think it is justified because the deadbeat won't pay you back the $100 you loaned him.

Social media, and the internet in general, have much pretty developed in a field of anarchy. There are virtual "baseball bats" (e.g. ransomware).

The strictly commercial side of the internet, e.g. Amazon are in fact covered by a lot of laws and regulations as a direct transfer from the bricks and mortar of the past. Other parts of internet activity simply are not analogous to any of the bricks and mortar past - and so have been (and continue to be) both "freeloaders" and existing in anarchy, and in some cases causing direct harm (think about the child porn thing).

C-10 does not come close to trying address the anarchy of the internet. C-10 is just a simple step to start to address the "freeloader" aspect and define who is who as commercial operators on the internet. It does NOT regulate content. It does NOT impinge on individual user rights. It does start to bring the Zuckerbergs of the world into the realm of being responsible operators within our society, and stop being freeloaders. (like Apple "transferring" its earnings to Ireland to avoid paying taxes).

The rest of the stuff about "infringing on personal rights" is just spin nonsense. Of course Zuckerberg et al don't want to be defined and have to pay their fair share of taxes! So "cui bono" applies when seeing "buzz" about C-10.

[hobbyguy]

One big difference between the Liberals and the CPC is that the liberals control their members, what they do and what they say. The CPC give them freedom. Just ask Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott what happens if you don't tow the party line.
I Think Justin and the liberals would love to get that same control over the media. A few "loopholes" as mentioned by Fluffy might be just what they were hoping for. Who knows. I certainly don't but I am happy to see them debated and hopefully closed.

I agree that the Liberals are much more control freaks, but the Conservatives certainly do it too. Just ask Derek Sloan about that.

As for Bill C-10, I'm not worried about it because YouTube, Facebook, Castanut Forums, etc. are impossible to regulate. The government is basically giving a blank cheque to the CRTC because they have no idea how on earth it can be regulated. What they want is Canadian content EVEN THOUGH CANADIANS ALREADY SUPPLY A DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.

The million dollar question is: What constitutes Canadian content? Justin Beiber is Canadian content because he's from Canada? Neil Young is even though he lived in the USA for 50 years? Is Lauren Chen's political commentary "Canadian content" because she's Canadian and lives in Quebec but was born in Hong Kong? Steven Crowder is Canadian, and has the most successful political commentary on the internet. Is he Canadian content? He is also right wing while the main left-wing rival (The Young Turks) is American. Does this mean that Bill C-10 will punish left-wing commentators and promote right-wing commentators because the right-wing commentators are Canadian?

Canadian content is content produced in Canada. There is nothing in C-10 that regulates what that content consists of. Produced in Canada does not require "all Canadian actors".