Bill C-10

[rustled]

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?

That is the million dollar question.

It's naïve for any of us to believe the decisions around what constitutes Canadian content (so who gets funding and whose internet output gets elevated via algorithms to meet Canadian content requirements) won't be used as a tool by government, if they are given the opportunity to use them. We have only to look at how the Trudeau Liberals exploited the opportunities provided by the pandemic.

We can and should prevent them from creating greater opportunities for exploitation.

[rustled]

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.

That's an incorrect oversimplification.

This is from Wikipedia, so due diligence:

Canadian content (abbreviated CanCon, cancon or can-con; French: Contenu canadien) refers to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) requirements, derived from the Broadcasting Act of Canada, that radio and television broadcasters (including cable and satellite specialty channels) must produce and/or broadcast a certain percentage of content that was at least partly written, produced, presented, or otherwise contributed to by persons from Canada. For radio airplay the percentage is 40% and television is 55% yearly and 50% daily (CBC has a 60% CanCon quota). CanCon also refers to that content itself, and, more generally, to cultural and creative content that is Canadian in nature.

There are different rules for different categories of content. For example:

To qualify as Canadian content a musical selection must generally fulfill at least two of the following conditions:

• M (music) — the music is composed entirely by a Canadian
  A (artist) — the music is, or the lyrics are, performed principally by a Canadian
  P (performance) — the musical selection consists of a performance that is:
  . .Recorded wholly in Canada, or
  . .Performed wholly in Canada and broadcast live in Canada.
  L (lyrics) — the lyrics are written entirely by a Canadian

[fluffy]

It's naïve for any of us to believe the decisions around what constitutes Canadian content (so who gets funding and whose internet output gets elevated via algorithms to meet Canadian content requirements) won't be used as a tool by government, if they are given the opportunity to use them.

That sort of paranoia only comes from people whose mind already works that way. Part of what is going on right now is to remove the opportunities you are so terrified of.

[rustled]

It's naïve for any of us to believe the decisions around what constitutes Canadian content (so who gets funding and whose internet output gets elevated via algorithms to meet Canadian content requirements) won't be used as a tool by government, if they are given the opportunity to use them.

That sort of paranoia only comes from people whose mind already works that way.

Calling it "paranoia" seems to be a silly attempt at a put-down, likely due to a dearth of anything sensible to say in support of Bill C-10.

Anyone without blinders on can quite easily see how opportunistic the Trudeau Liberals have been.

Anyone with a lick of common sense understands that ANY government, regardless of party, can abuse whatever opportunities come their way. IMO it's foolish to give a government you trust any tools you wouldn't trust in the hands of ANY government.

The checks and balances we've had in place to thwart power-hungry governments have been seriously undermined - no reason to make it easier for future governments.

Part of what is going on right now is to remove the opportunities you are so terrified of.

When you choose to accuse me of being "terrified", it seems to me it's probably because you have nothing sensible to say in support of Bill C-10.

I asked previously if you're able to state the purpose in your own words in plain language because it seems to me you don't really understand what you're supporting but feel the need to support it anyway, which is your prerogative. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

It also seems to me the Trudeau Liberals count on partisan support for Bill C-10 from people who don't really understand what they're supporting.

[The Green Barbarian]

Calling it "paranoia" seems to be a silly attempt at a put-down, likely due to a dearth of anything sensible to say in support of Bill C-10.

"Like"

Well said!

[Smurf]

fluffy wrote:

That sort of paranoia only comes from people whose mind already works that way. Part of what is going on right now is to remove the opportunities you are so terrified of.

For me it is not paranoia it is the fact that governments can't always be trusted to do the right thing. That is especially true when it comes to looking after themselves instead of the people that elected them. All governments are opportunistic when it comes to looking after themselves.

I notice you keep saying things about how problems are being looked after right now, then you turn around and say they are minor flaws and should be forgotten about so the bill can be passed. When I worked as a safety officer and union rep I never once stood behind anything that I knew was flawed even if it went against my side. It made me unpopular more than once, but they also kept re-electing me. I expect no less of the people we elect to our governments. That is why I feel governments like the current Liberals should be thrown out as soon as possible.

I hope the opposition keeps on fighting for the general good of all Canadians.

[Gone_Fishin]

*removed*

[hobbyguy]

fluffy wrote:

That sort of paranoia only comes from people whose mind already works that way. Part of what is going on right now is to remove the opportunities you are so terrified of.

For me it is not paranoia it is the fact that governments can't always be trusted to do the right thing. That is especially true when it comes to looking after themselves instead of the people that elected them. All governments are opportunistic when it comes to looking after themselves.

I notice you keep saying things about how problems are being looked after right now, then you turn around and say they are minor flaws and should be forgotten about so the bill can be passed. When I worked as a safety officer and union rep I never once stood behind anything that I knew was flawed even if it went against my side. It made me unpopular more than once, but they also kept re-electing me. I expect no less of the people we elect to our governments. That is why I feel governments like the current Liberals should be thrown out as soon as possible.

I hope the opposition keeps on fighting for the general good of all Canadians.

Governments do make mistakes. The incidence of nefarious intent in Canadian governance is very, very low. Even in those very rare instances it is often a matter of viewpoint. e.g. LeGault's "French only" stuff. As an Anglo, it appears wrong. Does LeGault have nefarious intent? That is highly doubtful, rather I suspect that his views on the matter are shaped by the culture he grew up in. I still think its wrong, but that does not reflect a fundamental breach of being trustworthy.

Generally what happens with legislation that is wrong is one of 3 things: it fails to pass, it passes but is reversed (either by a new government or by the government that passed it realizing that it was out of step), or the SCOC strikes it down.

Governance as a whole in Canada is a continuous improvement exercise.

It may well be that I am wrong on LeGault's "French only stuff", but the process will give it a rigorous testing, and I believe it will not stand. If it does not stand, then that does not indicate nefarious intent - just a mistake. Plus media scrutiny is another testing of trustworthiness, although trust in media of all sorts is pretty low - in part thanks to nefarious attacks by politicians.

Singular opposition to consensus can indeed work in limited context. Especially where concrete results can be demonstrated, such as safety in the workplace.

There are many times, however, when such concrete results can not be demonstrated. I negotiated a union contract that included pension provisions. The union reps wanted the union's own pension plan brought in. Instead at my insistence the company offered a locked in RRSP that was individually employee directed - and in that context the union membership voted for that. I thought the locked RRSP was better, and so did the union membership, the union reps were adamant that the union plan was better. In the end, the union members remain happy with choice years later, but the union reps still maintain that the union's own plan was better.

The NDP and Bloc and been along for the ride and representing a moderating force with regard to C-10 the whole way. Neither of them see an infringement on individual rights in C-10 (and they hold the balance of power in the committee). The CPC committee members were also along for the ride, and were fine with C-10 - until O'Toole parachuted in a new member to filibuster, gaslight and disrupt - and purely for political games. Now that's nefarious on O'Toole's part, just using the Republican template of gaslight, filibuster, obstruct.

C-10 is in fact quite innocuous, unless you are Zuckerberg and you don't want to pay your taxes.

[rustled]

For me it is not paranoia it is the fact that governments can't always be trusted to do the right thing. That is especially true when it comes to looking after themselves instead of the people that elected them. All governments are opportunistic when it comes to looking after themselves.

I notice you keep saying things about how problems are being looked after right now, then you turn around and say they are minor flaws and should be forgotten about so the bill can be passed. When I worked as a safety officer and union rep I never once stood behind anything that I knew was flawed even if it went against my side. It made me unpopular more than once, but they also kept re-electing me. I expect no less of the people we elect to our governments. That is why I feel governments like the current Liberals should be thrown out as soon as possible.

I hope the opposition keeps on fighting for the general good of all Canadians.

Governments do make mistakes.

SNIP

C-10 is in fact quite innocuous, unless you are Zuckerberg and you don't want to pay your taxes.

That's the sales pitch. It works for people who still trust the Trudeau Liberals.

[fluffy]

The NDP and Bloc and been along for the ride and representing a moderating force with regard to C-10 the whole way. Neither of them see an infringement on individual rights in C-10 (and they hold the balance of power in the committee). The CPC committee members were also along for the ride, and were fine with C-10 - until O'Toole parachuted in a new member to filibuster, gaslight and disrupt - and purely for political games. Now that's nefarious on O'Toole's part, just using the Republican template of gaslight, filibuster, obstruct.

C-10 is in fact quite innocuous, unless you are Zuckerberg and you don't want to pay your taxes.

Excellent assessment.

[rustled]

The NDP and Bloc and been along for the ride and representing a moderating force with regard to C-10 the whole way. Neither of them see an infringement on individual rights in C-10 (and they hold the balance of power in the committee). The CPC committee members were also along for the ride, and were fine with C-10 - until O'Toole parachuted in a new member to filibuster, gaslight and disrupt - and purely for political games. Now that's nefarious on O'Toole's part, just using the Republican template of gaslight, filibuster, obstruct.

C-10 is in fact quite innocuous, unless you are Zuckerberg and you don't want to pay your taxes.

Excellent assessment.

An "excellent assessment" of the partisan Trudeau Liberal stance, yes.

An excellent assessment of Bill C-10 itself would require demonstrating one has, at the very least, a reasonable grasp of its purpose and what its implementation would entail. Yet so far those insisting it's "quite innocuous" seem confused about whether the purpose of Bill C-10 involves taxation or Canadian content or some combination of both, none of which they can explain in plain terms.

It seems to me the shifting narrative about the purpose of Bill C-10 shows people may be signalling their support for Bill C-10 despite not understanding what it entails, perhaps for partisan reasons.

[The Green Barbarian]

An "excellent assessment" of the partisan Trudeau Liberal stance, yes.

An excellent assessment of Bill C-10 itself would require demonstrating one has, at the very least, a reasonable grasp of its purpose and what its implementation would entail. Yet so far those insisting it's "quite innocuous" seem confused about whether the purpose of Bill C-10 involves taxation or Canadian content or some combination of both, none of which they can explain in plain terms.

It seems to me the shifting narrative about the purpose of Bill C-10 shows people may be signalling their support for Bill C-10 despite not understanding what it entails, perhaps for partisan reasons.

Excellent assessment Rustled!

[fluffy]

It seems to me the shifting narrative about the purpose of Bill C-10 shows people may be signalling their support for Bill C-10 despite not understanding what it entails, perhaps for partisan reasons.

"Partisan reasons" like the ones behind the right's continuous barrage of misinformation and misdirection as to what they want me to believe is the "true" intent of the bill ?

I'm standing by my own view that the bill is simply a long overdue updating of a piece of legislation that hasn't kept pace with the changes in the way we consume broadcast media. The right can keep their fear-mongering, it's just another knee-jerk bucket load of same-old from people incapable of original thought.

[rustled]

It seems to me the shifting narrative about the purpose of Bill C-10 shows people may be signalling their support for Bill C-10 despite not understanding what it entails, perhaps for partisan reasons.

"Partisan reasons" like the ones behind the right's continuous barrage of misinformation and misdirection as to what they want me to believe is the "true" intent of the bill ?

I'm standing by my own view that the bill is simply a long overdue updating of a piece of legislation that hasn't kept pace with the changes in the way we consume broadcast media. The right can keep their fear-mongering, it's just another knee-jerk bucket load of same-old from people incapable of original thought.

There is nothing to show original thought in repeating what the Trudeau Liberals have been saying - or in labeling people, or being derisive of those who question your basic understanding of what you support. It would, however, require original thought to show some reasonable understanding of Bill C-10 - rather than mere partisanship - IS the basis of one's support for Bill C-10.

It's quite obvious to me that people supporting Bill C-10 cannot explain its purpose without resorting to Trudeau Liberal talking points. IMO, this shows that since they do not have a reasonable understanding of what they are supporting, this support is primarily based on partisanship.

[fluffy]

It's quite obvious to me that people supporting Bill C-10 cannot explain its purpose without resorting to Trudeau Liberal talking points. IMO, this shows that since they do not have a reasonable understanding of what they are supporting, this support is primarily based on partisanship.

Wrong. You're letting right-wing misinformation cloud your understanding of the bill. Bill C-10 is the first proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Act since 1991, the dawn of the internet age as we know it. It is a sorely needed update.

Here's a decent read on where the bill currently stands, and what the issues are at present. Note that the bill is a work in progress.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/is-the- ... -1.5414080

The big point of contention at present is the striking of Section 4.1, which provided an exclusion for individual users of social media platforms. An often repeated reference to this section paints it as meaning your family photos and funny cat videos would be under scrutiny by the CRTC. That sort of fear mongering, that innocuous posts of this nature could be censored is the crux of the opposition to the bill. Bear in mind that if the exclusion where to remain intact, the CRTC would be powerless to deal with truly harmful and dangerous user-generated content. As this continues the CRTC will be required to clearly define the exact nature of user generated content that could come under the as yet undefined regulations.

As I said, it's a work in progress. I'm reminded of an old saying that read "Children and fools shouldn't see a job half done".