Bill C-10

[Gone_Fishin]

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.

They are getting paid to blurt out those talking points on this forum and others. They don't know the first thing about what they're purporting to support - they just regurgitate the list of talking points sent to them from the PMO's election machine every day.

In contrast, those opposing this affront on our Constitutional rights have bothered to research the legislation and form our own opinions. Anyone who takes the time to understand it, and to be of original thought, opposes this dictatorial push by Justin Trudeau. Canadians need to spend the time and find out what's happening, instead of swallowing the crap spewed by these bag paid Trudeau pumpers.

[hobbyguy]

It is quite obvious that amongst partisans O'Toole has been successful in poisoning the well with his gaslighting and political obstruction shenanigans. It is disappointing to see O'Toole shilling for big tech corporate interests by spreading manure about C-10.

Those that think for themselves, rather than blindly follow what they are fed by the likes of O'Toole, actually read the bill and understand that it has nothing to do with the "personal freedoms" as O'Toole's gaslighting would have partisans believe.

None of the partisans on this forum have been able to quote the actual bill in their attacks on it. They should read it, and as I suggested before, quote it to support their nonsense. Problem is that what the bill actually says is nothing like the nonsense rhetoric that O'Toole and his ilk have spewed. But I guess that is what is now at the core of the CPC - gaslighting and nonsense.

[hobbyguy]

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.

They are getting paid to blurt out those talking points on this forum and others. They don't know the first thing about what they're purporting to support - they just regurgitate the list of talking points sent to them from the PMO's election machine every day.

In contrast, those opposing this affront on our Constitutional rights have bothered to research the legislation and form our own opinions. Anyone who takes the time to understand it, and to be of original thought, opposes this dictatorial push by Justin Trudeau. Canadians need to spend the time and find out what's happening, instead of swallowing the crap spewed by these bag paid Trudeau pumpers.

Perfect support of my previous point about blindly following O'Toole's gaslighting.

[fluffy]

None of the partisans on this forum have been able to quote the actual bill in their attacks on it.

There's the meat of it right there.

[Gone_Fishin]

It's really something to see these people without any morals whatsoever supporting an admitted sexual assailant, and attacking an upstanding man who has served his country in the military and whose character is beyond reproach.

Trudeau is so desperate to grab control of media so that Canadians can't learn of of other sexual deviances, that he's pulling out all the stops to legislate via C10 silence about his disgusting sexual assaults on young women.

I'm unable to comprehend the mindsets of those who support Trudeau's disgusting behaviour.

[rustled]

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".

"Wrong" is your opinion, fluffy, and you're entitled to it. There's likely another old saying about fools giving tools to politicians without properly considering their implications and long-term consequences.

What you've provided here is simply a recap of Trudeau Liberal talking points.

You've yet to show that you actually understand the purpose of Bill C-10 except in the most general of terms as provided in the Trudeau Liberal talking points. Deferring instead to "right-wing information" and someone else's bit of fun about cat videos is a sidestep away from having to show you understand it, as is calling anyone's concerns about Bill C-10 "fear mongering".

I have never pretended to have a clear understanding of the purpose of Bill C-10 - I'm not the one promoting it.

It is up to those promoting Bill C-10 to provide their clear, unclouded understanding of Bill C-10, to convince us to support it. And here, again, you have shifted the purpose of Bill C-10 away from "Canadian content" and "fair share of taxation" - back to dealing with "truly harmful and dangerous user-generated content that could come under the as yet undefined regulations".

This IS the meat of it: we are being told Bill C-10 is innocuous, by people who are themselves unable to pin down what it's actually for and why it's needed and how it will be used and by whom. The Bill C-10 pumpers seem to simply believe Bill C-10 is necessary because they've been convinced it's needed, by people who have put together manipulative polls to "prove" other Canadians think it's needed - again, Canadians who can't provide reasonable definitions of "truly harmful and dangerous user-generated content" and clearly do NOT really understand what it is they're supporting.

It IS NOT sensible to expect Canadians to support ANY bill that gives ANY government this sort of power without understanding exactly what these powers entail, and how they will be applied.

Once Bill C-10 it's no longer a work in progress, perhaps you will be able to present its clearly defined regulations and make a case for their necessity. And only then should you expect anyone other than a Trudeau Liberal partisan to join you in supporting Bill C-10.

[fluffy]

It is up to those promoting Bill C-10 to provide their clear, unclouded understanding of Bill C-10, to convince us to support it. And here, again, you have shifted the purpose of Bill C-10 away from "Canadian content" and "fair share of taxation" - back to dealing with "truly harmful and dangerous user-generated content that could come under the as yet undefined regulations".

Is it so incomprehensible to you that both of these purposes could be dealt with?

You don't want to understand, you're looking for fodder to continue your opposition. Your mind is made up.

[rustled]

It is up to those promoting Bill C-10 to provide their clear, unclouded understanding of Bill C-10, to convince us to support it. And here, again, you have shifted the purpose of Bill C-10 away from "Canadian content" and "fair share of taxation" - back to dealing with "truly harmful and dangerous user-generated content that could come under the as yet undefined regulations".

Is it so incomprehensible to you that both of these purposes could be dealt with?

You don't want to understand, you're looking for fodder to continue your opposition. Your mind is made up.

It's entirely comprehensible that all three purposes may be the objective. Problem is, the people pitching the Bill don't seem to know. I don't require "fodder" to continue to oppose supporting a bill of this sort - I've asked for proof it's a good bill, and received only Trudeau Liberal talking points. My mind's made up not to do more harm than good by supporting what may be a bad bill, regardless of who presents it.

It's up to those who believe we need Bill C-10 and that we should support it to convince us we need Bill C-10 and that we should support it.

As I said before: Once Bill C-10 it's no longer a work in progress, perhaps you WILL be able to present its clearly defined regulations and make a reasonable case for their necessity. And ONLY THEN should you expect anyone - other than a Trudeau Liberal partisan - to join you in supporting Bill C-10.

[hobbyguy]

rustled - read the bill. C-10 is not as advertised by the CPC rhetoric spinners.

The NDP support it. The Bloc support it. The Liberals can't pass it without them, and they do not agree with O'Toole's gaslighting.

The duty of every citizen is to be informed, and that means reading the source document. I did, and C-10 does NOT contain any attacks on personal freedom of expression - in fact by promoting Canadian content, C-10 should specifically improve the freedom of expression of Canadians by providing more outlet for expression.

[fluffy]

I've asked for proof it's a good bill...

It's a good bill in that it is trying to deal with the immense changes in the area of broadcast media that have taken place in the thirty years since the bill was last ammended. What sort of "proof" are you looking for ? Are suggesting that we leave things as is and let what is now one of the larger areas of broadcast media to self-regulate ?

[Glacier]

I've asked for proof it's a good bill...

It's a good bill in that it is trying to deal with the immense changes in the area of broadcast media that have taken place in the thirty years since the bill was last ammended. What sort of "proof" are you looking for ? Are suggesting that we leave things as is and let what is now one of the larger areas of broadcast media to self-regulate ?

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.

[rustled]

I've asked for proof it's a good bill...

It's a good bill in that it is trying to deal with the immense changes in the area of broadcast media that have taken place in the thirty years since the bill was last ammended. What sort of "proof" are you looking for ? Are suggesting that we leave things as is and let what is now one of the larger areas of broadcast media to self-regulate ?

You're claiming it's a good bill "because" it's dealing with "immense changes"? That doesn't make it "good".

If I may make a suggestion, begin by quantifying and clarifying the NEED for regulation. Don't point us to polls that say "x % of Canadians are concerned" - we know these polls were set up to encourage Canadians to say they are concerned.

If those of you who expect others to support this bill are unable to do even that - if you cannot explain the problem you believe Bill C-10 will address IS a problem and show it ought to be addressed, other than vague statements about how it might be intended to address "truly harmful and dangerous user-generated content" - there's not much point using concerns about Bill C-10 to accuse your fellow Canadians of "right-wing fear-mongering".

[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.