Bill C-10

[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Don't be silly, it's thirty years out of date.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 For example, you've claimed the current regulation for Canadian broadcasters is 30 years out of date, suggesting it expired at about the time it was implemented.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.

[hobbyguy]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... e-disease/

"Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has been struggling for weeks to defend Bill C-10, which expands the Broadcasting Act to cover not just conventional broadcasters, but also digital streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+. For more than 50 years, the CRTC has been empowered to set Canadian content requirements for radio and TV broadcasters: C-10 would give it the same authority in the digital realm.

That’s not the controversial part. The problem arose when the Heritage committee reviewing the bill removed a clause that would have exempted user-generated content from CRTC oversight. The government has said it has no interest in regulating such content through C-10, but even so, the change prompted concern that the CRTC could end up interfering with Canadians’ freedom of expression online.

It’s a sideshow, and I wish it would stop. Mr. Guilbeault and his team are on a mission to regulate Big Tech. It’s important work, it’s overdue and it needs to move forward."

SNIP

"It’s an unhappy litany, and it’s prompted a major shift in public sentiment. Across the political spectrum, in the U.S., Canada and other liberal democracies, increasing numbers of people want tech companies reined in.

Governments are listening. In 2017 Germany passed its Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), aimed at combatting hate speech on social networks. France passed a similar law in 2020. In December, Australia introduced legislation requiring Google and Facebook to give money to news organizations, to make up for the advertising revenue the journalism industry has lost to tech giants. The British government is preparing legislation that will impose a “duty of care” on platforms, aimed at forcing them to proactively take responsibility for the societal harms they create.

The Canadian government, too, is poised for action. First came the revision of the Broadcasting Act and a new privacy bill, both tabled in November. Coming soon, we expect legislation directly tackling online harms, including the increased spread of child pornography, revenge porn, hate speech, incitement to violence and incitement to terrorism."

Governments – and the people they represent – are correct to want interventions when the market is so clearly failing to provide acceptable outcomes."

SNIP

"Thus far, his efforts have been criticized by pretty much everybody. I think that’s unavoidable. These problems are complex, the solutions aren’t obvious, there are lots of entrenched interests at play and Canada is going to make mistakes just like every other country. What’s important is to move forward with clarity of intent and precision in execution, in partnership with other countries, and to refine our approach as we go.

Does our federal government have a plan? It might.

If what Ottawa is rolling out now is the sum total of all its efforts, it’s wildly insufficient. But it’s possible the government is laying the groundwork for legislation designed to go to the heart of the problem: the business model. Let’s hope so. There is an opportunity for Canada to lead here, and we should take it."

I will reiterate that in every case where governments are attempting to force the Zuckerbergs of the world to be responsible actors and stop deliberately harming society, a blizzard of misinformation - often reinforced by opportunist low flyer politicians - has "appeared". In Australia Facebook went as far as essentially shutting down half its services to Australians as they tried to bully the government.


I can't prove it, but it appears to me that big tech is "doing a big tobacco".

To avoid being confused, I suggest that people read the actual bill - and keep up with the changes to C-10 as it moves forward. It is a very complex area to regulate, and mistakes will be made and rectified as C-10 moves forward.

Not trying to put a lid on the abusive practices of Zuckerberg et al is not a viable option.

[rustled]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... e-disease/

"Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has been struggling for weeks to defend Bill C-10, which expands the Broadcasting Act to cover not just conventional broadcasters, but also digital streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+. For more than 50 years, the CRTC has been empowered to set Canadian content requirements for radio and TV broadcasters: C-10 would give it the same authority in the digital realm.

"Some authority" - pretty general.

That’s not the controversial part. The problem arose when the Heritage committee reviewing the bill removed a clause that would have exempted user-generated content from CRTC oversight. The government has said it has no interest in regulating such content through C-10, but even so, the change prompted concern that the CRTC could end up interfering with Canadians’ freedom of expression online.

What the government said it has no interest in doing, huh?

This government said it wouldn't use omnibus bills. Etc. We would be fools to rely on what the government said it didn't want to do.

It’s a sideshow, and I wish it would stop. Mr. Guilbeault and his team are on a mission to regulate Big Tech. It’s important work, it’s overdue and it needs to move forward."

People who insist questioning the intent of Bill C-10 is a sideshow are showing their arrogance.

It's "important work" - subjective opinion. Show us the objective data. It's "overdue" - same thing. Saying it's "important" and "overdue" doesn't make it so. If it IS important, it deserves better than the emotional nonsense being used to promote it - and it certainly doesn't deserve to be agreed to in haste or by people who don't understand it.

"It’s an unhappy litany, and it’s prompted a major shift in public sentiment. Across the political spectrum, in the U.S., Canada and other liberal democracies, increasing numbers of people want tech companies reined in.

Specifics, please! I doubt, for example, the U.S. wants regulation to ensure more American content.

Governments are listening.

We hear this "your government is listening" talking point from the Trudeau Liberals so often, it should be tattooed on their foreheads.

The government routinely tells us what we are to be concerned about, and then assures us they are listening to people who agree with them.

In 2017 Germany passed its Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), aimed at combatting hate speech on social networks. France passed a similar law in 2020.

Is Bill C-10 to deal with hate speech on social networks, then? We already have laws for hate speech.

In December, Australia introduced legislation requiring Google and Facebook to give money to news organizations, to make up for the advertising revenue the journalism industry has lost to tech giants.

So is Bill C-10 to ensure the CRTC is able to collect taxes to hand over to news organizations?

The British government is preparing legislation that will impose a “duty of care” on platforms, aimed at forcing them to proactively take responsibility for the societal harms they create.

Ah, the nanny state. When the CBC has to proactively take responsibility for the societal harms they've created, when there's a a mechanism in place for that, then let's talk about extending the nanny state to social media.

The Canadian government, too, is poised for action. First came the revision of the Broadcasting Act and a new privacy bill, both tabled in November. Coming soon, we expect legislation directly tackling online harms, including the increased spread of child pornography, revenge porn, hate speech, incitement to violence and incitement to terrorism."

This is criminal activity. Of course citizens expect action on child pornography and revenge porn - and we have clear definitions for those, and laws against them. These have been included to stir an emotional response.

Without a clear definition for "hate speech", "incitement to violence" and "incitement to terrorism" you can AND SHOULD expect significant pushback on allowing the government of the day to decide.

Clarity FIRST - not eventually, when they've already been given permission and the authority to proceed.

Governments – and the people they represent – are correct to want interventions when the market is so clearly failing to provide acceptable outcomes."

Governments want what governments want. In this case, they're using dramatic statements and scary scenarios to convince us we should want what they want us to want.

"Thus far, his efforts have been criticized by pretty much everybody. I think that’s unavoidable. These problems are complex, the solutions aren’t obvious, there are lots of entrenched interests at play and Canada is going to make mistakes just like every other country. What’s important is to move forward with clarity of intent and precision in execution, in partnership with other countries, and to refine our approach as we go.

Does our federal government have a plan? It might.

This government? Not a sensible one.

If what Ottawa is rolling out now is the sum total of all its efforts, it’s wildly insufficient. But it’s possible the government is laying the groundwork for legislation designed to go to the heart of the problem: the business model. Let’s hope so. There is an opportunity for Canada to lead here, and we should take it."

Why, because it feels good to say we have a plan, because we want to preen on the world stage, because child pornography and hate speech are bad?

This is a totally illogical, emotion-driven piece that shows exactly how this government actually functions, and how desperately their pumpers want to be seen to be doing the right thing by supporting them. It's foolishness.

I will reiterate that in every case where governments are attempting to force the Zuckerbergs of the world to be responsible actors and stop deliberately harming society, a blizzard of misinformation - often reinforced by opportunist low flyer politicians - has "appeared". In Australia Facebook went as far as essentially shutting down half its services to Australians as they tried to bully the government.


I can't prove it, but it appears to me that big tech is "doing a big tobacco".

To avoid being confused, I suggest that people read the actual bill - and keep up with the changes to C-10 as it moves forward. It is a very complex area to regulate, and mistakes will be made and rectified as C-10 moves forward.

Not trying to put a lid on the abusive practices of Zuckerberg et al is not a viable option.

That's still only a subjective opinion.

To avoid being confused, I suggest people:

1. Recognize the emotional arguments (including the disparagement of criticism e.g. "sideshow", references to child pornography and the use of terms like "doing a big tobacco", "Big Tech" and "abusive practices"), and the calls to signal Canada's virtue for what they are - emotional manipulation.
2. Look for evidence regulation IS necessary - not because this government told us we want it, not because they manipulated our emotions, not because "other countries are doing it". We're not adolescents, and our responsibility to our democracy requires we stop relying on emotional arguments and peer pressure.
3. Look for actual evidence of what, precisely, Bill C-10 is intended to DO. (Not eventually, when we've already given the government permission and authority to decide what Bill C-10 will do.)

If all you find is #1 - no #2 or #3 - continue to ASK WHY we are expected to support Bill C-10.

[d0nb]

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

Or, just to be silly, we can choose to believe that we're talking about it because Michael Geist, along with C-10’s many other critics either haven’t read the bill, or have somehow failed to comprehend its intent.

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

A freer country is always a good get.

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

Credibility with their supporters? Those in the media that will benefit from the handouts expect their political puppets to come through for them.

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.

Today's Liberal voters strongly support the right of everyone to do as they please, as long as it’s compulsory.

People who vote conservative thrive in a free environment.

As do we all.

C-10 is touted by some as a necessary “modernization” of the Broadcasting Act that will inflict a “fair share” of regulatory oppression and taxation on newer media that have been enjoying too much flexibility, and freedom to inovate.

Well, okay, they haven't been honest enough to say it in just that way.

While C-10 will be welcomed by established media giants like Bell, Shaw and Rogers that want their internet-based competitors to be forced to ‘share the pain,’ the provisions of the bill are just the opposite of genuine modernization; that would start with the recognition that heavy-handed regulations, forced subsidization of the wholly unnecessary CBC and mandatory CanCon requirements have done the opposite of enhancing Canadian unity and thoroughly deserve to be consigned to the great afterlife of bad ideas.