Bill C-10

[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.

[sobrohusfat]

i dont always assume the worst outcome possible regarding dubious government schemes - but when i do...

...yah nah - i always do.

Especially from proven shysters like these.

[The Green Barbarian]

i dont always assume the worst outcome possible regarding dubious government schemes - but when i do...

...yah nah - i always do.

Especially from proven shysters like these.

[Septuagenarian]

Self removed.

[The Green Barbarian]

“MAVERICK Party

Draft Policy Platform

The Maverick Party is opposed to government control and censorship of social media as outlined in Trudeau’s Bill C-10”

https://39472154-dec0-430e-8709-1babd70 ... index=true

Why does anyone care about this?

[Septuagenarian]

Self removed.

[Gone_Fishin]

The criminal Guilbeault blurted it out today:

"We are not regulating the internet, we are regulating some activities on the internet.”

What he admitted is, they won't regulate the Trudeau pumpers, but they'll regulate anyone else that doesn't swoon over the lying sack of crap Justin Trudeau.

[The Green Barbarian]

The criminal Guilbeault blurted it out today:

"We are not regulating the internet, we are regulating some activities on the internet.”

What he admitted is, they won't regulate the Trudeau pumpers, but they'll regulate anyone else that doesn't swoon over the lying sack of crap Justin Trudeau.

Yes - think of a world where you can't be truthful, and have your right to call Justin Trudeau a lying sack of crap taken away, because it's "hate speech". What a terrible world that would be.

[The Green Barbarian]

The criminal Guilbeault blurted it out today:

"We are not regulating the internet, we are regulating some activities on the internet.”

What he admitted is, they won't regulate the Trudeau pumpers, but they'll regulate anyone else that doesn't swoon over the lying sack of crap Justin Trudeau.

Yes - think of a world where you can't be truthful, and have your right to call Justin Trudeau a lying sack of crap taken away, because it's "hate speech". What a terrible world that would be.

[Septuagenarian]

Self removed.

[Gone_Fishin]

The criminal Guilbeault blurted it out today:

"We are not regulating the internet, we are regulating some activities on the internet.”

What he admitted is, they won't regulate the Trudeau pumpers, but they'll regulate anyone else that doesn't swoon over the lying sack of crap Justin Trudeau.

Yes - think of a world where you can't be truthful, and have your right to call Justin Trudeau a lying sack of crap taken away, because it's "hate speech". What a terrible world that would be.

Trudeau doesn't want to be known for what he is, a lying sack of crap, so he's hell bent on taking away your right to speak the truth.

Can you imagine what it will be like if he starts murdering LGBTQ persons like his close friend and idol Fidel Castro, and Canadians will not be able to raise objections because he will ban us from doing so? That's what he's aiming for. People need to dummy up.

[Septuagenarian]

Self removed.

[Gone_Fishin]

Is the lying sack of crap Justin Trudeau aspiring to control internet posts like this? Sure looks like it to anyone who isn't juiced up by tousled hair and sparkly socks.

Grieving families harassed

One person taken into custody was also tortured, the report says, detailing how in at least three cases family members were told they would face "consequences" if they didn't remove critical social media posts against the government.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/33 ... ed-by-Iran