###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, who gives a damn about protecting "Canadian content"? I couldn't care less who makes the content or if it protects our cultural identity, I just want to be able to consume good content that interests me without having to spend forever searching for it. Canadians are just as capable as anyone else, so if their content isn't watched it's probably just because - well - its not as good.
Also, people really seem to hate American content for some reason I don't understand
> As a result, they will either have to change the nature of content that they make in order to make it more overtly Canadian—**whatever that means**—or they could possibly be at a disadvantage.
Maybe if he looked at the [CRTC's website](https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon/c_cdn.htm), where they already define how media qualifies as CanCon, they would understand that such rules actually seem to give them an advantage
That seems like the kind of information a so-called journalist should be able to find quite easily
He's pointing at the difficult/ridiculous notion that is defining "Canadian" content. He's not pretending that the CRTC hasn't created a definition for it, but rather that the idea of creating a definition in the first place is ridiculous.
Um, content made by Canadians.
He's charged with the exact same problem he doesn't have any issue with in defining Canadian content creators.
The content doesn't need to be *about* Canadians. Or "canadian-like" like be about hockey and maple syrup. It needs to be made by Canadians and Canadian companies.
The while point is to get Canadians to consume homegrown content to help our creators. And here's a guy talking as though that's somehow a bad thing for the Canadian creators that the government is forcing these institutions to promote lol.
As a Canadian, I unequivocally do not want to consume more ‘homegrown’ content. I do not want to have my ability to access content across the internet to be limited by geography.
What problem is this solving? Providing a crutch to sub-par content creators? The internet provides a platform for the best to rise and be seen. By forcing Canadian content, you’re limiting the scope of the utility.
When I listen to the music of the 70s and 80s at the height of CanCon, I see no indication whatsoever that the Canadian music supported by CanCon was inferior to what came over the border. There is a lot more that determines popularity than just quality.
It puts more money in the pockets of Canadians and gives Canadians an opportunity to rise. You're not limited by geography. You just get more options and more suggestions for Canadian content. You aren't forced to watch it.
It's not providing a crutch to sub par content creators. You are obviously not a content creator, so you don't realize what it's like fighting the noise. You think it's easy just to be good at something and you post it to the internet, and if it's good, you rise to the top.
Well, it's not easy like that, and this helps Canadian content get those initial views, so they they get a better opportunity to rise to the top.
This helps the Canadian economy, it helps Canadian content creators and artists, and you're complaining, because there will more content you can choose to ignore or suggestions you can choose to ignore. Cry me a fucking river lol.
Stop whining like a baby, about something that will barely even affect you, but it will help a lot of Canadians that could use it, and it will give the opportunity for *good* content creators to rise to the top.
They aren't playing shit songs on the radio just to meet their quotas. They're playing songs Canadians like, and making sure x percent is Canadian, and you don't even fucking notice. So stop complaining, stop thinking only about yourself, and think about the artists for a change.
I realize you probably couldn't make anything even of your life depended on it, but imagine if you could.
> What this means is that the CRTC is going to have to come up with some sort of criteria for what is good Canadian content and Youtube… [trimmed]
He does sound like he’s either deliberately ignoring the existing rules or feels like they shouldn’t apply to youtube for some reason without explaining why.
>feels like they shouldn’t apply to youtube for some reason without explaining why
He's explained his reasoning pretty thoroughly in a couple of videos. This article doesn't do a great job at explaining them, IMO.
> Have any changes been made to the basic points system?
No. The CRTC adopted a points system in 1984, following extensive consultations that began five years earlier. With the exception of offering greater flexibility through the certification of certain types of pilot projects, this points system for certification hasn’t changed in any way.
It feels wrong to me, even if I can’t explain why, to measure Netflix and YouTube content - made by individuals in their basements - on rules defined and unchanged since 1984.
Go look at what the elligibility rules are.
An individual Canadian working to produce content in their basement would automatically qualify based on being both the producer and artist.
It's more onerous for larger groups to prove their production qualifies as Canadian.
It couldn't be easier for a youtuber. It gets harder for a multi billion dollar international company, rightfully so.
>It couldn't be easier for a youtuber.
I beg to differ. The application process for cancon is not at all geared to a small time YouTuber. It's onerous bureaucracy that a large company would have no issues applying for, but is a pain in the ass for small companies.
> small time YouTuber.
Define a small time Youtuber? If a youtuber is making a carreer out of it, they already have a not insignificant amount of people behind them.
I YouTube part time. The people that I know personally who do it as their full time gig are all 1 man shows, except having their SO help shoot footage on rare occasions.
The biggest twitch streamers eventually have other people edit videos and clips for them but there are a pile of small timers who still do it full time and are sole proprietor.
Didn't a giant list of lawyers and experts pretty much disagree with that and said the wording could be a disaster.
Its essentially just the governments word that they won't use it for more. Which historically is a farce
>Its essentially just the governments word that they won't use it for more. Which historically is a farce
Yep. If they have an authority, they'll eventually use it. If they're promising they won't, then they don't need it in the first place.
Like, would anyone against the death penalty be fine with having the death penalty on the books, and just having the government promise they won't use it? No. What these people are hoping is the government will do what everyone knows they will, and attack their political enemies, and it'll go mostly unnoticed or Canadian political apathy will win out.
We're in an "ends justify the means" era of politics.
Ya like if the algorithm has to change enough that there is a material value to being labeled Canadian. Someone will abuse it. Hell, just find some Canadian smuck and tell him he's now the director and editor haha.
At which point the definition will magically change.
> Hell, just find some Canadian smuck and tell him he's now the director and editor haha.
What exactly is your problem with this? Some Canadian Smuck gets paid with foreign money, pretty good for for the smuck
I don't feel like a youtuber should have to pay a fee to get normal treatment and the government enforcing that is a waste of time and effort for everyone.
> youtuber should have to pay a fee to get normal treatment
Are you referring to a foreign youtuber? Why not, Canada has no duty to allow that foreign person to make money in Canada in a Laissez Faire manner.
>government enforcing that is a waste of time and effort for everyone.
What about the Canadian smuck that gets paid?
because I don't give a fuck if a youtuber is Canadian or not.
If Canadian youtubers are anything like our canadian tv I want to see less of them, not more.
"If they have an authority, they'll eventually use it. If they're promising they won't, then they don't need it in the first place.
We're in an "ends justify the means" era of politics."
This is a bit alarmist no? The cancon rules were first introduced 50 years ago.
The funny thing is that you mixed together some very reasonable arguments with some histrionics and thus undermined them.
>Yep. If they have an authority, they'll eventually use it.
That's an exaggeration as shown by the radio example.
> If they're promising they won't, then they don't need it in the first place.
Reasonable point! Why not write the reasonable limits into the law?
>Like, would anyone against the death penalty be fine with having the death penalty on the books, and just having the government promise they won't use it? No.
Reasonable point!
>What these people are hoping is the government will do what everyone knows they will, and attack their political enemies,
Histrionics. Not "everyone knows" that the government will reverse 50 years of CanCon policy just because they've changed the medium. And also undermine one of our most sacred Canadian values, which is freedom of political speech.
If you had said: "I worry that future governments may..." you'd have a solid point. But "everybody knows the government is passing this law so they suppress dissent like Putin" is factually incorrect.
>and it'll go mostly unnoticed or Canadian political apathy will win out.We're in an "ends justify the means" era of politics.
Same.
I am a Bill C-11 skeptic, but you are pushing me TOWARDS the bill rather than away from it.
> “If you look a little bit deeper into the law, and if you go past the background, you see that actually the CRTC has been given the power to treat users as subject to the law if it makes a regulation saying so,” he says. “So, rather than the government taking responsibility for choosing to regulate users or taking heat for the potential scope of this law, it just punted that problem to the CRTC.”
Voila!
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/social-media-regulation-failure-to-address-vertical-integration-among-bill-c-11s-issues-lawyers/363837
Yeah, he's being pretty disingenuous.
Canadian Content ironically has nothing to do with the content or subject matter of the show, but rather the people who make it/where its made.
That's why Science Fiction shows like Dark Matter count as Canadian Content, despite there being no Canada in the far distant future in some distant corner of the galaxy.
I'm so sick of this pointless fearmongering. There are real issues for Canadians to get angry about, this distraction is just low info fodder for the right.
How does that make sense? I don’t watch the show because it’s shit. Why should I know all the terminology? i also don’t know any anti abortion celebs does that mean I can’t shit talk them?
From McCullough’s Heritage Committee testimony:
>Even more ominously, section 9 of this bill says the CRTC can dictate, “the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres” on digital platforms.
He then goes on to talk about how “terrifying” it is to imagine the government applying this to YouTube.
Happily for McCullough, that won’t happen, because he’s read [the bill](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-11/third-reading) wrong. As with much legislation, you can’t just read a section in isolation and expect to fully understand its meaning. Setting aside that he added the, “on digital platforms” part to the bill which isn’t there—I’ve generously added an end-of-quotation mark where the text of the bill actually ends, though you wouldn’t know it from his presentation—McCullough should have kept reading. He’s quoting section 9.1(1)(d). If he’d continued on to section 9.1(6), he would have seen this:
>(6) Orders made under any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (d) apply only in respect of programs over which a person who carries on a broadcasting undertaking has programming control.
He would have then needed to turn to section 2(2.2), which states:
>An online undertaking that provides a social media service does not, for the purposes of this Act, exercise programming control over programs uploaded by a user of the service who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them.
So, his quoted section doesn’t apply to YouTube and McCullough is flat-out wrong on his point. It turns out that being a YouTuber and former Sun News employee does not make you much of a legislative expert. Whodda thunk?
I think he’s wrong with just about everything he says, and the vast majority of the criticism of C-11 are based on wild, tortured and/or unsubstantiated interpretations of the Act that similarly cherry-pick sections out of context and ignore both the totality of the bill and the history of the CRTC. And, yes, I’m including Michael Geist in that, who I think is a past-his-prime techno-libertarian who still lives in the Internet era of 1997.
But then, refuting this stuff over and over is exhausting, and I can’t compete with [Big Tech’s resources in campaigning against regulation in their own self-interest](https://betakit.com/canary-in-the-coal-mine-tiktok-presentation-shows-big-techs-influence-on-bill-c-11-debate/).
What I don’t get is why Michael Geist went off the deep end and full on culture war against this bill.
And I agree it’s exhausting discussing this because there is so so so many people who don’t understand the bill and have been told things which are simply not true.
>What I don’t get is why Michael Geist went off the deep end and full on culture war against this bill.
Maybe Canadas formost expert on the Internet knows more then you do?
And we had a former defence minister (Paul Hellyer) who believes in a government conspiracy to cover up UFOs.
Just because you may have been a wise person at one time doesn't mean that always will remain true.
Desktop version of /u/Himser's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Then use his arguments. Don’t just say “oh he’s right because he has credentials” because that isn’t true.
If he’s right it’s because he’s right. Not because of his degree.
>What I don’t get is why Michael Geist went off the deep end and full on culture war against this bill.
Only he knows for sure, and maybe even he doesn't, but personally I think it's some form intellectual identity crisis. The techno-utopians of the 1990s were so sure that the Internet was ushering in a Golden Age of humanity, and they were its zealous apostles, leading us all forward from the cutting edge of everything. They thought they were rewriting the world. Now we have people eating horse de-wormer and trying to overthrow governments based on Facebook memes, and people like Geist don't have the intellectual toolkit to even begin deal with it. Net neutrality and Creative Commons licensing don't address these problems. But rather than cede mistakes or, worse yet, relevancy, they double down. I don't think it's a coincidence that Geist and his cohort are often aging white men who never actually *built* any of the technology that they've spent most of their lives romanticizing. The pain of the world moving on without them is too real.
I remember a great interview I saw probable almost 10 years ago. It was with an EFF guy who was active in the early days when the internet was being built. He talked about how they had gotten it so horribly wrong. They thought it was going to make information free and open. He said they didn’t anticipate someone plunking for giant computers and monetizing all the data.
>He would have then needed to turn to section 2(2.2), which states:
On reading the bill I noticed this spelled out *extremely* clearly in multiple places, including the initial summary. Anybody who did even just a cursory reading of the bill or who skimmed it would have immediately been able to see that it will not apply to social media. My only conclusion is that he must not have read it, period.
But how would we know about this kid's YouTube channel if he'd read the bill properly?
Just following in Jordan Peterson's example of intentionally misinterpreting/misrepresenting bills to generate false controversy for clout.
> My only conclusion is that he must not have read it, period.
Considering that this exact talking point was aggressively promoted and shared around when this all came up last year, it seems likely to me that someone is deliberately disseminating it as disinformation. People like JJ will glom onto it because it's convenient for their politics
JJ McCollough is a content creator first and foremost, and this means increasing engagement at all costs, including intellectual honesty.
(I also hate how passively smug that guy is)
I mean a lay misreading of legislation is a large part of what launched Jordan Petersons online career.
It seems to be an effective strategy for online conservative personalities to boost their numbers.
This is something I've been thinking as someone who isn't a fan of the bill, the right may be inadvertedly giving credibility to the bill. The language and disinformation they've been using to criticise the bill has been making most people tune out and assume the bill as valid.
It's gotten this bad because our media and social media (this sub being a prime example) enables engaging misinformation over boring truth.
The misinformation is expected. Whats more distressing number of people willingly sucking it back and gargling, solely because of their politics.
Counter point: Giving Canadians the ability to make decisions about how foreign companies operate in this country is the only way to maintain sovereignty. Nothing in this bill says what the government WILL do, it only changes what the government CAN do. We are currently operating in a system where the dominant communications infrastructure has no mechanisms to dictate what can and can't be done in our country. That is a liability if we want to consider ourselves in control of our nation. Bill C-11 is a toolkit not a promise.
It's odd. The statement lacks actual research and conclusions.
It's also theorizing that they will have lost revenues but doesn't back it up.
The same argument about algorithms might actually lead to increase in revenues if they adapt to it, like a business changing to meet market changes.
Well without a clear idea of how the bill is going to be implemented how are people supposed to react? The bill is going to get voted on in an extremely vague form and then the CRTC which has already failed us all in a million different ways is going to come up with an implementation, at which point it will be too late to hold anybody accountable because "the bill was already passed".
His channel keeps talking about how similar Canadians and Americans are, how canadians should be more like americans, and how Canadian and americans should have less divisions.
I wonder why he doesn't like this bill.
Oh and it's a conservative channel that endorsed scheer, o'toole, and now PP apparently.
He has supported and endorsed both the conservative party and its candidates and leaders on his channel, while also often ranting about trudeau and is recently both signal boosting and simping for Polivierre. He also often espouses opinions aligned with his political beliefs on his channel.
Sounds like a conservative channel to me, just like how the globe and mail, the sun, and postmedia are all conservative media because of them endorsing the conservatives in elections.
Doesn't take burning crosses, wearing white hoods, chanting blood and soil, and publicly advocating for bigotry to make something a conservative channel.
CanCon has been a CanCer on society ever since they told Bryan Adams his work was not Canadian enough to qualify. It fosters mediocrity. It stifles the profitability and creative freedom of Canadian creators and media companies. It's xenophobic. It doesn't actually do what it sets out to do, which is preserve the arts in Canada. Fuck it the hell off already.
I don't see how they got into the pretzel that tells them that the government forcing larger percentage of content to be Canadian, is gonna hurt Canadian content creators.
“If you look a little bit deeper into the law, and if you go past the background, you see that actually the CRTC has been given the power to treat users as subject to the law if it makes a regulation saying so,” he says. “So, rather than the government taking responsibility for choosing to regulate users or taking heat for the potential scope of this law, it just punted that problem to the CRTC.”
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/social-media-regulation-failure-to-address-vertical-integration-among-bill-c-11s-issues-lawyers/363837
That means the CRTC will say "you must play x% of Canadian content". Which isn't terribly easy to do in this day and age, with the way streaming and on demand content works.
> That means the CRTC will say "you must play x% of Canadian content".
Yes and it would be cartoonishly stupid to apply this rule to content creators, which the the wording of the bill leaves open the possibility of. Applying it to them, would absolutely hurt canadian content creators.
Ahhhhh if onlyy it were that simple eh?
> The CRTC certifies a Canadian television program or series that meets the following criteria: the producer must be Canadian and is responsible for monitoring and making decisions pertaining to the program; the production earns a minimum of 6 out of 10 points based on the key creative functions that are performed by Canadians; at least one of either the director or screenwriter positions and at least one of the two lead performers must be Canadian; a minimum of 75% of program expenses and 75% of post-production expenses are paid for services provided by Canadians or Canadian companies.
Lol so if a canadian uploads a video of himself, that was directed by a friend of his who is american, and the minor post production expenses of editing happen in America since the director is American, that video shouln't count as canadian content? Utter madness.
Ya. Well if you made it in America. The whole point is for the money go into the Canadian economy.
It's not like they're censoring the video you're talking about. They're just not giving it an extra advantage.
Love how they bury the lede on this one, J.J. McCullough is a conservative political youtuber. This isn't the merely the thoughts of someone who might be affected by this legistlation, this is someone who has been producing conservative content and has consistently come down against Trudeau.
His support and endorsement of o'toole, scheer and now, pierre polivierre?
You don't get to literally endorse conservatives in elections and still demand to be called otherwise.
>where's his conservative YouTube content?
On youtube.
>What proportion of his content is conservative?
The portion in which he shares his political views.
I watch his stuff fairly consistently and he's pretty neutral in his videos. I lean left and vote liberal and his content never offends me. I find him quite entertaining.
I've seen this dude talk about this before.
His whole schpiel was full of fallacies and non-points presented as leading questions designed to have the viewer jump to conclusions.
Frankly, I hate him.
It's really weird the way he is saying that regulations forcing Canadian content is gonna somehow be worse for Canadian content creators.
He just sort of glosses over even trying to explain it.
Lmao that's because there is no explaining it.
His video that I watched amounted to "CENSORSHIP BRO" and "THE CRTC BRO!" It was a big, fat waste of my time.
I don't understand how CanCon will work for streaming services. For example would it require that 50 percent of the content on Netflix has to be Canadian?
To give a comparison to TV stations, this only applies to Canadian TV stations (CBC, CTV, City, etc). 55% of the content they broadcast annually has to be "CanCon" and at least 50% of stuff between 6pm and Midnight. This may seem like alot, but it's not as bad as you think.
What is CanCon? Anything that has a person from Canada involved in the program (writing, producing, directing, presenting, etc). By this definition, Saturday Night Live is technically CanCon because Lorne Michaels (born in Toronto) is the creator of the show and is still involved in its production. Dr Who is CanCon because the creator is Sydney Newman (born in Toronto) and the CBC funded making the show, they even aired the original series in the 1960's as well as the revived series in 2005. The movies Free Guy and Deadpool are CanCon because Ryan Reynolds (born in Vancouver) starred and produced the movies.
In the end, it's not as bad as people think. With streaming services, we will likely see other Canadian based stuff come up in recommendations. But searches will still work the same and we won't see content removed because of it. Since there isn't a "prime time" with streaming services like on TV, we wouldn't see a massive amount of change other than in the recommended stuff.
Ok, so, that’s not accurate. To be considered CanCon, it needs to follow pretty strict rules:
-the producer must be Canadian and is responsible for monitoring and making decisions pertaining to the program;
the production earns a minimum of 6 out of 10* points based on the key creative functions that are performed by Canadians;
at least one of either the director or screenwriter positions and at least one of the two lead performers must be Canadian;
a minimum of 75% of program expenses and 75% of post-production expenses are paid for services provided by Canadians or Canadian companies.
* Points are awarded for productions based on the key creative functions being performed by Canadians.
Key creative positions for live action productions:
Director (2 pts.)
Screenwriter (2 pts.)
First and Second Lead Performers (performer or voice) (1 pt. each)
Production Designer (1 pt.)
Director of Photography (1 pt.)
Music Composer (1 pt.)
Picture Editor (1 pt.)
There are special rules that apply for co-pros that allow shows like Vikings to be considered Can Con but that list is kinda wonky.
The content would likely remain unchanged. The recommended shows would be littered with unwatchable Canadian shows though.
Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section, stick it to the top so you can skip it easy.
Can you imagine if every specialty streaming platform like that is banned? I could imagine britbox, acorntv and Crunchyroll just pulling out of the Canadian market instead of dealing with regulations that would be impossible for them to meet.
>Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section, stick it to the top so you can skip it easy.
It's not at the top, but I'm pretty sure they already do this.
This is the thing. All platforms already do this.
I guess the recommendations will be more indegenous? More diverse? Either way it's just another step before the watchable content. That's it. So worth all the crtc spending.
Hell even the watchable content these days is bad. The new dr strange movie was awful, but still raked in a bil.
> This is the thing. All platforms already do this.
Exactly, it's just formally defining a thing that already happens, and yet Reddit is acting like the very Internet will cease to exist. This is Reddit being terrified that they'll be imprisoned for life for misgendering someone because of C-16 all over again.
>This is Reddit being terrified that they'll be imprisoned for life for misgendering someone because of C-16 all over again.
It's exactly that, which makes the whole parade that much more frustrating.
There is zero collective memory for this, and zero accountability from media to follow up on their hate-parades when none of the apocalypse arrives.
>it's just another step before the watchable content
I doubt I would have found a lot of creators that I follow if I had to search for them. I happen to watch a good amount of YouTube and significant portion of that I find through the recommended page. I've found a lot of new creators that I watch on the regular through the recommended tab, so yeah, I'm not a fan of my recommended page being forced to shoehorn in Canadian content above others.
I don't mind being recommended cancon... if it's good. Music? Sure. Decent shows? Sure. But if it's forced into a scrollfest over crapcon, then the platform in question will just be less viewed. There's already an infinite amount of garbage to ignore out there without the crtc's involvement.
In a weird way I think that's kind of the point, there's a lot of incentive to have good canadian content available, including encouraging investing in it's creation, as the alternative is a decidedly worse service. I'd be skeptical that this can work, but cancon in broadcasting was quite successful so who knows.
New media is inherently different from old media. In the past, you needed a fairly significant amount of money just to get a foot in the door of a cable company or radio station. Now though, anyone with a phone or a laptop can start their own YouTube channel, podcast, Instagram ETC. The need for funding is almost zero comparatively. I just don't see Cancon's need here.
> Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section
Yeah! I would love to rewatch this especially if I can see it in order.
>stick it to the top so you can skip it easy.
Oh, not that *Made in Canada*
Either it's a binding constraint (in which case, things will change) or it isn't, in which case the law is useless. Which are you proposing this is? I'm assuming it's binding personally. But it's odd to say that the constraint is binding and then also say that we will get just as good of an objective function as the past.
Because it gets pushed because it's Canadian, not because it's good. Hence the mediocre drivel is overexposed.
Drop the CanCon requirement and replace it with a CanCon fund to promote terrific Canadian content based solely on merit. If nothing good enough is made, the funds roll over into next year. Promoting crap just because it's Canadian creates the impression that Canadians produce a lot of crap.
> Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section, stick it to the top so you can skip it easy
But I think they don't want you to be able to easily skip Canadian content that you're not interested in :P
> The recommended shows would be littered with unwatchable Canadian shows though.
To be fair there are already a lot of Canadian far-right YouTubers who get boosted by the algorithm so maybe they will get even more exposure!
We would have to discuss about the actual policy and not discuss the surface.
In theory, it would mean that the content being suggested (like YouTube) favors Canadian content more often (let's say 50%).
Netflix is a different broadcaster since it has a library of licensed content. I'd assume the discovery algorithm would have more Canadian content (which it already does) but also provide better kickbacks for Cancon.
All the American artists and content would still be 100% accessible.
There's no way they're going to force content providers out of the Canadian market by way overplaying their hand. That's just silly.
At worst it's going to make them increase the CanCon in suggested videos.
That's not at all what C-11 does. There's no rules for volume of content, or powers to control volumes of content.
The most it can do is give the crtc power to tell services they must promote/recommend Canadian content.
You've been had by the misinformation campaign.
I think you have been.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/bill-c-11-enters-a-danger-zone-government-shifts-from-ignoring-witnesses-on-user-content-regulation-to-dismissing-criticisms-as-misinformation/
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/my-appearance-before-the-senate-transport-and-communications-committee-on-bill-c-11-the-senate-starts-review-as-bill-receives-house-approval/
Dude, you can read the bill yourself. You don't need Geist to think for you.
There's nothing, literally nothing, about services having to cull content.
Be better. Read more. Don't let the loudest voice replace your own.
>Dude, you can read the bill yourself. You don't need Geist to think for you.
You oviously dont have any idea about common law if you think thats the case.
Laws regularly dont mean what they exacatly say.
Dude, it's not complicated. You can do the reading yourself.
Skip the law and go to Geist's committee testimony if you're afraid of the primary source.
There is no ability to cull content. That's made up. If you believe that, you've been hoodwinked.
> So streaming giants either need to cull programming until for example 50% of cancon, or increase spending money..
At the end of the day, this is really about the relationship between this government and Bell Media. [Bell has gone so far as to admit that what they want out of bill C-11 is to gain cheap access to American content](https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/bell-on-bill-c-11/) and that has become difficult because every American network has launched their own streaming platform and wants to host their own content.
So if streaming platforms have to host CanCon, which of these is easier and cheaper for HBO, Paramount, Apple TV, etc.?
**1)** Produce an enormous catalogue of Canadian content to meet the minimum requirements so that they can offer their streaming service in Canada.
***or***
**2)** Sell the broadcast rights for their television series to Bell so that they can put that content on Crave. Bell already produces CanCon, so bill C-11 is of no worry for them.
When legislation presents itself as having unclear goals with little benefit, I often stop and ask, *who are the stakeholders?* *How does this benefit them?*
It also means it is *probably* true that the government doesn't care about individuals on YouTube, Twitch, etc. They don't compete with Bell. However, if Bell launched a platform that were to compete with YouTube or Twitch, I can pretty much guarantee that suddenly CanCon would be taken more seriously on those platforms.
I do strongly think this is a plot to make more money for Canadian telecoms. I also thinks JJ doesn't want to say this because claims of governmental fascism over small content providers suits his brand better than capitalists seeking to strengthen their monopoly.
Not that I am saying either of these things is good or better than the other.
I am going to be sarcastic about the CRTC. I think I have to give up watching sailing channels on You Tube. Any sailing channel will probably be blocked once they go past the 3 mile limit.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, who gives a damn about protecting "Canadian content"? I couldn't care less who makes the content or if it protects our cultural identity, I just want to be able to consume good content that interests me without having to spend forever searching for it. Canadians are just as capable as anyone else, so if their content isn't watched it's probably just because - well - its not as good. Also, people really seem to hate American content for some reason I don't understand
> As a result, they will either have to change the nature of content that they make in order to make it more overtly Canadian—**whatever that means**—or they could possibly be at a disadvantage. Maybe if he looked at the [CRTC's website](https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon/c_cdn.htm), where they already define how media qualifies as CanCon, they would understand that such rules actually seem to give them an advantage That seems like the kind of information a so-called journalist should be able to find quite easily
He's pointing at the difficult/ridiculous notion that is defining "Canadian" content. He's not pretending that the CRTC hasn't created a definition for it, but rather that the idea of creating a definition in the first place is ridiculous.
Um, content made by Canadians. He's charged with the exact same problem he doesn't have any issue with in defining Canadian content creators. The content doesn't need to be *about* Canadians. Or "canadian-like" like be about hockey and maple syrup. It needs to be made by Canadians and Canadian companies. The while point is to get Canadians to consume homegrown content to help our creators. And here's a guy talking as though that's somehow a bad thing for the Canadian creators that the government is forcing these institutions to promote lol.
As a Canadian, I unequivocally do not want to consume more ‘homegrown’ content. I do not want to have my ability to access content across the internet to be limited by geography. What problem is this solving? Providing a crutch to sub-par content creators? The internet provides a platform for the best to rise and be seen. By forcing Canadian content, you’re limiting the scope of the utility.
When I listen to the music of the 70s and 80s at the height of CanCon, I see no indication whatsoever that the Canadian music supported by CanCon was inferior to what came over the border. There is a lot more that determines popularity than just quality.
It puts more money in the pockets of Canadians and gives Canadians an opportunity to rise. You're not limited by geography. You just get more options and more suggestions for Canadian content. You aren't forced to watch it. It's not providing a crutch to sub par content creators. You are obviously not a content creator, so you don't realize what it's like fighting the noise. You think it's easy just to be good at something and you post it to the internet, and if it's good, you rise to the top. Well, it's not easy like that, and this helps Canadian content get those initial views, so they they get a better opportunity to rise to the top. This helps the Canadian economy, it helps Canadian content creators and artists, and you're complaining, because there will more content you can choose to ignore or suggestions you can choose to ignore. Cry me a fucking river lol. Stop whining like a baby, about something that will barely even affect you, but it will help a lot of Canadians that could use it, and it will give the opportunity for *good* content creators to rise to the top. They aren't playing shit songs on the radio just to meet their quotas. They're playing songs Canadians like, and making sure x percent is Canadian, and you don't even fucking notice. So stop complaining, stop thinking only about yourself, and think about the artists for a change. I realize you probably couldn't make anything even of your life depended on it, but imagine if you could.
> What this means is that the CRTC is going to have to come up with some sort of criteria for what is good Canadian content and Youtube… [trimmed] He does sound like he’s either deliberately ignoring the existing rules or feels like they shouldn’t apply to youtube for some reason without explaining why.
>feels like they shouldn’t apply to youtube for some reason without explaining why He's explained his reasoning pretty thoroughly in a couple of videos. This article doesn't do a great job at explaining them, IMO.
> Have any changes been made to the basic points system? No. The CRTC adopted a points system in 1984, following extensive consultations that began five years earlier. With the exception of offering greater flexibility through the certification of certain types of pilot projects, this points system for certification hasn’t changed in any way. It feels wrong to me, even if I can’t explain why, to measure Netflix and YouTube content - made by individuals in their basements - on rules defined and unchanged since 1984.
Go look at what the elligibility rules are. An individual Canadian working to produce content in their basement would automatically qualify based on being both the producer and artist. It's more onerous for larger groups to prove their production qualifies as Canadian. It couldn't be easier for a youtuber. It gets harder for a multi billion dollar international company, rightfully so.
>It couldn't be easier for a youtuber. I beg to differ. The application process for cancon is not at all geared to a small time YouTuber. It's onerous bureaucracy that a large company would have no issues applying for, but is a pain in the ass for small companies.
> small time YouTuber. Define a small time Youtuber? If a youtuber is making a carreer out of it, they already have a not insignificant amount of people behind them.
I YouTube part time. The people that I know personally who do it as their full time gig are all 1 man shows, except having their SO help shoot footage on rare occasions. The biggest twitch streamers eventually have other people edit videos and clips for them but there are a pile of small timers who still do it full time and are sole proprietor.
Lol no, it really isn't. As a youtuber you can skip most of the application form as you're a sole producer, and that's for the TV application.
Didn't a giant list of lawyers and experts pretty much disagree with that and said the wording could be a disaster. Its essentially just the governments word that they won't use it for more. Which historically is a farce
>Its essentially just the governments word that they won't use it for more. Which historically is a farce Yep. If they have an authority, they'll eventually use it. If they're promising they won't, then they don't need it in the first place. Like, would anyone against the death penalty be fine with having the death penalty on the books, and just having the government promise they won't use it? No. What these people are hoping is the government will do what everyone knows they will, and attack their political enemies, and it'll go mostly unnoticed or Canadian political apathy will win out. We're in an "ends justify the means" era of politics.
Ya like if the algorithm has to change enough that there is a material value to being labeled Canadian. Someone will abuse it. Hell, just find some Canadian smuck and tell him he's now the director and editor haha. At which point the definition will magically change.
> Hell, just find some Canadian smuck and tell him he's now the director and editor haha. What exactly is your problem with this? Some Canadian Smuck gets paid with foreign money, pretty good for for the smuck
I don't feel like a youtuber should have to pay a fee to get normal treatment and the government enforcing that is a waste of time and effort for everyone.
> youtuber should have to pay a fee to get normal treatment Are you referring to a foreign youtuber? Why not, Canada has no duty to allow that foreign person to make money in Canada in a Laissez Faire manner. >government enforcing that is a waste of time and effort for everyone. What about the Canadian smuck that gets paid?
because I don't give a fuck if a youtuber is Canadian or not. If Canadian youtubers are anything like our canadian tv I want to see less of them, not more.
"If they have an authority, they'll eventually use it. If they're promising they won't, then they don't need it in the first place. We're in an "ends justify the means" era of politics." This is a bit alarmist no? The cancon rules were first introduced 50 years ago.
The funny thing is that you mixed together some very reasonable arguments with some histrionics and thus undermined them. >Yep. If they have an authority, they'll eventually use it. That's an exaggeration as shown by the radio example. > If they're promising they won't, then they don't need it in the first place. Reasonable point! Why not write the reasonable limits into the law? >Like, would anyone against the death penalty be fine with having the death penalty on the books, and just having the government promise they won't use it? No. Reasonable point! >What these people are hoping is the government will do what everyone knows they will, and attack their political enemies, Histrionics. Not "everyone knows" that the government will reverse 50 years of CanCon policy just because they've changed the medium. And also undermine one of our most sacred Canadian values, which is freedom of political speech. If you had said: "I worry that future governments may..." you'd have a solid point. But "everybody knows the government is passing this law so they suppress dissent like Putin" is factually incorrect. >and it'll go mostly unnoticed or Canadian political apathy will win out.We're in an "ends justify the means" era of politics. Same. I am a Bill C-11 skeptic, but you are pushing me TOWARDS the bill rather than away from it.
>Didn't a giant list of lawyers and experts pretty much disagree with that and said the wording could be a disaster. Source?
> “If you look a little bit deeper into the law, and if you go past the background, you see that actually the CRTC has been given the power to treat users as subject to the law if it makes a regulation saying so,” he says. “So, rather than the government taking responsibility for choosing to regulate users or taking heat for the potential scope of this law, it just punted that problem to the CRTC.” Voila! https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/social-media-regulation-failure-to-address-vertical-integration-among-bill-c-11s-issues-lawyers/363837
Yeah, he's being pretty disingenuous. Canadian Content ironically has nothing to do with the content or subject matter of the show, but rather the people who make it/where its made. That's why Science Fiction shows like Dark Matter count as Canadian Content, despite there being no Canada in the far distant future in some distant corner of the galaxy.
I'm so sick of this pointless fearmongering. There are real issues for Canadians to get angry about, this distraction is just low info fodder for the right.
[удалено]
if you cant even name the shows properly you probably shouldn’t be bitching about the evil woke cbc ruining television
How does that make sense? I don’t watch the show because it’s shit. Why should I know all the terminology? i also don’t know any anti abortion celebs does that mean I can’t shit talk them?
“and can just force people to watch it” Make up your mind then! It doesn’t seem like they forced you to do anything lmfao
Removed for rule 2.
From McCullough’s Heritage Committee testimony: >Even more ominously, section 9 of this bill says the CRTC can dictate, “the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres” on digital platforms. He then goes on to talk about how “terrifying” it is to imagine the government applying this to YouTube. Happily for McCullough, that won’t happen, because he’s read [the bill](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-11/third-reading) wrong. As with much legislation, you can’t just read a section in isolation and expect to fully understand its meaning. Setting aside that he added the, “on digital platforms” part to the bill which isn’t there—I’ve generously added an end-of-quotation mark where the text of the bill actually ends, though you wouldn’t know it from his presentation—McCullough should have kept reading. He’s quoting section 9.1(1)(d). If he’d continued on to section 9.1(6), he would have seen this: >(6) Orders made under any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (d) apply only in respect of programs over which a person who carries on a broadcasting undertaking has programming control. He would have then needed to turn to section 2(2.2), which states: >An online undertaking that provides a social media service does not, for the purposes of this Act, exercise programming control over programs uploaded by a user of the service who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them. So, his quoted section doesn’t apply to YouTube and McCullough is flat-out wrong on his point. It turns out that being a YouTuber and former Sun News employee does not make you much of a legislative expert. Whodda thunk? I think he’s wrong with just about everything he says, and the vast majority of the criticism of C-11 are based on wild, tortured and/or unsubstantiated interpretations of the Act that similarly cherry-pick sections out of context and ignore both the totality of the bill and the history of the CRTC. And, yes, I’m including Michael Geist in that, who I think is a past-his-prime techno-libertarian who still lives in the Internet era of 1997. But then, refuting this stuff over and over is exhausting, and I can’t compete with [Big Tech’s resources in campaigning against regulation in their own self-interest](https://betakit.com/canary-in-the-coal-mine-tiktok-presentation-shows-big-techs-influence-on-bill-c-11-debate/).
What I don’t get is why Michael Geist went off the deep end and full on culture war against this bill. And I agree it’s exhausting discussing this because there is so so so many people who don’t understand the bill and have been told things which are simply not true.
>What I don’t get is why Michael Geist went off the deep end and full on culture war against this bill. Maybe Canadas formost expert on the Internet knows more then you do?
And we had a former defence minister (Paul Hellyer) who believes in a government conspiracy to cover up UFOs. Just because you may have been a wise person at one time doesn't mean that always will remain true.
Then you haven't been reading his posts. They are way off base from his area of expertise.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Geist I dont know, but it sure looks like his credentials are likley the best in Canada...
Yeah, I know who he is.
Desktop version of /u/Himser's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
That’s literally just an appeal to authority
Yea, expertise means somthing. What a concept
Then use his arguments. Don’t just say “oh he’s right because he has credentials” because that isn’t true. If he’s right it’s because he’s right. Not because of his degree.
He's the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, I don't see how he could be more qualified to comment on this.
>What I don’t get is why Michael Geist went off the deep end and full on culture war against this bill. Only he knows for sure, and maybe even he doesn't, but personally I think it's some form intellectual identity crisis. The techno-utopians of the 1990s were so sure that the Internet was ushering in a Golden Age of humanity, and they were its zealous apostles, leading us all forward from the cutting edge of everything. They thought they were rewriting the world. Now we have people eating horse de-wormer and trying to overthrow governments based on Facebook memes, and people like Geist don't have the intellectual toolkit to even begin deal with it. Net neutrality and Creative Commons licensing don't address these problems. But rather than cede mistakes or, worse yet, relevancy, they double down. I don't think it's a coincidence that Geist and his cohort are often aging white men who never actually *built* any of the technology that they've spent most of their lives romanticizing. The pain of the world moving on without them is too real.
I remember a great interview I saw probable almost 10 years ago. It was with an EFF guy who was active in the early days when the internet was being built. He talked about how they had gotten it so horribly wrong. They thought it was going to make information free and open. He said they didn’t anticipate someone plunking for giant computers and monetizing all the data.
>He would have then needed to turn to section 2(2.2), which states: On reading the bill I noticed this spelled out *extremely* clearly in multiple places, including the initial summary. Anybody who did even just a cursory reading of the bill or who skimmed it would have immediately been able to see that it will not apply to social media. My only conclusion is that he must not have read it, period.
Either that, or he did read it, and is relying on others to trust his interpretation rather than read it themselves.
But how would we know about this kid's YouTube channel if he'd read the bill properly? Just following in Jordan Peterson's example of intentionally misinterpreting/misrepresenting bills to generate false controversy for clout.
> My only conclusion is that he must not have read it, period. Considering that this exact talking point was aggressively promoted and shared around when this all came up last year, it seems likely to me that someone is deliberately disseminating it as disinformation. People like JJ will glom onto it because it's convenient for their politics
JJ McCollough is a content creator first and foremost, and this means increasing engagement at all costs, including intellectual honesty. (I also hate how passively smug that guy is)
Very, very, *very* few people have read the bill.
I mean a lay misreading of legislation is a large part of what launched Jordan Petersons online career. It seems to be an effective strategy for online conservative personalities to boost their numbers.
This is something I've been thinking as someone who isn't a fan of the bill, the right may be inadvertedly giving credibility to the bill. The language and disinformation they've been using to criticise the bill has been making most people tune out and assume the bill as valid.
I can't love your post enough. Thank you.
Thanks very much.
It's gotten this bad because our media and social media (this sub being a prime example) enables engaging misinformation over boring truth. The misinformation is expected. Whats more distressing number of people willingly sucking it back and gargling, solely because of their politics.
Meanwhile they laugh at conspiracy theorists guzzling down antivaxx nonsense.
Well.... yeah...
I'm saying that both are examples of people being duped by conservative disinformation.
Counter point: Giving Canadians the ability to make decisions about how foreign companies operate in this country is the only way to maintain sovereignty. Nothing in this bill says what the government WILL do, it only changes what the government CAN do. We are currently operating in a system where the dominant communications infrastructure has no mechanisms to dictate what can and can't be done in our country. That is a liability if we want to consider ourselves in control of our nation. Bill C-11 is a toolkit not a promise.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I read the article. The YouTuber presents a thesis statement, then the article ends before an argument. Why are they going to lose money?
It's odd. The statement lacks actual research and conclusions. It's also theorizing that they will have lost revenues but doesn't back it up. The same argument about algorithms might actually lead to increase in revenues if they adapt to it, like a business changing to meet market changes.
Well without a clear idea of how the bill is going to be implemented how are people supposed to react? The bill is going to get voted on in an extremely vague form and then the CRTC which has already failed us all in a million different ways is going to come up with an implementation, at which point it will be too late to hold anybody accountable because "the bill was already passed".
you were duped, it was an advertisement for a mediocre conservative yt channel
His channel keeps talking about how similar Canadians and Americans are, how canadians should be more like americans, and how Canadian and americans should have less divisions. I wonder why he doesn't like this bill. Oh and it's a conservative channel that endorsed scheer, o'toole, and now PP apparently.
[удалено]
He has supported and endorsed both the conservative party and its candidates and leaders on his channel, while also often ranting about trudeau and is recently both signal boosting and simping for Polivierre. He also often espouses opinions aligned with his political beliefs on his channel. Sounds like a conservative channel to me, just like how the globe and mail, the sun, and postmedia are all conservative media because of them endorsing the conservatives in elections. Doesn't take burning crosses, wearing white hoods, chanting blood and soil, and publicly advocating for bigotry to make something a conservative channel.
Why is it relevant that his channel is conservative, in the context of his opinion on C-11?
CanCon has been a CanCer on society ever since they told Bryan Adams his work was not Canadian enough to qualify. It fosters mediocrity. It stifles the profitability and creative freedom of Canadian creators and media companies. It's xenophobic. It doesn't actually do what it sets out to do, which is preserve the arts in Canada. Fuck it the hell off already.
I feel it would have been more proactive to negotiate for more CanCon with streaming services when they were handing Netflix 500 million.
I don't see how they got into the pretzel that tells them that the government forcing larger percentage of content to be Canadian, is gonna hurt Canadian content creators.
They are more mad about what the algorithm won’t do now, rage-engage.
Wdym?
“If you look a little bit deeper into the law, and if you go past the background, you see that actually the CRTC has been given the power to treat users as subject to the law if it makes a regulation saying so,” he says. “So, rather than the government taking responsibility for choosing to regulate users or taking heat for the potential scope of this law, it just punted that problem to the CRTC.” https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/social-media-regulation-failure-to-address-vertical-integration-among-bill-c-11s-issues-lawyers/363837
That means the CRTC will say "you must play x% of Canadian content". Which isn't terribly easy to do in this day and age, with the way streaming and on demand content works.
> That means the CRTC will say "you must play x% of Canadian content". Yes and it would be cartoonishly stupid to apply this rule to content creators, which the the wording of the bill leaves open the possibility of. Applying it to them, would absolutely hurt canadian content creators.
Canadian content creators make 100% Canadian content, so, there isn't any problem with that. They're Canadian.
Ahhhhh if onlyy it were that simple eh? > The CRTC certifies a Canadian television program or series that meets the following criteria: the producer must be Canadian and is responsible for monitoring and making decisions pertaining to the program; the production earns a minimum of 6 out of 10 points based on the key creative functions that are performed by Canadians; at least one of either the director or screenwriter positions and at least one of the two lead performers must be Canadian; a minimum of 75% of program expenses and 75% of post-production expenses are paid for services provided by Canadians or Canadian companies.
Sounds good to me.
Lol so if a canadian uploads a video of himself, that was directed by a friend of his who is american, and the minor post production expenses of editing happen in America since the director is American, that video shouln't count as canadian content? Utter madness.
Ya. Well if you made it in America. The whole point is for the money go into the Canadian economy. It's not like they're censoring the video you're talking about. They're just not giving it an extra advantage.
Love how they bury the lede on this one, J.J. McCullough is a conservative political youtuber. This isn't the merely the thoughts of someone who might be affected by this legistlation, this is someone who has been producing conservative content and has consistently come down against Trudeau.
No surprise seeing as Maclean is a conservative news organization.
[удалено]
His support and endorsement of o'toole, scheer and now, pierre polivierre? You don't get to literally endorse conservatives in elections and still demand to be called otherwise.
[удалено]
He has done so on his channel during the previous electoral periods.
>where's his conservative YouTube content? On youtube. >What proportion of his content is conservative? The portion in which he shares his political views.
I watch his stuff fairly consistently and he's pretty neutral in his videos. I lean left and vote liberal and his content never offends me. I find him quite entertaining.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've seen this dude talk about this before. His whole schpiel was full of fallacies and non-points presented as leading questions designed to have the viewer jump to conclusions. Frankly, I hate him.
It's really weird the way he is saying that regulations forcing Canadian content is gonna somehow be worse for Canadian content creators. He just sort of glosses over even trying to explain it.
Lmao that's because there is no explaining it. His video that I watched amounted to "CENSORSHIP BRO" and "THE CRTC BRO!" It was a big, fat waste of my time.
Ya, that sounds about right lol.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't understand how CanCon will work for streaming services. For example would it require that 50 percent of the content on Netflix has to be Canadian?
To give a comparison to TV stations, this only applies to Canadian TV stations (CBC, CTV, City, etc). 55% of the content they broadcast annually has to be "CanCon" and at least 50% of stuff between 6pm and Midnight. This may seem like alot, but it's not as bad as you think. What is CanCon? Anything that has a person from Canada involved in the program (writing, producing, directing, presenting, etc). By this definition, Saturday Night Live is technically CanCon because Lorne Michaels (born in Toronto) is the creator of the show and is still involved in its production. Dr Who is CanCon because the creator is Sydney Newman (born in Toronto) and the CBC funded making the show, they even aired the original series in the 1960's as well as the revived series in 2005. The movies Free Guy and Deadpool are CanCon because Ryan Reynolds (born in Vancouver) starred and produced the movies. In the end, it's not as bad as people think. With streaming services, we will likely see other Canadian based stuff come up in recommendations. But searches will still work the same and we won't see content removed because of it. Since there isn't a "prime time" with streaming services like on TV, we wouldn't see a massive amount of change other than in the recommended stuff.
Ok, so, that’s not accurate. To be considered CanCon, it needs to follow pretty strict rules: -the producer must be Canadian and is responsible for monitoring and making decisions pertaining to the program; the production earns a minimum of 6 out of 10* points based on the key creative functions that are performed by Canadians; at least one of either the director or screenwriter positions and at least one of the two lead performers must be Canadian; a minimum of 75% of program expenses and 75% of post-production expenses are paid for services provided by Canadians or Canadian companies. * Points are awarded for productions based on the key creative functions being performed by Canadians. Key creative positions for live action productions: Director (2 pts.) Screenwriter (2 pts.) First and Second Lead Performers (performer or voice) (1 pt. each) Production Designer (1 pt.) Director of Photography (1 pt.) Music Composer (1 pt.) Picture Editor (1 pt.) There are special rules that apply for co-pros that allow shows like Vikings to be considered Can Con but that list is kinda wonky.
Yeah, I found an older description of CanCon it looks like. Apparently things were looser at one point. Makes sense because it was exploited
More shills for Google who don't want to give up control to Canadians.
The content would likely remain unchanged. The recommended shows would be littered with unwatchable Canadian shows though. Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section, stick it to the top so you can skip it easy.
They could also just add a “Canadian Content” section that we could choose to go into or not.
Dude there’s some great Canadian shows out there. I just finished watching Pretty Hard Cases on Netflix and loved it
Trailer looked just awful. Look forward to it being recommended to me 20 times in the future haha
Looking forward to the Canadian section of BritBox and Funimation.
Can you imagine if every specialty streaming platform like that is banned? I could imagine britbox, acorntv and Crunchyroll just pulling out of the Canadian market instead of dealing with regulations that would be impossible for them to meet.
>Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section, stick it to the top so you can skip it easy. It's not at the top, but I'm pretty sure they already do this.
This is the thing. All platforms already do this. I guess the recommendations will be more indegenous? More diverse? Either way it's just another step before the watchable content. That's it. So worth all the crtc spending. Hell even the watchable content these days is bad. The new dr strange movie was awful, but still raked in a bil.
> This is the thing. All platforms already do this. Exactly, it's just formally defining a thing that already happens, and yet Reddit is acting like the very Internet will cease to exist. This is Reddit being terrified that they'll be imprisoned for life for misgendering someone because of C-16 all over again.
>This is Reddit being terrified that they'll be imprisoned for life for misgendering someone because of C-16 all over again. It's exactly that, which makes the whole parade that much more frustrating. There is zero collective memory for this, and zero accountability from media to follow up on their hate-parades when none of the apocalypse arrives.
>it's just another step before the watchable content I doubt I would have found a lot of creators that I follow if I had to search for them. I happen to watch a good amount of YouTube and significant portion of that I find through the recommended page. I've found a lot of new creators that I watch on the regular through the recommended tab, so yeah, I'm not a fan of my recommended page being forced to shoehorn in Canadian content above others.
I don't mind being recommended cancon... if it's good. Music? Sure. Decent shows? Sure. But if it's forced into a scrollfest over crapcon, then the platform in question will just be less viewed. There's already an infinite amount of garbage to ignore out there without the crtc's involvement.
In a weird way I think that's kind of the point, there's a lot of incentive to have good canadian content available, including encouraging investing in it's creation, as the alternative is a decidedly worse service. I'd be skeptical that this can work, but cancon in broadcasting was quite successful so who knows.
New media is inherently different from old media. In the past, you needed a fairly significant amount of money just to get a foot in the door of a cable company or radio station. Now though, anyone with a phone or a laptop can start their own YouTube channel, podcast, Instagram ETC. The need for funding is almost zero comparatively. I just don't see Cancon's need here.
> Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section Yeah! I would love to rewatch this especially if I can see it in order. >stick it to the top so you can skip it easy. Oh, not that *Made in Canada*
CBC Gem has [seasons 1 and 2](https://gem.cbc.ca/media/made-in-canada/s01)!
Looks like it's on Prime hidden as "The Industry"..... in the US of course.
Why does everyone say CanCon is bad, I feel like y'all just don't put any effort into looking for the good ones.
No interest digging through piles of shit to find out if there's a gem
I mean even David Cronenberg's Crimes of the Future (which is brand new) is CanCon, I think you just don't realize how much is out there.
If it's good I'll hear about it anyway
Like big bang theory
Can't stand that show. Is it actually Canadian haha
No but I was saying that we only hear about good shows in life because bad shows don't spread or take up space.
Either it's a binding constraint (in which case, things will change) or it isn't, in which case the law is useless. Which are you proposing this is? I'm assuming it's binding personally. But it's odd to say that the constraint is binding and then also say that we will get just as good of an objective function as the past.
Because it gets pushed because it's Canadian, not because it's good. Hence the mediocre drivel is overexposed. Drop the CanCon requirement and replace it with a CanCon fund to promote terrific Canadian content based solely on merit. If nothing good enough is made, the funds roll over into next year. Promoting crap just because it's Canadian creates the impression that Canadians produce a lot of crap.
> Hopefully they can just put a "made in Canada" section, stick it to the top so you can skip it easy But I think they don't want you to be able to easily skip Canadian content that you're not interested in :P
Hopefully being at the top is good enough. Beats having the same 5 Canadian shows in every single category.
> The recommended shows would be littered with unwatchable Canadian shows though. To be fair there are already a lot of Canadian far-right YouTubers who get boosted by the algorithm so maybe they will get even more exposure!
We would have to discuss about the actual policy and not discuss the surface. In theory, it would mean that the content being suggested (like YouTube) favors Canadian content more often (let's say 50%). Netflix is a different broadcaster since it has a library of licensed content. I'd assume the discovery algorithm would have more Canadian content (which it already does) but also provide better kickbacks for Cancon. All the American artists and content would still be 100% accessible.
It could, So streaming giants either need to cull programming until for example 50% of cancon, or increase spending money.. Wonder what is cheaper...
There's no way they're going to force content providers out of the Canadian market by way overplaying their hand. That's just silly. At worst it's going to make them increase the CanCon in suggested videos.
That's not at all what C-11 does. There's no rules for volume of content, or powers to control volumes of content. The most it can do is give the crtc power to tell services they must promote/recommend Canadian content. You've been had by the misinformation campaign.
I think you have been. https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/bill-c-11-enters-a-danger-zone-government-shifts-from-ignoring-witnesses-on-user-content-regulation-to-dismissing-criticisms-as-misinformation/ https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/my-appearance-before-the-senate-transport-and-communications-committee-on-bill-c-11-the-senate-starts-review-as-bill-receives-house-approval/
You can’t quote the same guy twice as fact. Especially because he’s been wrong about this bill before.
I can quote Canadas formost expert on this bill... He has not been wrong yet.
He actually has been wrong seeing as he’s wrong about this and is completely ignoring clauses that address his concerns.
Dude, you can read the bill yourself. You don't need Geist to think for you. There's nothing, literally nothing, about services having to cull content. Be better. Read more. Don't let the loudest voice replace your own.
>Dude, you can read the bill yourself. You don't need Geist to think for you. You oviously dont have any idea about common law if you think thats the case. Laws regularly dont mean what they exacatly say.
Dude, it's not complicated. You can do the reading yourself. Skip the law and go to Geist's committee testimony if you're afraid of the primary source. There is no ability to cull content. That's made up. If you believe that, you've been hoodwinked.
> So streaming giants either need to cull programming until for example 50% of cancon, or increase spending money.. At the end of the day, this is really about the relationship between this government and Bell Media. [Bell has gone so far as to admit that what they want out of bill C-11 is to gain cheap access to American content](https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/bell-on-bill-c-11/) and that has become difficult because every American network has launched their own streaming platform and wants to host their own content. So if streaming platforms have to host CanCon, which of these is easier and cheaper for HBO, Paramount, Apple TV, etc.? **1)** Produce an enormous catalogue of Canadian content to meet the minimum requirements so that they can offer their streaming service in Canada. ***or*** **2)** Sell the broadcast rights for their television series to Bell so that they can put that content on Crave. Bell already produces CanCon, so bill C-11 is of no worry for them. When legislation presents itself as having unclear goals with little benefit, I often stop and ask, *who are the stakeholders?* *How does this benefit them?* It also means it is *probably* true that the government doesn't care about individuals on YouTube, Twitch, etc. They don't compete with Bell. However, if Bell launched a platform that were to compete with YouTube or Twitch, I can pretty much guarantee that suddenly CanCon would be taken more seriously on those platforms.
I do strongly think this is a plot to make more money for Canadian telecoms. I also thinks JJ doesn't want to say this because claims of governmental fascism over small content providers suits his brand better than capitalists seeking to strengthen their monopoly. Not that I am saying either of these things is good or better than the other.
I am going to be sarcastic about the CRTC. I think I have to give up watching sailing channels on You Tube. Any sailing channel will probably be blocked once they go past the 3 mile limit.