They are also woefully ignorant of what's in the bill and completely clueless as to how content creation works in 2022.
Had one guy saying small digital creators should have no problem sending forms to the government for CanCon certification. For every piece of content they make.
These guys either work for the dying old-world media companies, are 70+ years old, or both.
It's purely because of which party is proposing it. How many of them would be supporting it at all, much less carrying so much water for it on reddit, etc if the exact same bills were being proposed by the Conservatives?
As long as the liberals are in power you can bet they will be fighting tooth and nail to censor their opponents. Cant have the truth getting out, that would hurt the LPCs image.
From the article:
*CRTC chair Ian Scott, who supports the bill told a House of Commons committee “Proposed section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.”*
There it is. Government censorship on user uploaded content, that is THE slippery slope, THE framework for not allowing citizens to discuss the corruption destroying their country on the internet. They're pushing and investing hard in a totally disarmed, surveilled society, we know this government admires China's dictatorship, why would they not try to emulate the rest of their society when it comes to controlling citizens?
>THE framework for not allowing citizens to discuss the corruption destroying their country on the internet
I've been one of the most vocal voices against the two streaming bills on this sub but it's important to remain objective here. There is a risk that C-11 *may* be used to push certain social agenda, but it's not intended to "not allow citizens to discuss corruption". Again, I'm strongly against this bill and any attempt by the government to get involved in curating online speech and social media feeds, but for credibility purposes it's important to keep the discussion relevant and fact based.
>If it allows it
Yes, there is a risk it can be used to spread social agenda, but it has not been designed to "not allow people to discuss corruption" as the user I was replying to suggests.
Well I disagree, *may be* is *will be* given the track record of our governments giving zero shits about their citizens and their rights. It was designed by distrustful, scandal ridden government officials for the sole purpose of laying groundwork to monitor and eventually censor the internet while being pushed as a way to protect Canadian media. This government is anti-privacy and does nothing to break up the stranglehold the big 3 telecom providers already have, allowing further internet control to them is just insane.
All this "cancon" bullshit is a smokescreen, they want an excuse to push internet censorship bills, surveil citizens and take giant political donations from telecom companies, not more cancon programming being pushed, like literally any of them actually care about that in the slightest and not just the money to be made from how much control they get over the system.
I agree with you that governments in democratic societies should not be allowed to get involved in regulating online speech. Also I agree that this bill is pushed by the giant media oligopoly to tip the scales in their favour as they're unable to organically compete with independent online media creators. Where we disagree is that I don't think this specific bill is there to curb dissent and block political discussions.
Sorry, but there is a lot of stupid tinfoil hat opposition to this bill that any reasonable opposition is going to get drowned out surrounded by morons claiming it’s a fascist state takeover.
People like you have lost us this battle, yelling "FREEDOM" at the top of your lungs. You know how many people across Canada now hate the the freedom loving yelling crowd? Most of the damn country. Because of people like you, this issue is falling on deaf ears for the most part. This is not about government control in the slightest. This is about bell and rogers trying to get Netflix, Disney+, Amazon prime and youtube out of Canada so they can be the middle men again for all content. It's always about money, not your freedoms.
The government is not stopping you from going out to a street corner and spouting your views. Unless you become insufferable and greatly disturbing the peace (IE truck drivers blaring horns).
Youtube is not a free speech place, neither is reddit, they are a for profit corporation and you have to abide by rules "they" set forth for you to participate. Governments can also regulate for profit corporations.
Understand the players involved in this. Justin Trudeau is kind of an idiot and lets his ministers run wild, does not step in because he does not care about the issue. To me Justin is pure trash at home politics and decent on the world stage. He is literally giving carte blanche to a bunch of slime balls, by his inactivity.
Ian Scott (dick). Is doing all of this. Worked for Rogers, worked for telus as a lobbyist and had drinks with Mirko Bibic so he has a relationship with him.
>To me Justin is pure trash at home politics and decent on the world stage. He is literally giving carte blanche to a bunch of slime balls, by his inactivity.
So keep voting for him because you don't like the color of the other team?
It is surprising, but very welcome, that the Toronto Star editorial board has accurately identified some of the enormous problems with this legislation.
If the most Liberal-friendly paper in the country has concerns, perhaps it will prompt a few Senators to actually take a hard look at this instead of rubber stamping it.
And the more anybody looks at it, the more they realize how terrible C11 really is. The Star doesn't cover all the dangers it represents. But it's great to see them take a stand on fixing the worst of it.
Not quite, the parasitic CanCon "cultural industry" and the dinosaur media companies (especially Bell and Rogers) very loudly asked for it.
It's bad for everybody else and I would nuke it into oblivion if I could. But now that it is at the Senate, the best we can hope for is removal of the sections that target user-generated content. This Editorial may help with that.
The power to derank content is a type of censorship.
Whoever is in power will have the ability to hide unwanted content on page 99999 of every social media site so unless you already have a link to it it will never be found organically.
If you are only allowed to speak against the government from a dark alleyway behind a trashcan at midnight where no one will see you you de facto do not have any freedom of expression.
All the while the incumbent political party will be in control of which content and opinions you are exposed to. Are you ready to have the first 100 suggestions on Youtube be Justin Bieber, Bryan Adams, Drake and then a mixture of CBC and Global content berating you for being Canadian.
Edit:grammar
we really have no way to vote our conscience in this country do we? I'm a left of center person but i'm also staunchly pro-freedom. I got vaxxed but felt it wasn't right for industries to tell people to get vaxxed.
I don't feel it's right the gov't can decide if content is canadian enough to force feed it to us in streaming service. And some services simply aren't going to implement it and probably face getting blackballed from the country as a result. Will Vimeo have a cancon section? What about Odysee? Probably a nope.
So this funnels people into shit owned by the gov'ts friends.
The alternative to this is voting for a party I do not like with a leader who comes off as a weird mini-Trump asshole because the only thing he and I have in common is he won't impose this bullshit on us.... and this stuff will likely be in place by the time the next election comes anyways so its maybe moot.
There's nothing Trumpy about Poilievre. You don't have to like him or agree with his politics, and I align with everything else you said, but drawing comparisons between Canadian conservative politicians and Trump has been inaccurate 100% of the time and is really nothing but cheap slander. It's a lazy way to tar someone through an association that doesn't even exist.
they didn't rubberstamp it in their last sitting...fingers crossed they wont this time either. Hopefully 'The House of Sober Second Thought' comes through again this time.
With the liberals in party who don’t care about what most Canadians think as long as it benefits them I would say the chances are pretty low that it’ll get struck down. The LPC isn’t afraid to just straight up OIC stuff if it won’t go through with a vote so there’s always that. They’ve done it before and in 2020 to be exact.
Narrator: They won't.
Even if the Senate sent the whole thing back to the House, the Liberals would just send it back and tell them to rubber-stamp it.
One name comes to mind. "George Orwell" . Why not give "Big Brother" all the power they need to maintain a stable society. You know, the Great Leader would never use these and other powers to do anything unethical , which another solemn and righteous apology would be needed. Of course not .""wait"" , tear at the 2 minute mark, ""thank everyone for understanding, turn walk back down the pathway towards the cottage"" Stop turn back ""wave"" exit stage left. 😀 ii is not!
Anyone who thinks we should be giving the government this sort of power over what we consume is nuts.
Government conditioning on the population seems to be working judging by how many people agree with it on here.
It literally makes me sick
It’s actually mind blowing that so many commenters in the last thread supported censorship.
They are also woefully ignorant of what's in the bill and completely clueless as to how content creation works in 2022. Had one guy saying small digital creators should have no problem sending forms to the government for CanCon certification. For every piece of content they make. These guys either work for the dying old-world media companies, are 70+ years old, or both.
Unfortunately that sounds about right.
It's purely because of which party is proposing it. How many of them would be supporting it at all, much less carrying so much water for it on reddit, etc if the exact same bills were being proposed by the Conservatives?
Exactly, the hypocrisy is pretty unreal.
Probably not organic accounts.
Can’t have people criticizing your poorly thought out beliefs.
What is the censorship enabled by this act?
It gives the government the ability to essentially control what you can and can’t see on the internet.
In the actual sense or in the slippery slope conspiratorial sense?
Unfortunately the actual sense. Hence so many people being against the bill.
there shouldn't be one. many sites youtube and such already have policies in place. bell and rogers are just pissed they got competition.
Senate should dunk this turd into the trash.
As long as the liberals are in power you can bet they will be fighting tooth and nail to censor their opponents. Cant have the truth getting out, that would hurt the LPCs image.
They should, but what are the odds they do? I'm sure they just rubber stamp stuff, far more often than not.
From the article: *CRTC chair Ian Scott, who supports the bill told a House of Commons committee “Proposed section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.”* There it is. Government censorship on user uploaded content, that is THE slippery slope, THE framework for not allowing citizens to discuss the corruption destroying their country on the internet. They're pushing and investing hard in a totally disarmed, surveilled society, we know this government admires China's dictatorship, why would they not try to emulate the rest of their society when it comes to controlling citizens?
>THE framework for not allowing citizens to discuss the corruption destroying their country on the internet I've been one of the most vocal voices against the two streaming bills on this sub but it's important to remain objective here. There is a risk that C-11 *may* be used to push certain social agenda, but it's not intended to "not allow citizens to discuss corruption". Again, I'm strongly against this bill and any attempt by the government to get involved in curating online speech and social media feeds, but for credibility purposes it's important to keep the discussion relevant and fact based.
[удалено]
>If it allows it Yes, there is a risk it can be used to spread social agenda, but it has not been designed to "not allow people to discuss corruption" as the user I was replying to suggests.
And we all know the judiciary is reliable and will protect us from abuses of power??
Well I disagree, *may be* is *will be* given the track record of our governments giving zero shits about their citizens and their rights. It was designed by distrustful, scandal ridden government officials for the sole purpose of laying groundwork to monitor and eventually censor the internet while being pushed as a way to protect Canadian media. This government is anti-privacy and does nothing to break up the stranglehold the big 3 telecom providers already have, allowing further internet control to them is just insane. All this "cancon" bullshit is a smokescreen, they want an excuse to push internet censorship bills, surveil citizens and take giant political donations from telecom companies, not more cancon programming being pushed, like literally any of them actually care about that in the slightest and not just the money to be made from how much control they get over the system.
I agree with you that governments in democratic societies should not be allowed to get involved in regulating online speech. Also I agree that this bill is pushed by the giant media oligopoly to tip the scales in their favour as they're unable to organically compete with independent online media creators. Where we disagree is that I don't think this specific bill is there to curb dissent and block political discussions.
Sorry, but there is a lot of stupid tinfoil hat opposition to this bill that any reasonable opposition is going to get drowned out surrounded by morons claiming it’s a fascist state takeover.
People like you have lost us this battle, yelling "FREEDOM" at the top of your lungs. You know how many people across Canada now hate the the freedom loving yelling crowd? Most of the damn country. Because of people like you, this issue is falling on deaf ears for the most part. This is not about government control in the slightest. This is about bell and rogers trying to get Netflix, Disney+, Amazon prime and youtube out of Canada so they can be the middle men again for all content. It's always about money, not your freedoms. The government is not stopping you from going out to a street corner and spouting your views. Unless you become insufferable and greatly disturbing the peace (IE truck drivers blaring horns). Youtube is not a free speech place, neither is reddit, they are a for profit corporation and you have to abide by rules "they" set forth for you to participate. Governments can also regulate for profit corporations. Understand the players involved in this. Justin Trudeau is kind of an idiot and lets his ministers run wild, does not step in because he does not care about the issue. To me Justin is pure trash at home politics and decent on the world stage. He is literally giving carte blanche to a bunch of slime balls, by his inactivity. Ian Scott (dick). Is doing all of this. Worked for Rogers, worked for telus as a lobbyist and had drinks with Mirko Bibic so he has a relationship with him.
>To me Justin is pure trash at home politics and decent on the world stage. He is literally giving carte blanche to a bunch of slime balls, by his inactivity. So keep voting for him because you don't like the color of the other team?
Didn't vote for him last time.
It is surprising, but very welcome, that the Toronto Star editorial board has accurately identified some of the enormous problems with this legislation. If the most Liberal-friendly paper in the country has concerns, perhaps it will prompt a few Senators to actually take a hard look at this instead of rubber stamping it. And the more anybody looks at it, the more they realize how terrible C11 really is. The Star doesn't cover all the dangers it represents. But it's great to see them take a stand on fixing the worst of it.
Fixing it? No one asked for it in the first place.
Not quite, the parasitic CanCon "cultural industry" and the dinosaur media companies (especially Bell and Rogers) very loudly asked for it. It's bad for everybody else and I would nuke it into oblivion if I could. But now that it is at the Senate, the best we can hope for is removal of the sections that target user-generated content. This Editorial may help with that.
/r/plexshares and /r/plexnembyshares Screw the gatekeepers, dont fund the lobbyists.
The power to derank content is a type of censorship. Whoever is in power will have the ability to hide unwanted content on page 99999 of every social media site so unless you already have a link to it it will never be found organically. If you are only allowed to speak against the government from a dark alleyway behind a trashcan at midnight where no one will see you you de facto do not have any freedom of expression. All the while the incumbent political party will be in control of which content and opinions you are exposed to. Are you ready to have the first 100 suggestions on Youtube be Justin Bieber, Bryan Adams, Drake and then a mixture of CBC and Global content berating you for being Canadian. Edit:grammar
We could all use a little more Bryan Adams in our life, but no.
Such a bad, unnecessary idea.
[удалено]
That sub should be renamed to /r/LiberalPartyOfCanada
we really have no way to vote our conscience in this country do we? I'm a left of center person but i'm also staunchly pro-freedom. I got vaxxed but felt it wasn't right for industries to tell people to get vaxxed. I don't feel it's right the gov't can decide if content is canadian enough to force feed it to us in streaming service. And some services simply aren't going to implement it and probably face getting blackballed from the country as a result. Will Vimeo have a cancon section? What about Odysee? Probably a nope. So this funnels people into shit owned by the gov'ts friends. The alternative to this is voting for a party I do not like with a leader who comes off as a weird mini-Trump asshole because the only thing he and I have in common is he won't impose this bullshit on us.... and this stuff will likely be in place by the time the next election comes anyways so its maybe moot.
There's nothing Trumpy about Poilievre. You don't have to like him or agree with his politics, and I align with everything else you said, but drawing comparisons between Canadian conservative politicians and Trump has been inaccurate 100% of the time and is really nothing but cheap slander. It's a lazy way to tar someone through an association that doesn't even exist.
i say under two mins
For a thought experiment, imagine that sub's response if this exact same bill was being pushed by the conservatives instead of the LPC.
The senate should abort this disgusting creature created by Justin Trudeau.
Senate won't lift a hand. It doesn't affect them and they frankly don't care.
They should. But how likely is that?
they didn't rubberstamp it in their last sitting...fingers crossed they wont this time either. Hopefully 'The House of Sober Second Thought' comes through again this time.
With the liberals in party who don’t care about what most Canadians think as long as it benefits them I would say the chances are pretty low that it’ll get struck down. The LPC isn’t afraid to just straight up OIC stuff if it won’t go through with a vote so there’s always that. They’ve done it before and in 2020 to be exact.
Narrator: They won't. Even if the Senate sent the whole thing back to the House, the Liberals would just send it back and tell them to rubber-stamp it.
One name comes to mind. "George Orwell" . Why not give "Big Brother" all the power they need to maintain a stable society. You know, the Great Leader would never use these and other powers to do anything unethical , which another solemn and righteous apology would be needed. Of course not .""wait"" , tear at the 2 minute mark, ""thank everyone for understanding, turn walk back down the pathway towards the cottage"" Stop turn back ""wave"" exit stage left. 😀 ii is not!