The legislation sounds probably terrible and awkward, but the chosen headline is maybe a bit inflammatory: "The CRTC requires all online services with more than CAD $10mn (USD $7.3mn) in revenue that operate in Canada and that offer podcasts, to register with the government before Nov 28."
We're not exactly talking about little mom&pop hobby podcasts. If you're bringing in $10M in revenue, you're a major media operation -- podcast being in that case really a kind of marketing label for what's basically a "radio station."
So given how things work in this country it was only a matter of time before the approach that the regulator here takes to major media operation around content would apply.
These laws probably confuse and enrage many Americans -- as they do for many Canadians -- but they've been a thing for decades; in large part they reflect two unique aspects of Canada: 1) its cultural and economic position in regards to being a separate country (believe it or not) adjacent to the US while being on the whole linguistically, economically culturally similar enough that there's a constant struggle to not be completely subsumed 2) The unique position of the French language, French Canadian, and Quebecois culture in confederation. (And, increasingly, indigenous culture)
Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process. But the argument (not my argument) is basically that in a "free" and "open competition", the US would basically bury/eliminate Canada.
Finally, Canada is officially "multicultural" rather than "melting pot" by stated ideology; which means that state institutions / regulatory agencies actually have concrete roles in protecting cultural diversity. Again, controversial, but likely a foreign approach to Americans and most Europeans (not all) whose societies operate with the assumption of single unified ethno-linguistic nation state. (This is explicit policy choice made by governments in the 70s/80s in an effort to stop the Canadian state from disintegrating under centrifugal separatist forces.)
"Today, the CRTC is advancing its regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content."
I would ask, who decides what is 'meaningful'? This sounds like an open door to censorship to me. Was not the requirement to make 'meaningful' contributions to society the excuse used by the Soviets and Red Chinese to stifle publications.
From what I know, it's just that you need a specified amount of air time from Canadian, French and indigenous presenters. What they choose to do with it is up to them.
It's more of a pass the mic around so every group gets some airtime law, and not so much a you cannot talk about this or that.
The idea is that it acts a bit like human rights, at balancing majority rules. Where financial incentives would prefer to always tailor to the majority since it makes more money, this enforces that minorities get some proportional airtime on big media channels.
In a streaming on demand, user driven world, how do you define “air time”? I can’t see how you could force consumers to consume a certain amount of CanCon, and simply ensuring CanCon %| of content available doesn’t make sense either since a small amount of content could be consumed up to 100% of total platform consumption, and a large amount of content could be consumed as little as 0% of the total platform consumption.
I'm not sure if they're going after a single podcast show, or after podcast apps. If the latter, it's probably just making available Canadian made podcasts to some amount of Canadian made podcast and promoting them in recommendations and listings. If the former, it's a bit more strange, maybe inviting guests that are Canadians on the show, for some amount of episodes?
A lot of the links on that page don't work, but I infer that it only applies to radio and TV, and it's not going to apply to podcasts just yet (perhaps in the future). Still, not much concrete info.
Yes, I saw that, and there is no mention of any censorship, or even any plan to regulate content, other than the sentence you mention which seems to be in the future. So there might perhaps be some "censorship" or regulation in the future, but not now.
Yes. Did you think about yours? Perhaps you could expand on your thoughts, and we can discuss who thought more before posting. See also my other comment in this thread.
Okay, perhaps you're going to go the literal route with this. No, this is not instantaneous censorship. I'll say it this way: they are creating the tools with which they will inevitably enforce censorship on those with enough reach that they dislike.
Yeah that went from "WTF" to "yeah, well" pretty soon.
I've heard about these regulations with local content quotes (doesn't France also have these?) and I can imagine no scenario where this $10M figure would hit anyone who should not have been regulated before if their only differentiator was if they did video on youtube or audio (somewhere) only. (I don't know enough about the Canadian regulations, so this is a not comment on those, only on "why the exception for podcasts, probably oversight").
Yes. I think the most accurate way to look at this is as a trade barrier to protect a local industry. By mandating a certain percentage of Canadian content, the CRTC effectively subsidizes Canadian media.
It's that and more as I said elsewhere. I think there are legitimate minority cultural interests, and the need to preserve some nominal Canadian identities that are actually real concerns.
The problem in Canada is that there are ... cabals ... of interests that have spent the last 200 years using the somewhat-artifically (but in large part necessary) erected walls between us and the United States for their own very self-serving interests that actually harm their fellow Canadians. Telecoms pricing being the obvious example.
In any case, it infects both major political parties, goes across the whole spectrum, and is a feature of the Canadian state since at least before the American Revolution.
> Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process.
I'd argue monopolistic control is the goal. The latest CRTC regulations seems a fairly straight-forward cash grab to prop up legacy media companies that would otherwise fail for their lack of competitiveness. Further, the process of putting out these regulations has been appallingly undemocratic. Bill C-11, like its predecessor Bill C-10, were not allowed to be debated in the house (only the 3rd time such a motion has been used in Canada)[0].
And lets be real, its not the average Canadian that benefits here. Its the owners and shareholders of the companies.
Right, I mean, we have multiple problems, but I suspect in large part there's a Venn diagram of self-interested monopolistic stakeholders (because the monopoly-capitalism streak runs deep in the Canadian state) and "baby boomer" decision makers who still don't understand the Internet but have some notion of protecting "Canadian culture(s)"
"its not the average Canadian that benefits here" is maybe the point though -- these things became policy because, in the past, the average Canadian's interests were maybe taking precedence over those of (fairly large) minority interests in such a way that they were causing civil problems in Canada. By which I mean, if we don't take care of making sure that e.g. French & Indigenous culture has strong representation, we actually risk problems with the political cohesion of the country.
As we know, averages hide important details. In statistics, but also in cultural issues.
Many of the things we're talking about here look entirely different if you're looking out at them from e.g. Quebec or the North.
For an outsider it's baffling to see 50% of the US slowly getting brainwashed to the point where they reject all facts out of spite, and think it is important to be contrarian on literally every social issue.
Whatever you think about CNN or MSNBC, FoxNews is pretty over the top, it’s basically a tabloid at this point with many tabloid stories.
I disagree with the premise however: it’s not that American media has so much influence on American consumers, rather American media is producing the product that their consumers want. The influence is basically reversed.
As an outsider it seems to me one half wants to burn books, regulate love and curb compassion, the other wants to improve education, regulate hate and promote compassion. It’s pretty easy which side to choose.
The reason for the two alternate realities in the same country is primarily to do with what information you consume.
As an exercise, go to the front page of Reddit everyday. You will almost always notice on the first page or the first few there are always posts on politics. And the vast majority of these posts are the "bad" takes/actions/scandals on rebuplicans/conservatives.
If you go to r/conservative , you will see the "bad" takes/actions/scandals of the democrats/liberals.
On Reddit the echo chamber for democrats is the entirety of Reddit except for a select few subs. The echo chamber for conservatives is in their own subreddits. On conservative websites this is the opposite.
If one looks only at the Reddit front page, no doubt they would not like the republicans because it's a highlight of their low points. I.e a Reverse Instagram, post all the bad parts of your life.
This is the issue. The two realities is from getting information about how "good" your side is and a feed about all the bad stuff from the other side.
The reason why you think 50% of the population is like that is precisely because the information you have received about that side is their bad highlight reel. And they will equally think the other 50% of the aisle is brainwashed because of all they are viewing your bad highlight reel
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch it. Many people watch it voluntarily. If we are so sure that these media are so bad for people, why are so many people still watching it?
If the answer is that these media "hack" the human brain, then I don't think that banning the producers is the right way to go. The root cause is that people are too easily tricked. Banning the producers will only cause other media, such as YouTube or Facebook, to fill the gap.
Nobody was forcing anyone to drive cars fuel powered by leaded gas either, could it have been so bad? And if it was so bad, why were so many people using it?
I would say that the answer to solve this is education, but unfortunately many states have decided that education is the bad thing, instead of blantantly misleading information. Even if you could teach it successfully in school, how many adults are going to go back to school to learn the media they're consuming is bad? If you're an ardent fox news viewer, how will you view that information?
> Nobody was forcing anyone to drive cars fuel powered by leaded gas either, could it have been so bad? And if it was so bad, why were so many people using it?
I wouldn't say this is a great analogy, because leaded gas was the only gas available, and alternatives to cars were disappearing in many cities. If you wanted to participate in the economy, you pretty much had to use gasoline.
I mean, you're not really correct. The first 10 years of my life every gas station had both "leaded" and "unleaded" options and it was regulations that forced car manufacturers to remove the the requirement for the former type of fuel.
You could argue the market would have gone there anyways, but it's actually insane how much damage to human health and the environment was done in the interim until regulation forced the matter.
The point is there is not and will never be consensus on what is "bad", so it ultimately is decided by power imbalance rather than some higher moralilty.
In a liberal society we allow things we don't like in order to maintain individual freedom as a higher good than "perfect" society.
Those who do envision "perfect" society and pursue it with the power of the state are the worst sort of authoritarians, because it's all done "for your own good", no matter what you think.
>If we are so sure that these media are so bad for people, why are so many people still watching it?
Although I don't have an opinion on this particular podcast situation, this statement doesn't hold any water.
You are implying that if people do something, it must not be bad for them because.. people continue to do it.
There are tons of things people do that are objectively bad for them. Hard drugs (fentanyl, etc.) being an easy example.
It's not necessary to hack the human brain if you can hack the YouTube algorithm. I get recommended this crap once in a while even though I have zero interest. Starting with a "Private" browsing window, it was pretty common to hit Andrew Tate shorts extremely quickly 6 months ago or so. Jordan Peterson's over-dramatic rants are another favourite YouTube recommendation.
Exactly right. The solution to a mass movement toward an ignorant and blind viewpoint isn't to censor it, it's to dismantle it with an opposing viewpoint and to provide a less ignorant way forward. Censorship of any kind doesn't solve anything despite what people want to think about Alex Jones or any others.
This sounds like the official signaling coming out of the US' nation-state George Creel-styled media. I'm personally grateful for the distributed and non-curated media. DC is just going to have to get over itself and adjust to the changing landscape. There's good and bad. When the original printing press came out the #1 books were for witch hunting and yet society -- in the end -- was better off for it.
The free for all market also gave me access to a hundred chefs who vastly improved my cooking. It also gave me access to a dozen woodworkers who taught me how to work safely and efficiently. A whole host of gardeners in my USDA zone with hyper local content relevant to me and taught me about native plants.
The free market has saved me thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in home repair costs. From changing my blower motor, to installing my Ecobee w/o a common wire, to installing ceiling brackets correctly, repairing my garage trolley.
The free market gave me podcasts and podcasters which taught me a ton about international conflicts and their history. Gave me access to brilliant environmentalists and conservationists doing incredible field work.
The real price I had to pay was hearing people endlessly, endlessly, endlessly complain about, and in so doing, amplify people that they don't listen to, disagree with, and think are harmful.
> It also gave me access to a dozen woodworkers who taught me how to work safely and efficiently.
And also "woodworkers" who would take transformers out of microwaves and run the resulting current through bare nails to make fractal lightning patterns in wood. If you're starting with a blank slate on wood-based projects how do you differentiate the former from the latter?
This is meaningless because what "common sense" is changes person to person. The person yelling about how 5G will damage your brain would say that it's "common sense" that "radiation" is bad for you so 5G must be bad.
You're basically saying that the way you avoid doing something dangerous recommend by others is by already knowing that it's dangerous. Well duh.
I don't think most people getting into something the first time would reasonably try a hard project and make it harder by adding electricity in the equation. I think your example is really just absurdity to be honest.
I also don't know what point you're making.
Since some people can't tell who the experts are and what a beginner is, we need to regulate youtubers?
I didn't make an argument for regulated speech and this isn't really about free speech since neither were criticizing the government.
All I did was point out that they aren't able to say whatever they want without permission or friction because there are consequences to intentionally lying over time to hurt people.
Ehhhhhh you don’t want to go down that road though. Or at least, I don’t want to. You can still punish people for advocating violence, you don’t need to step in and exert government control over the platforms they use to publish content on.
Maybe I misunderstand, but this is a requirement for platforms to register (Apple, Google, Spotify, Twitter, etc).
The fear is of indirect censorship. As was the case with law enforcement/intelligence informally requesting take downs in the US, Canada will be making this process formal.
My fear isn't indirect censorship, it is that companies will rather pull out of the Canadian market than pay to have content developed, acquired or managed to meet the CanCon rules. Canada's current spat with Google over news is a recent example.
Totally okay with that. I would rather follow independent Canadian media that doesn't qualify as CanCon anyways. Canadian media regulation only benefit existing large media institutions.
> Canada's current spat with Google over news is a recent example.
The problem is that if a Canadian wishes to make a podcast the biggest platforms may be closed to them because of onerous regulation they've opted out of.
That’s not how it works. Applying for CanCon status confers certain tax and subsidy incentives. You can forgo the onerous application process and operate as a normal business.
You need a specialist to understand and fill out forms and applications that many businesses just don't have. For a one or two man podcast that's not going to be a thing.
And given this newest revision is talking about Canadian values you might be regulated on the content of your show with that one or two man team to deal with the show and any issues.
It's great for large businesses but not small. It's going to be great for cbx and global who can hire someone whose whole job is dealing with regulatory burdens and applying for grants. but Joe entertainer doing his podcast on YouTube is going to have a tough time dealing with the regulations.
I personally don't know why people fear anything here. All you have to do to comply is add some Canadian content to your platform and recommend it and promote it in listings. You don't need to take down any other content or omit certain topic/subject matter.
The only question is, does it work? Does it really help promote Canadian made content and Canadian thoughts and ideas? Or does it do a poor job and just end up hamstringing our media companies internationally and financially.
We should expect more licensing of tech companies in the future. Both in terms of the kinds of services that will require licenses to operate, and in the number of jurisdictions that require them.
If you want to run a hotel or a burger joint or a general contractor, you need a license. It will be difficult to push back against the idea that tech companies should be treated the same.
Not saying that this will be a good thing. Just that it will happen.
Suddenly, Google's deprecation of their podcast software makes a little more sense. Not much, but a little.
That said, online streaming services are an odd one to target. I would expect the bigger fish to be website hosts, stores, etc. Or is that already regulated similarly?
The key thing to remember is that, pre-multimedia/pre-Internet, Canada had effective government control over broadcast media. Actually, every country did, because broadcast frequencies being finite was an effective counterargument against the 1st Amendment. Canada in particular used their de-facto censorship power to enforce "Canadian Content" regulations - as in, your radio station must push a certain percentage of music or talk shows deemed sufficiently "Canadian" enough by Canada's radio regulator.
The Internet functionally destroyed this regime by walking away from publicly regulated spectrum. Canada wants those powers back, so they passed a bill which lets them apply Canadian Content regulations to streaming services that Canadians use. The podcast registration requirement is an extension of this: if they plan to require that people listen to[0] a certain percentage of Canadian Content[1] podcasts, then they need the services that push them to users to register so they know who to enforce the rules on.
Website hosts and stores would be regulated under other rules that are very similar to the ones in other Anglosphere countries, i.e. without this weird censorship regime. It's only "streaming services" - i.e. "websites that look like something that would have been regulated under CRTC CanCon rules if they didn't have the Internet" - that are getting regulated here.
[0] The Internet is ostensibly a "pull" medium, but in practice, everyone has recommendation algorithms which look like a more elaborate version of a broadcaster if you squint at them.
[0] Which, BTW, is not content made by Canadians. If you're a Canadian creative you have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to be officially recognized as "Canadian Content".
It sounds like the main way to meet content requirements is simply to remove non-Canadian content. Is there really much room for niche K-dramas on Netflix when you can’t find enough Canadian content to justify keeping it as a streaming option? Do you run an anime streaming service? Well, you’ll need to find a bunch of Canadian anime to remain compliant, otherwise your service is unviable.
> Which, BTW, is not content made by Canadians. If you're a Canadian creative you have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to be officially recognized as "Canadian Content".
This is the backstory of Bob and Doug McKenzie, a pair of characters developed for the sketch comedy show SCTV:
> Bob and Doug, two dim-witted beer-swilling brothers wearing heavy winter clothing and tuques, would comment on various elements of Canadian life and culture, frequently employing the interjection "Eh?" and derisively calling each other "hoser."
> The sketch was conceived when SCTV moved to the CBC television network. Due to the difference in the amount of time allocated for commercials, each episode to be broadcast on that network was two minutes longer than those syndicated to the United States. The CBC network heads asked the show's producers to add specifically identifiably Canadian content for those two minutes, in line with government broadcast regulations. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas thought that this was a ridiculous request, given that the show had been taped in Canada, with a mostly Canadian cast and crew, for two years.[2] The request inspired them to create a parody that would incorporate every aspect of the humorous stereotype of Canadians.
> Suddenly, Google's deprecation of their podcast software makes a little more sense
> > *Various interveners, including* the global streaming services Apple Canada Inc. (Apple), Netflix Services Canada ULC (Netflix), Spotify, Roku, Inc. (Roku), TikTok Canada (TikTok) and *Google LLC (Google)*, as well as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and the Motion Picture Association of Canada (MPAC), agreed with the proposed registration requirements, and *considered them to be light.*
I'm sure they will find the resources to censor that which bothers them (which is the point of the bill). Imagine the Jordan Peterson podcast being blocked in Canada. Wild.
Oh my favourite thing about Canadian regulation:
1. Create a new regulation because of the 1% troublemakers
2. Realize there are enforcement costs
3. Force 100% of regulated entities to start paying a user fee in order to offset the enforcement costs.
There's a huge difference between "traditional media" (TV, Radio, etc) and Podcasts. I get why they would want to regulate traditional media, there are only so many frequencies to tune your radio to and only so many channels you can watch and you have an audience by default. None of that is true with podcasts, they only reason for regulation here is control over what people can and can't say.
On one hand, it is wrong to limit people’s opinions to be discussed and talked about, and I am sure there are a lot of issues when it comes to Canadian politics, economics, etc. On the other hand, since probably around 2014, we have a lot of grifters surfaced online who are only interested in monetizing their content with no integrity or accountability, across the whole political spectrum. So I don’t know how to feel about this.
To admit what they said was wrong about X topic for a starter, but the polarization is so strong on all sides these days that such accountability will be taken as a defeat (or caved in) unfortunately.
No one and I agree with you, I probably mentioned it in the above comment that what’s wrong now wasn’t before and vice versa, everything should be on the table to discuss or question, however, after that discussion and regardless how it took (minutes or even in years), if the results showed that what you said was wrong, then the least is an apology for your audience.
> On the other hand, since probably around 2014, we have a lot of grifters surfaced online who are only interested in monetizing their content with no integrity or accountability, across the whole political spectrum
The difference as I see it is say the "grifters" were broadcasting on a radio station or a TV spot, they would be taking up space that other broadcasts could take up. But in terms of the internet there is no such limit. Through the lens of "traditional media" you can't always tell someone "just turn it off and watch something else" because there are only a limited number of broadcasts available, but you can definitely tell that to someone that doesn't like a Youtube video or a podcast.
The CRTC policies and regulations aim to promote access, representation and availability of media content by and for minority language communities. But it does not directly control or pre-approve the messages or creative content itself. The creators maintain editorial control of their programming.
Free speech in the absolute form never existed. What is free to say now was not X years ago, and what is taboo to say now was openly free and accepted X years ago. This is because society and social norms change over generations. Not to mention, people support free speech when it aligns with their values, beliefs, etc., and oppose it when it goes against them. The concept is very fluid.
104 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 160 ms ] threadWe're not exactly talking about little mom&pop hobby podcasts. If you're bringing in $10M in revenue, you're a major media operation -- podcast being in that case really a kind of marketing label for what's basically a "radio station."
So given how things work in this country it was only a matter of time before the approach that the regulator here takes to major media operation around content would apply.
These laws probably confuse and enrage many Americans -- as they do for many Canadians -- but they've been a thing for decades; in large part they reflect two unique aspects of Canada: 1) its cultural and economic position in regards to being a separate country (believe it or not) adjacent to the US while being on the whole linguistically, economically culturally similar enough that there's a constant struggle to not be completely subsumed 2) The unique position of the French language, French Canadian, and Quebecois culture in confederation. (And, increasingly, indigenous culture)
Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process. But the argument (not my argument) is basically that in a "free" and "open competition", the US would basically bury/eliminate Canada.
Finally, Canada is officially "multicultural" rather than "melting pot" by stated ideology; which means that state institutions / regulatory agencies actually have concrete roles in protecting cultural diversity. Again, controversial, but likely a foreign approach to Americans and most Europeans (not all) whose societies operate with the assumption of single unified ethno-linguistic nation state. (This is explicit policy choice made by governments in the 70s/80s in an effort to stop the Canadian state from disintegrating under centrifugal separatist forces.)
"Today, the CRTC is advancing its regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content."
I would ask, who decides what is 'meaningful'? This sounds like an open door to censorship to me. Was not the requirement to make 'meaningful' contributions to society the excuse used by the Soviets and Red Chinese to stifle publications.
It's more of a pass the mic around so every group gets some airtime law, and not so much a you cannot talk about this or that.
The idea is that it acts a bit like human rights, at balancing majority rules. Where financial incentives would prefer to always tailor to the majority since it makes more money, this enforces that minorities get some proportional airtime on big media channels.
It's only specific to Canadian and Indigenous content. The content does not have to be French.
The rules have been around for 40+ years in one form or another.
But if you didn't register, your "audience large enough that you can pull in 10 MCAN in ad deals" operation might fly under the radar!
If you're already incorporated, you've already told the government about yourself.
I've heard about these regulations with local content quotes (doesn't France also have these?) and I can imagine no scenario where this $10M figure would hit anyone who should not have been regulated before if their only differentiator was if they did video on youtube or audio (somewhere) only. (I don't know enough about the Canadian regulations, so this is a not comment on those, only on "why the exception for podcasts, probably oversight").
The problem in Canada is that there are ... cabals ... of interests that have spent the last 200 years using the somewhat-artifically (but in large part necessary) erected walls between us and the United States for their own very self-serving interests that actually harm their fellow Canadians. Telecoms pricing being the obvious example.
In any case, it infects both major political parties, goes across the whole spectrum, and is a feature of the Canadian state since at least before the American Revolution.
> Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process.
I'd argue monopolistic control is the goal. The latest CRTC regulations seems a fairly straight-forward cash grab to prop up legacy media companies that would otherwise fail for their lack of competitiveness. Further, the process of putting out these regulations has been appallingly undemocratic. Bill C-11, like its predecessor Bill C-10, were not allowed to be debated in the house (only the 3rd time such a motion has been used in Canada)[0].
And lets be real, its not the average Canadian that benefits here. Its the owners and shareholders of the companies.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Streaming_Act#History
"its not the average Canadian that benefits here" is maybe the point though -- these things became policy because, in the past, the average Canadian's interests were maybe taking precedence over those of (fairly large) minority interests in such a way that they were causing civil problems in Canada. By which I mean, if we don't take care of making sure that e.g. French & Indigenous culture has strong representation, we actually risk problems with the political cohesion of the country.
As we know, averages hide important details. In statistics, but also in cultural issues.
Many of the things we're talking about here look entirely different if you're looking out at them from e.g. Quebec or the North.
I disagree with the premise however: it’s not that American media has so much influence on American consumers, rather American media is producing the product that their consumers want. The influence is basically reversed.
But from where I’m standing, only one party is committed to cutting off its nose to spite its face… and it’s not the Dems.
The reason for the two alternate realities in the same country is primarily to do with what information you consume.
As an exercise, go to the front page of Reddit everyday. You will almost always notice on the first page or the first few there are always posts on politics. And the vast majority of these posts are the "bad" takes/actions/scandals on rebuplicans/conservatives.
If you go to r/conservative , you will see the "bad" takes/actions/scandals of the democrats/liberals.
On Reddit the echo chamber for democrats is the entirety of Reddit except for a select few subs. The echo chamber for conservatives is in their own subreddits. On conservative websites this is the opposite.
If one looks only at the Reddit front page, no doubt they would not like the republicans because it's a highlight of their low points. I.e a Reverse Instagram, post all the bad parts of your life.
This is the issue. The two realities is from getting information about how "good" your side is and a feed about all the bad stuff from the other side.
The reason why you think 50% of the population is like that is precisely because the information you have received about that side is their bad highlight reel. And they will equally think the other 50% of the aisle is brainwashed because of all they are viewing your bad highlight reel
The mechanism heavily contributes towards group-think, with any dissenting opinion being completely buried.
Usually, delusion in the form of institutional acceptance. Religion, nationalism, etc.
Currently in the US, in the form of institutional rejection, which is equally dishonest, but considerably more messy.
If the answer is that these media "hack" the human brain, then I don't think that banning the producers is the right way to go. The root cause is that people are too easily tricked. Banning the producers will only cause other media, such as YouTube or Facebook, to fill the gap.
I would say that the answer to solve this is education, but unfortunately many states have decided that education is the bad thing, instead of blantantly misleading information. Even if you could teach it successfully in school, how many adults are going to go back to school to learn the media they're consuming is bad? If you're an ardent fox news viewer, how will you view that information?
It's not a solve but it's a help.
I wouldn't say this is a great analogy, because leaded gas was the only gas available, and alternatives to cars were disappearing in many cities. If you wanted to participate in the economy, you pretty much had to use gasoline.
You could argue the market would have gone there anyways, but it's actually insane how much damage to human health and the environment was done in the interim until regulation forced the matter.
In a liberal society we allow things we don't like in order to maintain individual freedom as a higher good than "perfect" society.
Those who do envision "perfect" society and pursue it with the power of the state are the worst sort of authoritarians, because it's all done "for your own good", no matter what you think.
Although I don't have an opinion on this particular podcast situation, this statement doesn't hold any water. You are implying that if people do something, it must not be bad for them because.. people continue to do it.
There are tons of things people do that are objectively bad for them. Hard drugs (fentanyl, etc.) being an easy example.
The free market has saved me thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in home repair costs. From changing my blower motor, to installing my Ecobee w/o a common wire, to installing ceiling brackets correctly, repairing my garage trolley.
The free market gave me podcasts and podcasters which taught me a ton about international conflicts and their history. Gave me access to brilliant environmentalists and conservationists doing incredible field work.
The real price I had to pay was hearing people endlessly, endlessly, endlessly complain about, and in so doing, amplify people that they don't listen to, disagree with, and think are harmful.
And also "woodworkers" who would take transformers out of microwaves and run the resulting current through bare nails to make fractal lightning patterns in wood. If you're starting with a blank slate on wood-based projects how do you differentiate the former from the latter?
You're basically saying that the way you avoid doing something dangerous recommend by others is by already knowing that it's dangerous. Well duh.
I also don't know what point you're making.
Since some people can't tell who the experts are and what a beginner is, we need to regulate youtubers?
This is super interesting, thanks for the tip.
Here’s an overview for anyone that’s curious:
https://yewtu.be/s4ENnHRB6ro
They have both been sued for billions of dollars and lost in court for sustained campaigns of damaging lies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/politics/alex-jones-sa...
All I did was point out that they aren't able to say whatever they want without permission or friction because there are consequences to intentionally lying over time to hurt people.
You either believe in the relevant principle or you don't. These sort of side-swipes at bedrock American principles are completely uncalled for
The fear is of indirect censorship. As was the case with law enforcement/intelligence informally requesting take downs in the US, Canada will be making this process formal.
> Canada's current spat with Google over news is a recent example.
That was particularly hilarious.
That's bad.
And given this newest revision is talking about Canadian values you might be regulated on the content of your show with that one or two man team to deal with the show and any issues.
It's great for large businesses but not small. It's going to be great for cbx and global who can hire someone whose whole job is dealing with regulatory burdens and applying for grants. but Joe entertainer doing his podcast on YouTube is going to have a tough time dealing with the regulations.
I personally don't know why people fear anything here. All you have to do to comply is add some Canadian content to your platform and recommend it and promote it in listings. You don't need to take down any other content or omit certain topic/subject matter.
The only question is, does it work? Does it really help promote Canadian made content and Canadian thoughts and ideas? Or does it do a poor job and just end up hamstringing our media companies internationally and financially.
If you want to run a hotel or a burger joint or a general contractor, you need a license. It will be difficult to push back against the idea that tech companies should be treated the same.
Not saying that this will be a good thing. Just that it will happen.
That said, online streaming services are an odd one to target. I would expect the bigger fish to be website hosts, stores, etc. Or is that already regulated similarly?
The Internet functionally destroyed this regime by walking away from publicly regulated spectrum. Canada wants those powers back, so they passed a bill which lets them apply Canadian Content regulations to streaming services that Canadians use. The podcast registration requirement is an extension of this: if they plan to require that people listen to[0] a certain percentage of Canadian Content[1] podcasts, then they need the services that push them to users to register so they know who to enforce the rules on.
Website hosts and stores would be regulated under other rules that are very similar to the ones in other Anglosphere countries, i.e. without this weird censorship regime. It's only "streaming services" - i.e. "websites that look like something that would have been regulated under CRTC CanCon rules if they didn't have the Internet" - that are getting regulated here.
[0] The Internet is ostensibly a "pull" medium, but in practice, everyone has recommendation algorithms which look like a more elaborate version of a broadcaster if you squint at them.
[0] Which, BTW, is not content made by Canadians. If you're a Canadian creative you have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to be officially recognized as "Canadian Content".
This is the backstory of Bob and Doug McKenzie, a pair of characters developed for the sketch comedy show SCTV:
> Bob and Doug, two dim-witted beer-swilling brothers wearing heavy winter clothing and tuques, would comment on various elements of Canadian life and culture, frequently employing the interjection "Eh?" and derisively calling each other "hoser."
> The sketch was conceived when SCTV moved to the CBC television network. Due to the difference in the amount of time allocated for commercials, each episode to be broadcast on that network was two minutes longer than those syndicated to the United States. The CBC network heads asked the show's producers to add specifically identifiably Canadian content for those two minutes, in line with government broadcast regulations. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas thought that this was a ridiculous request, given that the show had been taped in Canada, with a mostly Canadian cast and crew, for two years.[2] The request inspired them to create a parody that would incorporate every aspect of the humorous stereotype of Canadians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_Doug_McKenzie
> > *Various interveners, including* the global streaming services Apple Canada Inc. (Apple), Netflix Services Canada ULC (Netflix), Spotify, Roku, Inc. (Roku), TikTok Canada (TikTok) and *Google LLC (Google)*, as well as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and the Motion Picture Association of Canada (MPAC), agreed with the proposed registration requirements, and *considered them to be light.*
This will be yet another useless unenforceable burden.
Madness.
You might see it as a problem, but the majority of Canadians are fine with it.
The difference as I see it is say the "grifters" were broadcasting on a radio station or a TV spot, they would be taking up space that other broadcasts could take up. But in terms of the internet there is no such limit. Through the lens of "traditional media" you can't always tell someone "just turn it off and watch something else" because there are only a limited number of broadcasts available, but you can definitely tell that to someone that doesn't like a Youtube video or a podcast.
Canada to require registration of podcasters and streaming services - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37728464 - Oct 2023 (22 comments)