Lots of people are talking about the bill, even just in this forum, and have been for many years.
Groups and people that are getting people fired up now seem to be the ones with the most to loose when it's easier to see when posts are paid content and not organic posts.
If you're not being paid to say what you want or making money by saying it there will be no change.
Also, OP is a [covid-denying](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/plr3ji/new_study_finds_unvaccinated_are_11_times_more/hcd8qlh/?context=3) and [Trump-defending](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/l43kcr/trump_spoke_more_with_north_korea_than_with_the/gkmwup3/?context=3)nutter.
The moment I read "narrative" in their post I assumed they would be. Conspiracy theorists have such a raging hard on for that word, it's *impossible* for them to try to convey their ideas without using it, 'agenda' too.
Also, the way they wonkily try and make it about traditional left-leaning issues they clearly don't even take seriously. "they can control the narrative of politics, science, climate change, and more."
Ah yes, mr anti vaxxer, tell me how concerned you are with climate change and science.
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are the only things Conservatives have in their arsenal. No ideas for governing beyond lowering taxes on the wealthy and deregulation industries.
Ooh. looks like you got the alert to brigade this thread a little late, RecalcitrantHuman. It was removed about 20 minutes ago so you clearly didn't find this organically.
After having heard about C-11, I thought I should probably try and learn what it is about. So I [read this article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/bill-c-11-explained-1.6759878).
Now I wonder what the panic is about. Broadcasters have to promote a certain portion of Canadian-made content, and support Canadian productions. And it seems that online (international) streamers might have to do the same.
So Netflix Canada might have to produce and broadcast Canadian films and series.
Errr.... ok? What else is there? Honest question.
People are panicking because the CPC spin it specifically to cause panic and make it sound like individuals posting any type of content could be censored. Just fear mongering.
There is some parts that sound like a bit of support for legacy media, especially smaller local stuff. The problem there is I see the information posted to Reddit a day before those junk local sources repost it for profit. Not always but many times.
And the ironic part is the Conservatives have spent years railing about "big tech" when it was a purposeful boogeyman for them, but now that it comes time to actualy do something about them by regulating them, all that supposed concern is just dust in the wind.
Regulating their legacy-media buddies is what they're concerned about. Oh, and shutting down dis/misinformation. Their base consume rage-bait, anti-science, pro-Russia bullshit.
When the China is meddling in elections thing came out, they were chomping for an investigation. Jagmeet said, "let's investigate American media companies, and Russian interference, and they said, "that's too broad of a scope."
That tells you everything you need to know about how much they care about electoral interference.
Senate bounce sit back with recommendations to prevent abuse. The LPC shit down debate and decided not to add the amendments. Margaret Atwood came out against it. It’s a lot lore complex than just “promoting Canadian content”.
>Margaret Atwood came out against it.
Her main concern is that someone could define what "Canadian content" is and whether it is an infringement on creative freedom, so to speak. Which could be a fair point but we've always had Can-Con rules for TV and radio. The question is, does this differ and how so?
She also admitted that she hadn't read it and didn't know how it would be interpreted in law, but has concerns about it being potentially misused. Having not read the bill myself, and not being a lawyer specializing in creative control and/or media regulation (or any kind of law because: not a lawyer), it seems to me that she has concerns that may be addressed in the legislation. Which is fair but there needs to be a balanced analysis of the pros and cons, and Margaret Atwood is one voice but not the only voice.
I do enjoy much of her writing and interviews, btw, but I don't think she is an expert in the writing and implementation of law.
It is kinda bizarre that Margaret Atwood is Canadian and the handmaid's tale is filmed here in Canada but it does not qualify as Canadian content. Jmho
That’s not what I’m getting at. She is quite opposite of the current federal conservatives and a devout liberal supporter. But she’s against which shows there’s people on all sides of the spectrum against this bill.
> Say you're a YouTuber who happens to be Canadian but your primary focus is say, True Crime or Investigative Journalism. Under this bill what you put on YouTube, what you see on YouTube, etc... Is all dictated by a restriction that didn't exist before
Can you highlight for us which specific section of the legislation would do this?
Here's the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-11/first-reading
As you can see, my username is not Grendell the Lawyer.
[J.J. explains it better than I could](https://youtu.be/eMCZNdqUOdo)
The issue is that online publication of content will now be under the control of the CRTC. YouTube, for example, would have to provide all content in French and English and contain a quota of CanCon. That's... Super not practical. And what if I as a consumer want to find content from people in other countries? The algorithm will, according to these laws, have to provide me a certain percentage of Canadian sourced media. Which will stifle it's usefulness. All of this is just tons and tons of unreasonable red tape.
And enough red tape will make these international companies just pull out of Canada, which will destroy a whole sector of our economy.
Funny how you guys can never actually explain the parts **of the legislation** in your own words Almost like you have never read it and have no actual original thoughts on the subject.
You do need to be a lawyer to understand all the context and to speak with authority on the matter.
Here I am telling you my understanding, citing experts on the topic, and admitting that my knowledge has gaps.
Why are you so vitriolic?
We do make quality content. This issue is bigger than that Canadian culture is extremely thin against the juggernaut of American culture. Look at the discourse politically, where Canadians are out there confusing our Charter with the American Constitution and Amendment rights, or how Premier Smith in Alberta spoke to a pastor in custody about how easy it is for American governors to pardon criminals and didn't realize Premiers don't have the same power.
The government is exercising a fundamental right to protect Canadian culture, the Canadian economy, and (in my opinion) defending Canada from a raging culture war being waged against it from American propaganda like Fox News.
This doesn't have much to do about Canadians being good or bad at producing content. We punch well above our weight on that front for the most part.
>where Canadians are out there confusing our Charter with the American Constitution and Amendment rights,
yasssss, how I get tired of certain subgroups of conservatives who shout about their American freedoms in my conservative part of BC. I don't know how many times I've had to point out "We don't do freedom of speech here. We do freedom of expression."
Yes, it may be clickbait from OP, but as a stay at home parent with very crazy days... I hadn't even heard about it till now. I know I should probably keep up on things a bit more, but I just can't always fit everything in the mental load pile.
Right now billionaires and governments control what you see think and read. Bot herders and professional content creators force feed you viewpoints that 'use alternative facts'.
How else do you propose to avoid this happening?
Except your comment is absurd misinformation/misdirection because Bill C-11 is about corralling the (largely foreign-owned) billionaire tech companies and hold them to the same standards we hod all media in Canada.
The idea you would oppose that is silly. The idea you frame that opposition as something that is about benefiting the little guy is preposterous. You're carrying water for Google, Facebook, etc.
You are very clearly not in favour of the bill. You presented a cartoonized version of the bill that isn't in any way accurate. That is what you gave satirical "support" to. Your other comments in this thread, as well as the rest f your bizarre conspiracy theorist comment history make that very clear.
In the opinion of many people, the government shouldnt be the final party deciding what is right and wrong, true or false. I agree that the internet is flooded with braindead takes on science and politics, and people that are mislead by alternative facts, but at the same time many of those alternate facts can end up being true. If we dont let public discourse on new ideas take its own course free from a single party's control, then we may never discover certain truths that we as citizens would otherwise benefit from.
This bill isn’t about that…. There is no censorship or restrictions to individuals. It’s been discussed for years but because of people like PP or Bernier telling straight up lies about the contents of a bill, we still have people like yourself misunderstanding it.
Do we trust the government website where the bill is posted for us to read or the elected leader of the Conservative Party? Sometimes it’s literally data, verbatim or actual documents that prove don’t trust and it’s because of people like PP and IDU fascist tactics.
Here's a non partisan source of information about this bill. There's legitimate things to worry about but it's not some mega censorship bill like Pierre pissface wants people to believe.
https://openmedia.org/
People have been talking about C-10 and then C-11 for literally 2 to 3 years, maybe longer. That's just how long I've known about the issue. The thing is that none of these politicians like to talk about them until it's gone to the Senate where they have no obligation to listen to public input. The time for contacting your MP is over.
It's not a censorship bill and it's nothing to do with the RESTRICT act everyone in the states is shitting their pants about.
Conservatives, be they in the US, Canada, or anywhere else, have no constructive ideas for governance, so they just constantly spew sky-is-falling moral panic narratives.
I find it funny because they wait until the bill has passed through the house before they start screaming that it's been "pushed through."
We've had literal years to contact our MPs about this but NOW is when they decide to make a fuss about it.
Yep, and they'll say the government is "censoring debate" by using entirely normal House procedures to move towards a vote after days of grandstanding from opposition. As if the Democratic process is being "censored" if you don't give the opposition infinitive time to bloviate.
Somehow, my faith in your impartiality disappeared when you called the leader of the opposition "Pierre pissface".
Ohhh... And an 8 month old account, to boot!
I'm not impartial, but the source is. I don't like Trudeau either, and all these people that want to fuck him are just odd. I wish I was smart enough to get paid to shill for a party, but i just have a case of being terminally online.
Who PP? The guy lying to millions about the content of a bill? Fk that disrespectful traitor. Blocked the vote to condemn Carlsons push for America to invade Canada and had the entire CPC remain silent during an historical celebration of >50% female representation in parliament. Just recent stuff on top of the lies.
What exactly in this bill are you so opposed to? Are you running a broadcast? are you against Canadian content? I didn’t read it all in depth. Just curious. It doesn’t really give them any more control than they already have as far as I can see except to issue charges to violations of non Canadian content and supporting Canadian content monetarily. But perhaps I am missing something.
I thought this would be the opposite based on what I was reading with it. The only way to avoid paying was by promoting Canadian content. Or not serving Canadians altogether.
Usually the trick to addressing extremism in to engage in more rationale debate and education to innoculate against bad information.
Not curb rights. Just saying..
It allows providers to collect a lot more information than they need to function. And it also changes the function of providers.
I see this as a negative.
> It allows providers to collect a lot more information than they need to function.
It does? Which section of the legislation? Here's the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-11/first-reading
I don't disagree.
I had an argument about C-11 and the sister bill very recently and the other guy just insulted me and did the digital equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and saying "LA LA LA"
Until somebody proves to me that they’ve been censored for something other than reprehensible hate speech, it’s just another jackass conspiracy theory.
Notice they never can? At best they will post a link to someone else saying it's bad, but they can never actually cite any parts of the legislation that will do what they claim.
Because they can't because it doesn't.
Do your own research.
Read the bills and what they do instead of blindly supporting the government because the party you like is making the decisions.
The government is untrustworthy regardless of who is running it. They've proven this over and over again over the decades.
Residential Schools were running until 1997.
The liberals were in power.
The PC party before them.
The liberals before them.
Explain to me how the government is worthy of our trust in any way shape or form again?
That has everything to do with it.
The government is trying(and succeeding) in passing bills that restrict and/or censor Canadian's access to the internet.
If that doesn't bother you, you haven't been paying attention to other countries.
I think society is able to extinguish hate and hate speach without curtailing the very basic freedoms (in the form of a law) that protect us from hate speech in the first place.
Also agree. Some of the bill has good messaging. That would be the debate and education part.
Some parts of the bill are very concerning. Not the entire bill.
So then, the trick would be to write a bill that has no parts that are extremely concerning.
Canada made it through 2001 without a patriot act. And we made it through the worst of covid without shutting down expression.
I feel this bill would be a step back for basically no reason at all. And no sunset clause is something I find concerning also.
Whatever happened to sunset clauses and notwithstanding measures? I thought we were Canadians. The neat thing about riding the fence is that you have a GREAT view of what all the idiots are up to, and how it's working.
You really don’t have a clue though. You’re dumb enough to support trump, and dumb enough to be anti vaccine, so you’re definitely too dumb to understand this.
You’re really only concerned because you were dumb enough to believe some lies you were told about this obviously.
>I'm surprised that Canadians haven't gone out and protest against this bill.
What would the signs say?
I trust musk to decide who has a voice!
Shadow bans are the best bans!
Ignore copyright!
Obscurity for foreign financing must be protected!
Take Canada's money!
Don't spend profits from Canada in Canada!
If it ain't approved by the CRTC,
It ain't Canadian enough for me!
Bell/Rogers/Shaw...
We don't want anything more!
If you don't like the content, don't bother to unsubscribe...
With the CRTC there's nowhere to hide!
CRTC: turning tax revenue into advertising revenue
More local content!
Centralised from Ottawa!
The thing about C11 is it's almost a good bill but the government doesn't want to make the amendments that the Senate proposed. I don't think it'll result in some 1984 government controlled narrative but it could completely isolate Canadian media and potentially make our artists undiscoverable to the global market which is terrible
It’s to help ban misinformation and disinformation from online platforms. It seems everyone wants to say their contrarian doubts and opinions on all platforms and call it truth. “Actual Information” will be better managed and easier to find online. That means many people will be angry since they believe there are nefarious globalists hoping to reduce the population and Trump was supposed to save us all - right 😉
We can already do this with the trust of institutions we already have.
We used to call this the "citation" when I was in school.
There is no way, and no law, that actually controls what people think.
> There is no way, and no law, that actually controls what people think.
Well, then it's a good thing that Bill C-11 has nothing to do with "controlling what people think."
I'm not a fan of poilievre, I preferred a more moderate conservative leadership. That said, Trudeau start to have done enough. C 11, the weird gun ban, all the money to McKenzie... Too much, enough Trudeau. He won't have my vote again.
Can you explain this to me a little bit? I tried to google virtue signalling but it looked like a good thing for a politician. Obviously if they are expressing opinions they dont actaully believe in that would be dishonest and negative, is that what youre thinking?
"the public expression of opinions or [sentiments](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA981CA981&q=sentiments&si=AMnBZoFY6cJe4EcBOpcoqxHCe-IfMCHIVBpzh20KhCHm0yl3jbnQebWLVrUWcC-Adz1StZQyBpQqeFAodr6tLCmcvwmKRlnuog%3D%3D&expnd=1) intended to demonstrate one's good character or social [conscience](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA981CA981&q=conscience&si=AMnBZoFY6cJe4EcBOpcoqxHCe-IfnkKYQs3lHeZNcQGg-JV_ckL1JdO_Vdv6rmf6Oqp14FQhi_cN1Qm1z1IYNs6eNf0XvBQ5uw%3D%3D&expnd=1) or the moral [correctness](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA981CA981&q=correctness&si=AMnBZoG9fGMZkoPgk-g4eVoaZFdEiI2JC_1lGRI8LMzCRqW8HQJzHBIZW71WFqqIgF15DeWXGTxOoPZ9r1lN1UkLANeZboU7B4vAXSv-K1CPyArB4zJCZ4o%3D&expnd=1) of one's position on a particular issue. "
Thats true I dont get the feeling he believes anything he says. Especially since he fliped on election reform. What do you think about this guy?
[Daniel Blaikie](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1287wnu/we_cant_fix_the_housing_crisis_in_canada_without/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=5&utm_content=share_button)
He was great for sure. Hopefully the next NDP leader will be more appealing for you so we can finally have another option besides swining back and forth from the same two parties and expecting something different to happen.
I didnt down vote you but I did just upvote you. Im interested in your opinions. Im definately not a fan of any of our political options im just trying to choose the best one. My deepest concern is housing crisis and cost of living.
I have the same concerns. But I don't think we have a realistic option right now that can help on this. NPD is too far left and the chief, even if it should not, face lots of racism.
One sollution that shows promise is public housing. I just posted this dude in another comment but he makes a good point. The gov used to build 15k houses a year until the program was axed by the libs in 1995. That would have been 420k houses by now. This is would be a "left" sollution, and im definately open to hear any more sollutions and we should try them all. The current housing model obviously isnt working.
[Daniel Blaikie](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1287wnu/we_cant_fix_the_housing_crisis_in_canada_without/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=5&utm_content=share_button)
And what if we get too much immigrants whiteout housings and it drive the price up? Also what about all of those house buy by foreign entity just for investing?
Honestly I don't know, many things are wrong right now. At first Trudeau got my vote, last election I gave it to the Conservatives...
Listen, why my city is supposed to get hundreds of migrants when we all have difficulty to find a house? I really want to help migrants... But I will house my family first, no?
It seems crazy to have so much immigration and so little housing. Also, i learned that 50% of new condos in Vancouver are purchased by invesestors. So new houses wont lower the cost as they will just be snatched up by investors like you said. Immigration is important though because we need healthcare workers, and they at least 50% filipino.
The sollution im interested in is to build public housing. Houses that we can rent to people at affordable prices and keep the speculators away. The boomers always told us to invest in real estate growing up because the prices will always increase, but I never thought about what that really means in the future.
What are the conservatives plan for housing and affordability? Im apprehensive to vote for the two big parties because they got us into this situation, im interested in trying something new.
Exactly. Why should Google and Facebook be required to follow the same rules as Canadian media platforms? Everyone knows that Mark Zuckerburg can be trusted.
Because it should be up to individuals to be able to figure out how to think and critically analyse information.
If the market favours decentralisation of tech, it will move there. Government intervention into things they do not understand is disastrous.
>Because it should be up to individuals to be able to figure out how to think and critically analyse information.
I agree. Can you share with us which specific sections of the legislation would take that right away?
Not a link to someone else's opinion. The actual sections of the legislation.
>If the market favours decentralisation of tech, it will move there.
Adorably naive. As if the "free market' always favours decentralization, not concentration of power.
It's clear that you have a strong belief in government and systemic protocols.
There's a clear $1T market cap moving towards decentralisation.
Regardless, the legislation pushes for Canadian content and it will be a broad stroke to favor whatever CRTC wishes to favor. In the narrative of nationalism; it's up to CRTC's discretion. This is very dangerous and it's up to the jokers in CRTC to define your content.
Why are you using ad hominems to dodge such a simple question, gskv?
Why not just totally pwn me by posting the actual sections of the legislation in question?
>Can you share with us which specific sections of the legislation would take that right away?
The bill will prioritize "CanCon", which in turn will de-prioritize non-CanCan. Why should the governement get to dictate what is and what is not Canadian?
Not to mention the bill is an extension of the CRTC which is completely antiquated
I grew up with two tv channels, one was CBC and the other was knowledge network. We listened to the radio- which was all local radio. There was already a thing that a certain percentage of what was aired had to be canadian.
I already get youtube adds that are mostly for stuff in my geographic area. The news suggestions are all from Canada. If I want to watch something else I am accustomed to having to search it out.
I’m not keen on more controls, but maybe I will find new things to watch that are canadian that haven’t crossed my path before. Maybe I’ll just turn on the VPN and ignore it all. Maybe the world will go down in flames and I won’t notice. I prefer to read so its entirely possible. Whatever they try to control on the internet, I have the power to turn off my tv and my phone and do something else. I’m not going to protest it, but I am watching to see what else they try. I’m going to be looking into what else they try to slide by while having the news heavily broadcast something distracting.
What you say is not rational, and probably reflects a large proportion of Canadians.
I think it would be better to be able to switch off the censorship should you chose, rather than pipe your knowledge through a security measure that basically makes what you are doing "against the law" - against this bill.
VPNs are great and everything. But don't count on them being available in the future. They are only barely legal now, and that's the point to oppose this bill, in my view.
We shouldn't need special tools to circumvent the laws we let by, we should just have better laws.
Can you list, point by point in your own words (not just posting a youtube video or link to an opinion piece) of why you are opposed to the Canadian government holding massively powerful companies like Google and Facebook to the same standards all Canadian media are held to?
Sorry, can you just post a tiktok video with some guy claiming that regulating corporations is fascism? That's the only kind of source I trust, not some biased government link.
We don’t need less control of what we see and say, regardless of how they spin it to their loyal fans and followers. Most Canadians, don’t have the time or the will to read the bill and that’s why this gets passed without much uproar. There’s a reason the liberals rammed it through, that alone should raise alarm bells with all political sides. We need freedom and choice, not forced Canadian content picked by the very people who want to control the message.
There’s one thing about freedoms, once you give them up. You never get them back. Regardless of left or right, that should mean something.
It’s takes ten minutes to read the thing you’re so ardently against. It’s okay, you’re just lazy. You have time to comment many times in this thread, so I’m left to believe you want to be outraged more than you want the truth. This kind of hypocrisy is why no one takes you conspiracy theorists seriously.
[They're also spewing the "15 minute city"](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/126vm5v/most_british_columbians_dont_oppose_the_15minute/jecxv08/?context=3) conspiracy nonsense. They are a propaganda account.
The patriot act would like a word....
Canada was smart enough to include a sunset clause while we BRAVELY battled deadly terrorists and the massive threat from "muslin fundamentalists".
It is because of what and how it controls.
No one "owns" the internet. Attempts shouldn't be made to control what is on there unless it is already criminal.
I mean, if I can only watch corner gas and red green reruns, i guess that sounds okayish.
But the manner and facility, and the rationale that establishes all of that needs more specific safeguards.
Nothing in the patriot looked like is was "too far" right? Especially consider the massive threat that every American was under at the time. Canadian had similar legislation. And now that is the new normal.
To me, this bill sets up a bunch of 3 foot high fences are thoughts, ideas and knowledge. The promise is that no one would ever put a lock on those fences. Or build more fences later.
Some things just don't need to be controlled. And ought not to be.
> No one "owns" the internet. Attempts shouldn't be made to control what is on there unless it is already criminal.
Which specific parts of this legislation would "own the internet"?
>Nothing in the patriot looked like is was "too far" right?
Yes, it did. You clearly have zero clue what you are talking about.
Your making a "slippery slope" argument with no evidence. Its a fallacy argument.
And it’s going to Ban Tiktok because that’s where the truth lies. They can’t control it, and everyone is wising up to the government now. Like how none of our news is even showing the French Revolution that’s going on right now, millions of people in the streets. If they ban tiktok they have total control of the message.
Imagine thinking getting your "news" from tiktok makes you informed.
Let me guess, drinking hot lemon tea kills covid? Use this song to increase your engagement?
>how none of our news is even showing the French Revolution that’s going on right now,
There's been many stories on all the mainstream news sources about the protests in France. CBC to the National Post have had almost daily stories on the protests.
> I'm surprised that Canadians haven't gone out and protest against this bill.
really? we're experiencing multiple serious crises (housing unaffordability, health care collapse, climate change) and there are absolutely 0 protest movements of any kind anywhere. why does _this_ surprise you?
Most Canadians are too lazy to know what’s going on. You’ll never see Canadians en masse protest anything like the citizens of France and other countries.
The only people that will really stand up for what they believe in are the First Nations people.
Because the majority of Canadians do not pay attention to politics. That’s why no one talks about it. Especially people that vote left, have no clue what’s actually going on in our country. This bill is akin to China’s censoring.
The Liberals are promoting it, so the media will ignore the topic. Then if a conservative speaks out against it, just because you are a conservative you are automatically the bad guy and wrong/conspiracy theorist on the majority of public social media spaces, especially Reddit.
What's there to talk about?
The Liberals want to force corporations to fund thier CRTC friends because that's what's "Canadian".
We the people don't get a say in the matter because we vote on the person, not on the policy.
NEXT
Lots of people are talking about the bill, even just in this forum, and have been for many years. Groups and people that are getting people fired up now seem to be the ones with the most to loose when it's easier to see when posts are paid content and not organic posts. If you're not being paid to say what you want or making money by saying it there will be no change.
Framing something like "wHy iS nObOdY tAlKiNg aBoUt tHiS" when it's a very often-discussed topic is a classic rage bait tactic.
Also, OP is a [covid-denying](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/plr3ji/new_study_finds_unvaccinated_are_11_times_more/hcd8qlh/?context=3) and [Trump-defending](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/l43kcr/trump_spoke_more_with_north_korea_than_with_the/gkmwup3/?context=3)nutter.
The moment I read "narrative" in their post I assumed they would be. Conspiracy theorists have such a raging hard on for that word, it's *impossible* for them to try to convey their ideas without using it, 'agenda' too.
Also, the way they wonkily try and make it about traditional left-leaning issues they clearly don't even take seriously. "they can control the narrative of politics, science, climate change, and more." Ah yes, mr anti vaxxer, tell me how concerned you are with climate change and science.
The whole *Trudeau is an authoritarian tyrant* and *Canada is a dictatorship taking away our freedom* package
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are the only things Conservatives have in their arsenal. No ideas for governing beyond lowering taxes on the wealthy and deregulation industries.
You're forgetting about cutting social spending!
Nice straw man.
Ooh. looks like you got the alert to brigade this thread a little late, RecalcitrantHuman. It was removed about 20 minutes ago so you clearly didn't find this organically.
After having heard about C-11, I thought I should probably try and learn what it is about. So I [read this article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/bill-c-11-explained-1.6759878). Now I wonder what the panic is about. Broadcasters have to promote a certain portion of Canadian-made content, and support Canadian productions. And it seems that online (international) streamers might have to do the same. So Netflix Canada might have to produce and broadcast Canadian films and series. Errr.... ok? What else is there? Honest question.
People are panicking because the CPC spin it specifically to cause panic and make it sound like individuals posting any type of content could be censored. Just fear mongering. There is some parts that sound like a bit of support for legacy media, especially smaller local stuff. The problem there is I see the information posted to Reddit a day before those junk local sources repost it for profit. Not always but many times.
And the ironic part is the Conservatives have spent years railing about "big tech" when it was a purposeful boogeyman for them, but now that it comes time to actualy do something about them by regulating them, all that supposed concern is just dust in the wind.
Regulating their legacy-media buddies is what they're concerned about. Oh, and shutting down dis/misinformation. Their base consume rage-bait, anti-science, pro-Russia bullshit. When the China is meddling in elections thing came out, they were chomping for an investigation. Jagmeet said, "let's investigate American media companies, and Russian interference, and they said, "that's too broad of a scope." That tells you everything you need to know about how much they care about electoral interference.
Senate bounce sit back with recommendations to prevent abuse. The LPC shit down debate and decided not to add the amendments. Margaret Atwood came out against it. It’s a lot lore complex than just “promoting Canadian content”.
>Margaret Atwood came out against it. Her main concern is that someone could define what "Canadian content" is and whether it is an infringement on creative freedom, so to speak. Which could be a fair point but we've always had Can-Con rules for TV and radio. The question is, does this differ and how so? She also admitted that she hadn't read it and didn't know how it would be interpreted in law, but has concerns about it being potentially misused. Having not read the bill myself, and not being a lawyer specializing in creative control and/or media regulation (or any kind of law because: not a lawyer), it seems to me that she has concerns that may be addressed in the legislation. Which is fair but there needs to be a balanced analysis of the pros and cons, and Margaret Atwood is one voice but not the only voice. I do enjoy much of her writing and interviews, btw, but I don't think she is an expert in the writing and implementation of law.
Okay can you explain the complexities
Ah yes, I get all my political analysis from Margaret Atwood. 😂 She wrote some novels which makes her an expert in media regulation and big tech.
It is kinda bizarre that Margaret Atwood is Canadian and the handmaid's tale is filmed here in Canada but it does not qualify as Canadian content. Jmho
That’s not what I’m getting at. She is quite opposite of the current federal conservatives and a devout liberal supporter. But she’s against which shows there’s people on all sides of the spectrum against this bill.
[удалено]
> Say you're a YouTuber who happens to be Canadian but your primary focus is say, True Crime or Investigative Journalism. Under this bill what you put on YouTube, what you see on YouTube, etc... Is all dictated by a restriction that didn't exist before Can you highlight for us which specific section of the legislation would do this? Here's the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-11/first-reading
As you can see, my username is not Grendell the Lawyer. [J.J. explains it better than I could](https://youtu.be/eMCZNdqUOdo) The issue is that online publication of content will now be under the control of the CRTC. YouTube, for example, would have to provide all content in French and English and contain a quota of CanCon. That's... Super not practical. And what if I as a consumer want to find content from people in other countries? The algorithm will, according to these laws, have to provide me a certain percentage of Canadian sourced media. Which will stifle it's usefulness. All of this is just tons and tons of unreasonable red tape. And enough red tape will make these international companies just pull out of Canada, which will destroy a whole sector of our economy.
Funny how you guys can never actually explain the parts **of the legislation** in your own words Almost like you have never read it and have no actual original thoughts on the subject.
I'm not a lawyer.
You don't need to be a lawyer to read legislation, little buddy.
You do need to be a lawyer to understand all the context and to speak with authority on the matter. Here I am telling you my understanding, citing experts on the topic, and admitting that my knowledge has gaps. Why are you so vitriolic?
>Why are you so vitriolic? When you've reached the "lol u mad" stage of your argument, you've definitely shown us you have no real argument to make.
Naw you’re kind of being a dick
It's so wild to see J.J. being cited on Reddit. I remember him at the Douglas College newspaper.
>What else is there? My issue is that it will include online content creators
That's not OK though? Maybe canada should make quality content worth it.
We do make quality content. This issue is bigger than that Canadian culture is extremely thin against the juggernaut of American culture. Look at the discourse politically, where Canadians are out there confusing our Charter with the American Constitution and Amendment rights, or how Premier Smith in Alberta spoke to a pastor in custody about how easy it is for American governors to pardon criminals and didn't realize Premiers don't have the same power. The government is exercising a fundamental right to protect Canadian culture, the Canadian economy, and (in my opinion) defending Canada from a raging culture war being waged against it from American propaganda like Fox News. This doesn't have much to do about Canadians being good or bad at producing content. We punch well above our weight on that front for the most part.
>where Canadians are out there confusing our Charter with the American Constitution and Amendment rights, yasssss, how I get tired of certain subgroups of conservatives who shout about their American freedoms in my conservative part of BC. I don't know how many times I've had to point out "We don't do freedom of speech here. We do freedom of expression."
Show us all where in the bill it says they will censor us. What section is that in?
"Why is no one talking about this thing that everyone is actually talking about?" Clickbait title from OP.
Yes, it may be clickbait from OP, but as a stay at home parent with very crazy days... I hadn't even heard about it till now. I know I should probably keep up on things a bit more, but I just can't always fit everything in the mental load pile.
>Why is no one talking about bill C-11 Wdym we haven't been talking about it lol you new here?
Right now billionaires and governments control what you see think and read. Bot herders and professional content creators force feed you viewpoints that 'use alternative facts'. How else do you propose to avoid this happening?
Except your comment is absurd misinformation/misdirection because Bill C-11 is about corralling the (largely foreign-owned) billionaire tech companies and hold them to the same standards we hod all media in Canada. The idea you would oppose that is silly. The idea you frame that opposition as something that is about benefiting the little guy is preposterous. You're carrying water for Google, Facebook, etc.
You misread. I'm in favour of the bill. Or you replied to the wrong person?
You are very clearly not in favour of the bill. You presented a cartoonized version of the bill that isn't in any way accurate. That is what you gave satirical "support" to. Your other comments in this thread, as well as the rest f your bizarre conspiracy theorist comment history make that very clear.
In the opinion of many people, the government shouldnt be the final party deciding what is right and wrong, true or false. I agree that the internet is flooded with braindead takes on science and politics, and people that are mislead by alternative facts, but at the same time many of those alternate facts can end up being true. If we dont let public discourse on new ideas take its own course free from a single party's control, then we may never discover certain truths that we as citizens would otherwise benefit from.
This bill isn’t about that…. There is no censorship or restrictions to individuals. It’s been discussed for years but because of people like PP or Bernier telling straight up lies about the contents of a bill, we still have people like yourself misunderstanding it. Do we trust the government website where the bill is posted for us to read or the elected leader of the Conservative Party? Sometimes it’s literally data, verbatim or actual documents that prove don’t trust and it’s because of people like PP and IDU fascist tactics.
This!
Avoid the government control? Let the people be free?
Here's a non partisan source of information about this bill. There's legitimate things to worry about but it's not some mega censorship bill like Pierre pissface wants people to believe. https://openmedia.org/ People have been talking about C-10 and then C-11 for literally 2 to 3 years, maybe longer. That's just how long I've known about the issue. The thing is that none of these politicians like to talk about them until it's gone to the Senate where they have no obligation to listen to public input. The time for contacting your MP is over. It's not a censorship bill and it's nothing to do with the RESTRICT act everyone in the states is shitting their pants about.
Conservatives, be they in the US, Canada, or anywhere else, have no constructive ideas for governance, so they just constantly spew sky-is-falling moral panic narratives.
I find it funny because they wait until the bill has passed through the house before they start screaming that it's been "pushed through." We've had literal years to contact our MPs about this but NOW is when they decide to make a fuss about it.
Yep, and they'll say the government is "censoring debate" by using entirely normal House procedures to move towards a vote after days of grandstanding from opposition. As if the Democratic process is being "censored" if you don't give the opposition infinitive time to bloviate.
Somehow, my faith in your impartiality disappeared when you called the leader of the opposition "Pierre pissface". Ohhh... And an 8 month old account, to boot!
>Ohhh... And an 8 month old account, to boot! Everyone knows nothing posted by a redditor is factual until their account is at least 3 years old.
I'm not impartial, but the source is. I don't like Trudeau either, and all these people that want to fuck him are just odd. I wish I was smart enough to get paid to shill for a party, but i just have a case of being terminally online.
[удалено]
Who PP? The guy lying to millions about the content of a bill? Fk that disrespectful traitor. Blocked the vote to condemn Carlsons push for America to invade Canada and had the entire CPC remain silent during an historical celebration of >50% female representation in parliament. Just recent stuff on top of the lies.
What exactly in this bill are you so opposed to? Are you running a broadcast? are you against Canadian content? I didn’t read it all in depth. Just curious. It doesn’t really give them any more control than they already have as far as I can see except to issue charges to violations of non Canadian content and supporting Canadian content monetarily. But perhaps I am missing something.
[удалено]
I thought this would be the opposite based on what I was reading with it. The only way to avoid paying was by promoting Canadian content. Or not serving Canadians altogether.
You’re not missing anything. These people live in a fever dream of conspiracy theories.
But Poilievre and Bernier says this will mean I'll have my eyelids cut off and be forced to watch The Littlest Hobo 24/7!
Still better than Star Trek Discovery
there's a voice, that keeps on calling me.... down the road is where I'll always be and every stop I make, I'll make a new friend...
Beachcombers I could tolerate.
If you ask Reddit, only misinformed right-wingers are against C-11.
Which tends to be true (not 100%, but damned close) Now, what's your argument on why this bill is bad?
Usually the trick to addressing extremism in to engage in more rationale debate and education to innoculate against bad information. Not curb rights. Just saying..
How does this bill curb rights?
It allows providers to collect a lot more information than they need to function. And it also changes the function of providers. I see this as a negative.
> It allows providers to collect a lot more information than they need to function. It does? Which section of the legislation? Here's the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-11/first-reading
I don't disagree. I had an argument about C-11 and the sister bill very recently and the other guy just insulted me and did the digital equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and saying "LA LA LA"
Until somebody proves to me that they’ve been censored for something other than reprehensible hate speech, it’s just another jackass conspiracy theory.
Notice they never can? At best they will post a link to someone else saying it's bad, but they can never actually cite any parts of the legislation that will do what they claim. Because they can't because it doesn't.
Do your own research. Read the bills and what they do instead of blindly supporting the government because the party you like is making the decisions. The government is untrustworthy regardless of who is running it. They've proven this over and over again over the decades.
That’s not proof. That’s conjecture.
Residential Schools were running until 1997. The liberals were in power. The PC party before them. The liberals before them. Explain to me how the government is worthy of our trust in any way shape or form again?
And that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter under discussion.
That has everything to do with it. The government is trying(and succeeding) in passing bills that restrict and/or censor Canadian's access to the internet. If that doesn't bother you, you haven't been paying attention to other countries.
You say that’s happening, but you can’t provide an example of that happening. Do you see the dilemma?
I think society is able to extinguish hate and hate speach without curtailing the very basic freedoms (in the form of a law) that protect us from hate speech in the first place.
Also agree. Some of the bill has good messaging. That would be the debate and education part. Some parts of the bill are very concerning. Not the entire bill. So then, the trick would be to write a bill that has no parts that are extremely concerning. Canada made it through 2001 without a patriot act. And we made it through the worst of covid without shutting down expression. I feel this bill would be a step back for basically no reason at all. And no sunset clause is something I find concerning also. Whatever happened to sunset clauses and notwithstanding measures? I thought we were Canadians. The neat thing about riding the fence is that you have a GREAT view of what all the idiots are up to, and how it's working.
Mah, with VPNs there is not much the government can really do.
VPN's cost money and can sometimes be a bottleneck that slows down connection speed.
So the trick would be to post from countries that respect domecracy and freedom of speech instead of Canada after this then, right?
How does this bill disrespect "domecracy and freedom of speech" (sic)?
By the use of a VPN to circumvent what shouldn't have been in the first place.
[удалено]
Your post/message contains misinformation about one or more subjects and has been removed as it violates Rule 5.
Everyone’s too busy protesting rainbows and drag queens
We don't even protest workers rights here
You really don’t have a clue though. You’re dumb enough to support trump, and dumb enough to be anti vaccine, so you’re definitely too dumb to understand this. You’re really only concerned because you were dumb enough to believe some lies you were told about this obviously.
>I'm surprised that Canadians haven't gone out and protest against this bill. What would the signs say? I trust musk to decide who has a voice! Shadow bans are the best bans! Ignore copyright! Obscurity for foreign financing must be protected! Take Canada's money! Don't spend profits from Canada in Canada!
If it ain't approved by the CRTC, It ain't Canadian enough for me! Bell/Rogers/Shaw... We don't want anything more! If you don't like the content, don't bother to unsubscribe... With the CRTC there's nowhere to hide! CRTC: turning tax revenue into advertising revenue More local content! Centralised from Ottawa!
Would using a VPN circumvent this if the IP address appears as outside Canada?
The thing about C11 is it's almost a good bill but the government doesn't want to make the amendments that the Senate proposed. I don't think it'll result in some 1984 government controlled narrative but it could completely isolate Canadian media and potentially make our artists undiscoverable to the global market which is terrible
ok. if anybody is on Twitter, check out Theo Fleury. you'll get all the crazy redneck left field nut bar rants you'll ever want to see about C-11.
It’s to help ban misinformation and disinformation from online platforms. It seems everyone wants to say their contrarian doubts and opinions on all platforms and call it truth. “Actual Information” will be better managed and easier to find online. That means many people will be angry since they believe there are nefarious globalists hoping to reduce the population and Trump was supposed to save us all - right 😉
We can already do this with the trust of institutions we already have. We used to call this the "citation" when I was in school. There is no way, and no law, that actually controls what people think.
> There is no way, and no law, that actually controls what people think. Well, then it's a good thing that Bill C-11 has nothing to do with "controlling what people think."
Unfortunately PP has figured out how to get the dumbass vote, scare and confuse them
Yawn
Keep hate at bay… I’m good
I mean the majority of Canadian hate is Canadian produced. So not much change there.
I'm not a fan of poilievre, I preferred a more moderate conservative leadership. That said, Trudeau start to have done enough. C 11, the weird gun ban, all the money to McKenzie... Too much, enough Trudeau. He won't have my vote again.
What if I told you there was a 3rd choice?
Virtuesignalsingh! Excellent choice.
Can you explain this to me a little bit? I tried to google virtue signalling but it looked like a good thing for a politician. Obviously if they are expressing opinions they dont actaully believe in that would be dishonest and negative, is that what youre thinking? "the public expression of opinions or [sentiments](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA981CA981&q=sentiments&si=AMnBZoFY6cJe4EcBOpcoqxHCe-IfMCHIVBpzh20KhCHm0yl3jbnQebWLVrUWcC-Adz1StZQyBpQqeFAodr6tLCmcvwmKRlnuog%3D%3D&expnd=1) intended to demonstrate one's good character or social [conscience](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA981CA981&q=conscience&si=AMnBZoFY6cJe4EcBOpcoqxHCe-IfnkKYQs3lHeZNcQGg-JV_ckL1JdO_Vdv6rmf6Oqp14FQhi_cN1Qm1z1IYNs6eNf0XvBQ5uw%3D%3D&expnd=1) or the moral [correctness](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA981CA981&q=correctness&si=AMnBZoG9fGMZkoPgk-g4eVoaZFdEiI2JC_1lGRI8LMzCRqW8HQJzHBIZW71WFqqIgF15DeWXGTxOoPZ9r1lN1UkLANeZboU7B4vAXSv-K1CPyArB4zJCZ4o%3D&expnd=1) of one's position on a particular issue. "
Listen to Trudeau talk for five minutes that’s a pretty good example.
Thats true I dont get the feeling he believes anything he says. Especially since he fliped on election reform. What do you think about this guy? [Daniel Blaikie](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1287wnu/we_cant_fix_the_housing_crisis_in_canada_without/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=5&utm_content=share_button)
Was? What? The PPC?
NDP
I’d vote for them if Jack Layton was still around.
He was great for sure. Hopefully the next NDP leader will be more appealing for you so we can finally have another option besides swining back and forth from the same two parties and expecting something different to happen.
Too much far left for me. It's a bit ridiculous that you downvoted me just for this comment. Definitely, even NPD fans have to grow up.
I didnt down vote you but I did just upvote you. Im interested in your opinions. Im definately not a fan of any of our political options im just trying to choose the best one. My deepest concern is housing crisis and cost of living.
I have the same concerns. But I don't think we have a realistic option right now that can help on this. NPD is too far left and the chief, even if it should not, face lots of racism.
One sollution that shows promise is public housing. I just posted this dude in another comment but he makes a good point. The gov used to build 15k houses a year until the program was axed by the libs in 1995. That would have been 420k houses by now. This is would be a "left" sollution, and im definately open to hear any more sollutions and we should try them all. The current housing model obviously isnt working. [Daniel Blaikie](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1287wnu/we_cant_fix_the_housing_crisis_in_canada_without/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=5&utm_content=share_button)
And what if we get too much immigrants whiteout housings and it drive the price up? Also what about all of those house buy by foreign entity just for investing? Honestly I don't know, many things are wrong right now. At first Trudeau got my vote, last election I gave it to the Conservatives... Listen, why my city is supposed to get hundreds of migrants when we all have difficulty to find a house? I really want to help migrants... But I will house my family first, no?
It seems crazy to have so much immigration and so little housing. Also, i learned that 50% of new condos in Vancouver are purchased by invesestors. So new houses wont lower the cost as they will just be snatched up by investors like you said. Immigration is important though because we need healthcare workers, and they at least 50% filipino. The sollution im interested in is to build public housing. Houses that we can rent to people at affordable prices and keep the speculators away. The boomers always told us to invest in real estate growing up because the prices will always increase, but I never thought about what that really means in the future.
[удалено]
What are the conservatives plan for housing and affordability? Im apprehensive to vote for the two big parties because they got us into this situation, im interested in trying something new.
another neoliberal party to vote for? oh goodie
Are the NDP neoliberal? They seem more socialist, maybe our only hope to restart public housing.
Redditors think calling anything they dislike "neoliberal" is some kind of uno reverse card.
I like how you say this like you're implying voting Conservative would be an improvement. PP would be an unmitigated disaster.
All the money to McKenzie? I haven’t heard of this before.
Read the news. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/mckinsey-contracts-top-100m-under-justin-trudeau-1.6722718
Thanks for posting this.
Don’t worry, Reddit will stay the same. It’s already heavily censored left.
Reddit was awesome 10 years ago. Now it's just mostly propaganda. What a shame.
There’s the door ——>🚪
I'm hanging around hoping for change. Sorry 😞
Truth
I agree. From a place I see as the center. And from here, what right and left have become start to look the same.
Ah yes, the enlightened "both sides the same" false equivalence.
Its not a false equivalence if you try to tear down the fence and build further on down the field.
they are talking about it -but being censored at the same time - the irony of the situation
This is an unnecessary bill. We need less regulations of our internet. Not more.
Exactly. Why should Google and Facebook be required to follow the same rules as Canadian media platforms? Everyone knows that Mark Zuckerburg can be trusted.
Because it should be up to individuals to be able to figure out how to think and critically analyse information. If the market favours decentralisation of tech, it will move there. Government intervention into things they do not understand is disastrous.
>Because it should be up to individuals to be able to figure out how to think and critically analyse information. I agree. Can you share with us which specific sections of the legislation would take that right away? Not a link to someone else's opinion. The actual sections of the legislation. >If the market favours decentralisation of tech, it will move there. Adorably naive. As if the "free market' always favours decentralization, not concentration of power.
It's clear that you have a strong belief in government and systemic protocols. There's a clear $1T market cap moving towards decentralisation. Regardless, the legislation pushes for Canadian content and it will be a broad stroke to favor whatever CRTC wishes to favor. In the narrative of nationalism; it's up to CRTC's discretion. This is very dangerous and it's up to the jokers in CRTC to define your content.
Why are you using ad hominems to dodge such a simple question, gskv? Why not just totally pwn me by posting the actual sections of the legislation in question?
You're pretty lonely, aren't you?
They really are. Replying to literally every comment is this thread in a raging self righteous defender of the bill. It’s lol.
>Can you share with us which specific sections of the legislation would take that right away? The bill will prioritize "CanCon", which in turn will de-prioritize non-CanCan. Why should the governement get to dictate what is and what is not Canadian? Not to mention the bill is an extension of the CRTC which is completely antiquated
I grew up with two tv channels, one was CBC and the other was knowledge network. We listened to the radio- which was all local radio. There was already a thing that a certain percentage of what was aired had to be canadian. I already get youtube adds that are mostly for stuff in my geographic area. The news suggestions are all from Canada. If I want to watch something else I am accustomed to having to search it out. I’m not keen on more controls, but maybe I will find new things to watch that are canadian that haven’t crossed my path before. Maybe I’ll just turn on the VPN and ignore it all. Maybe the world will go down in flames and I won’t notice. I prefer to read so its entirely possible. Whatever they try to control on the internet, I have the power to turn off my tv and my phone and do something else. I’m not going to protest it, but I am watching to see what else they try. I’m going to be looking into what else they try to slide by while having the news heavily broadcast something distracting.
What you say is not rational, and probably reflects a large proportion of Canadians. I think it would be better to be able to switch off the censorship should you chose, rather than pipe your knowledge through a security measure that basically makes what you are doing "against the law" - against this bill. VPNs are great and everything. But don't count on them being available in the future. They are only barely legal now, and that's the point to oppose this bill, in my view. We shouldn't need special tools to circumvent the laws we let by, we should just have better laws.
Could you imagine if Stephen Harper proposed this
A Conservative trying to regulate an industry instead of giving them the keys to the castle? As if!
A lot of people still seem to believe the Liberals talking points on this bill.
Can you list, point by point in your own words (not just posting a youtube video or link to an opinion piece) of why you are opposed to the Canadian government holding massively powerful companies like Google and Facebook to the same standards all Canadian media are held to?
It's because it's now monitored haha. We are fucked.
[удалено]
I'm pretty positive you can review the bill on https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-11 And see it's not
Sorry, can you just post a tiktok video with some guy claiming that regulating corporations is fascism? That's the only kind of source I trust, not some biased government link.
The bill really ask everyone to prioritize Canadian content. That include your YouTube.
That’s the cover story.
Or the words that are actually in the bill. Maybe read it. It’s nothing like the Restrict Act.
We don’t need less control of what we see and say, regardless of how they spin it to their loyal fans and followers. Most Canadians, don’t have the time or the will to read the bill and that’s why this gets passed without much uproar. There’s a reason the liberals rammed it through, that alone should raise alarm bells with all political sides. We need freedom and choice, not forced Canadian content picked by the very people who want to control the message. There’s one thing about freedoms, once you give them up. You never get them back. Regardless of left or right, that should mean something.
[удалено]
It’s takes ten minutes to read the thing you’re so ardently against. It’s okay, you’re just lazy. You have time to comment many times in this thread, so I’m left to believe you want to be outraged more than you want the truth. This kind of hypocrisy is why no one takes you conspiracy theorists seriously.
[They're also spewing the "15 minute city"](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/126vm5v/most_british_columbians_dont_oppose_the_15minute/jecxv08/?context=3) conspiracy nonsense. They are a propaganda account.
The patriot act would like a word.... Canada was smart enough to include a sunset clause while we BRAVELY battled deadly terrorists and the massive threat from "muslin fundamentalists".
In what ways is the Online Streaming Act similar to the Patriot Act? Can you highlight the similar sections?
It is because of what and how it controls. No one "owns" the internet. Attempts shouldn't be made to control what is on there unless it is already criminal. I mean, if I can only watch corner gas and red green reruns, i guess that sounds okayish. But the manner and facility, and the rationale that establishes all of that needs more specific safeguards. Nothing in the patriot looked like is was "too far" right? Especially consider the massive threat that every American was under at the time. Canadian had similar legislation. And now that is the new normal. To me, this bill sets up a bunch of 3 foot high fences are thoughts, ideas and knowledge. The promise is that no one would ever put a lock on those fences. Or build more fences later. Some things just don't need to be controlled. And ought not to be.
> No one "owns" the internet. Attempts shouldn't be made to control what is on there unless it is already criminal. Which specific parts of this legislation would "own the internet"? >Nothing in the patriot looked like is was "too far" right? Yes, it did. You clearly have zero clue what you are talking about. Your making a "slippery slope" argument with no evidence. Its a fallacy argument.
And it’s going to Ban Tiktok because that’s where the truth lies. They can’t control it, and everyone is wising up to the government now. Like how none of our news is even showing the French Revolution that’s going on right now, millions of people in the streets. If they ban tiktok they have total control of the message.
Imagine thinking getting your "news" from tiktok makes you informed. Let me guess, drinking hot lemon tea kills covid? Use this song to increase your engagement?
>how none of our news is even showing the French Revolution that’s going on right now, There's been many stories on all the mainstream news sources about the protests in France. CBC to the National Post have had almost daily stories on the protests.
I thought this sub was for government control. Is the internet where it draws the line?
[удалено]
Yes as everyone knows, Twitter, Facebook, and Tik Tok are good and our democratically elected politicians are bad.
> I'm surprised that Canadians haven't gone out and protest against this bill. really? we're experiencing multiple serious crises (housing unaffordability, health care collapse, climate change) and there are absolutely 0 protest movements of any kind anywhere. why does _this_ surprise you?
The government already controls these things, they just not open about it.
Most Canadians are too lazy to know what’s going on. You’ll never see Canadians en masse protest anything like the citizens of France and other countries. The only people that will really stand up for what they believe in are the First Nations people.
Because the majority of Canadians do not pay attention to politics. That’s why no one talks about it. Especially people that vote left, have no clue what’s actually going on in our country. This bill is akin to China’s censoring.
The Liberals are promoting it, so the media will ignore the topic. Then if a conservative speaks out against it, just because you are a conservative you are automatically the bad guy and wrong/conspiracy theorist on the majority of public social media spaces, especially Reddit.
What's there to talk about? The Liberals want to force corporations to fund thier CRTC friends because that's what's "Canadian". We the people don't get a say in the matter because we vote on the person, not on the policy. NEXT