Trudeau Government Moves to Regulate Podcasts

[TurkeyOnRye]

I see Canada's big daddy government is coming along nicely.

Certainly this will help ensure safety and security for all.

Trudeau Government moves to regulate podcasts - The Counter Signal

The Liberals' Online Streaming Act is moving into its next phase of regulation by requiring podcasters to register with the CRTC.

thecountersignal.com

 

[Estro Felino]

It seems to me that a sort of tyrannical imposition is being implemented in Canada.

 

[Revoltingest]

They regulated airwaves because there was limited capacity.
They want to regulate speech on podcasts because they can.

 

[Left Coast]

I see Canada's big daddy government is coming along nicely.

Certainly this will help ensure safety and security for all.

Trudeau Government moves to regulate podcasts - The Counter Signal

The Liberals' Online Streaming Act is moving into its next phase of regulation by requiring podcasters to register with the CRTC.

thecountersignal.com

Sounds like much ado about nothing. Also, your source isn't great:

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Orbit]

I see Canada's big daddy government is coming along nicely.

Certainly this will help ensure safety and security for all.

Trudeau Government moves to regulate podcasts - The Counter Signal

The Liberals' Online Streaming Act is moving into its next phase of regulation by requiring podcasters to register with the CRTC.

thecountersignal.com

Your source's story really doesn't live up to the headline.
From the source:
"CRTC’s announcement states that podcasters meeting certain criteria “need to provide information about their activities in Canada.”

Online streaming services operating in Canada that offer audio or video content that generate $10 million or more in annual revenues must complete a registration form by November 28. "

There are no details here that suggest censorship of any kind, or "controlling speech". There's simply not enough information in the report as to the exact content of the regulation to justify the headline. Also, regular Joe Blow with a podcast isn't affected, as they won't be making $10 million in revenue.

Nothingburger.

 

[tytlyf]

How do these sources manipulate the minds of people so easily?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Your source's story really doesn't live up to the headline.
From the source:
"CRTC’s announcement states that podcasters meeting certain criteria “need to provide information about their activities in Canada.”

Online streaming services operating in Canada that offer audio or video content that generate $10 million or more in annual revenues must complete a registration form by November 28. "

There are no details here that suggest censorship of any kind, or "controlling speech". There's simply not enough information in the report as to the exact content of the regulation to justify the headline. Also, regular Joe Blow with a podcast isn't affected, as they won't be making $10 million in revenue.

Nothingburger.

You are aware that mandatory information reporting is a form of regulation, right?

Are you further aware that the article cites the Canadian government official website, canada.ca, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), crtc.gc.ca, as its primary sources, right?

Additionally, are you aware that the Online Streaming Act is cited by the CRTC itself as a "Regulatory plan to modernize Canada's broadcasting system", as pointed out in the article, AND is part of a multiphase plan that includes (notable points in bold, information is verbatim):



1. This consultation reviews fees paid by broadcasters and how they should be extended to online streaming services.

2. Consultation on definitions of Canadian and Indigenous content: This consultation would review the definition of Canadian content and examine possible changes.

3. Consultation on tools to support Canadian music and other audio content: This consultation would assess tools to support Canadian audio content.

4. Consultation on programming and supports for video content: This consultation would assess tools to develop, support, and promote Canadian and Indigenous content on all platforms.

5. Consultation on local markets access and competition: This consultation would evaluate market access, news and local programming, and competitive behaviours.

6. Consultation on protecting Canadian consumers: This consultation would review ways to protect consumers and include broadcaster codes of conduct and mechanisms for complaints.

7. ...will focus on implementing policy decisions listed above. More on Phase 3 will be included in future updates of this plan.

SOURCES:

CRTC takes major step forward to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework - Canada.ca

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.

www.canada.ca

Regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework | CRTC

crtc.gc.ca

Perhaps you should pay more attention.

How do these sources manipulate the minds of people so easily?

Judging by this comment, I'll assume that you also skimmed the article. So much for being the unerring skeptic.

 

[Orbit]

You are aware that mandatory information reporting is a form of regulation, right?

Are you further aware that the article cites the Canadian government official website, canada.ca, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), crtc.gc.ca, as its primary sources, right?

Additionally, are you aware that the Online Streaming Act is cited by the CRTC itself as a "Regulatory plan to modernize Canada's broadcasting system", as pointed out in the article, AND is part of a multiphase plan that includes (notable points in bold, information is verbatim):



1. This consultation reviews fees paid by broadcasters and how they should be extended to online streaming services.

2. Consultation on definitions of Canadian and Indigenous content: This consultation would review the definition of Canadian content and examine possible changes.

3. Consultation on tools to support Canadian music and other audio content: This consultation would assess tools to support Canadian audio content.

4. Consultation on programming and supports for video content: This consultation would assess tools to develop, support, and promote Canadian and Indigenous content on all platforms.

5. Consultation on local markets access and competition: This consultation would evaluate market access, news and local programming, and competitive behaviours.

6. Consultation on protecting Canadian consumers: This consultation would review ways to protect consumers and include broadcaster codes of conduct and mechanisms for complaints.

7. ...will focus on implementing policy decisions listed above. More on Phase 3 will be included in future updates of this plan.

SOURCES:

CRTC takes major step forward to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework - Canada.ca

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.

www.canada.ca

Regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework | CRTC

crtc.gc.ca

Perhaps you should pay more attention.



Judging by this comment, I'll assume that you also skimmed the article. So much for being the unerring skeptic.

That doesn't really address the point I made -- that this isn't censorship and it doesn't affect anyone making less than 10 million dollars.

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't really address the point I made -- that this isn't censorship and it doesn't affect anyone making less than 10 million dollars.

I wonder why the governing body (bodies?)
exists if not to exercise some control.
Is there no control over content at all?

 

[Orbit]

I wonder why the governing body (bodies?)
exists if not to exercise some control.
Is there no control over content at all?

Sure. Canada has a rule that x percentage of artists on the radio have to be Canadian (I forget the exact percentage). And you can't say "****" on the radio. But that's not censorship.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

That doesn't really address the point I made -- that this isn't censorship and it doesn't affect anyone making less than 10 million dollars.

Bro, you're the only one that brought up "censorship", not me.

Though I will say that if you do not see this as encroachment on free speech, I would say you're not thinking clearly. ---> "...protect consumers and include broadcaster codes of conduct and mechanisms for complaints."

In any case, you denied it being regulatory. And that was ill-informed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. Canada has a rule that x percentage of artists on the radio have to be Canadian (I forget the exact percentage). And you can't say "****" on the radio. But that's not censorship.

It's not?
I see censorship as broader than merely prohibiting
speech that we want prohibited. Censoring profanity
is censorship too, despite being less onerous than
prohibiting political speech.
The real issue is how far censorship should go, eg,
profanity, hate speech, apostasy, faux science,
& in which venue.
Going after podcasters strikes me as too far.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

And you can't say "****" on the radio. But that's not censorship.

That is the literal definition of censorship....

 

[F1fan]

I see Canada's big daddy government is coming along nicely.

Certainly this will help ensure safety and security for all.

Trudeau Government moves to regulate podcasts - The Counter Signal

The Liberals' Online Streaming Act is moving into its next phase of regulation by requiring podcasters to register with the CRTC.

thecountersignal.com

I would say that the internet needs to be regulated since there are so many citizens in the world that are poorly educated and unable to discern good information from disinformation. By regulating media there could be a standard it has to meet to not harm society. To my mind there is reason why all meat slaughterhouses are regulated so that there isn't any that sell rotten meat to citizens who have not done their homework on how safe their products are.

The ongoing gripe with "big guvmint" is that the citizen knows best, and that there should be freedom for the citizen to do anything they damn well please. But as we observe even libertarians are not very well informed and have not taken their responsibility far enough to distill reputable media from trash disinformation. Social contract theory is what societies are built on, and that means there are compromises from personal liberty to the welfare of the whole of society. Arguably the citizen benefits more by living in a society with collective benefits than living independently. Individuals can'tknow everything and can't be experts to a degree that they can make the best decisions for themselves. This is the advantage with a government that can hire experts who then set guidelines for citizens to follow. They also hire experts who set food safety standards and require food producers to follow standards the ensure safe food. This saves the citizen time and trouble. This allows the citizen more leisure time, and more enjoyment and relaxation. I think this includes media which has become a wild west of disinformation that affects how citizens think, and how they vote. Voting affects everyone, and we should have a vested interest in citizens being well informed. We need well-informed citizens so they can make better decisions.

 

[Orbit]

It's not?
I see censorship as broader than merely prohibiting
speech that we want prohibited. Censoring profanity
is censorship too, despite being less onerous than
prohibiting political speech.
The real issue is how far censorship should go, eg,
profanity, hate speech, apostasy, faux science,
& in which venue.
Going after podcasters strikes me as too far.

To me, and I think this was the context implied by the OP, censorship is limiting political speech. But whatever. And this doesn't affect any podcast where they pull in less than 10 MILLION in revenue, so this really just applies to corporations---or at least not to the normal citizen's podcast. I just don't see a basis for the reaction.

 

[Orbit]

That is the literal definition of censorship....

To me, and I think this was the context implied by the OP, censorship is limiting political speech. But whatever. And this doesn't affect any podcast where they pull in less than 10 MILLION in revenue, so this really just applies to corporations.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

To me, and I think this was the context implied by the OP, censorship is limiting political speech. But whatever. And this doesn't affect any podcast where they pull in less than 10 MILLION in revenue, so this really just applies to corporations.

Ah...so the government will only be regulating the behavior of those with vast sums of money. Gotcha.

For the record, ten million dollars really isn't as much as it sounds. And in ten years, inflation will make that sum even more applicable to the smaller tier producers.

 

[Orbit]

Ah...so the government will only be regulating the behavior of those with vast sums of money. Gotcha.

For the record, ten million dollars really isn't as much as it sounds. And in ten years, inflation will make that sum even more applicable to the smaller tier producers.

10 million dollars isn't much money? Did you grow up in the 1% or something?

 

[Sargonski]

I see Canada's big daddy government is coming along nicely.

Certainly this will help ensure safety and security for all.

Trudeau Government moves to regulate podcasts - The Counter Signal

The Liberals' Online Streaming Act is moving into its next phase of regulation by requiring podcasters to register with the CRTC.

thecountersignal.com

Liberal woke cancel culture totalitarianism - Another disturbing day for Canadians.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I would say that the internet needs to be regulated since there are so many citizens in the world that are poorly educated and unable to discern good information from disinformation. By regulating media there could be a standard it has to meet to not harm society. To my mind there is reason why all meat slaughterhouses are regulated so that there isn't any that sell rotten meat to citizens who have not done their homework on how safe their products are.

The ongoing gripe with "big guvmint" is that the citizen knows best, and that there should be freedom for the citizen to do anything they damn well please. But as we observe even libertarians are not very well informed and have not taken their responsibility far enough to distill reputable media from trash disinformation. Social contract theory is what societies are built on, and that means there are compromises from personal liberty to the welfare of the whole of society. Arguably the citizen benefits more by living in a society with collective benefits than living independently. Individuals can'tknow everything and can't be experts to a degree that they can make the best decisions for themselves. This is the advantage with a government that can hire experts who then set guidelines for citizens to follow. They also hire experts who set food safety standards and require food producers to follow standards the ensure safe food. This saves the citizen time and trouble. This allows the citizen more leisure time, and more enjoyment and relaxation. I think this includes media which has become a wild west of disinformation that affects how citizens think, and how they vote. Voting affects everyone, and we should have a vested interest in citizens being well informed. We need well-informed citizens so they can make better decisions.

Let's get something straight: regulating information is de facto censorship.

And then the white elephant. What happens when big daddy disagrees with your view of reality? Or do you assume that you're going to agree with whatever the government's curated narrative is? I have news for you...if your opinion agrees with the mainstream narrative in all respects, it's because your mind has been propagandized.

I'm sorry, but this all just strikes me as painfully naive.