5 ms·

Canadian here. This isn't about subsidizing content, this is about censoring content that the Canadian government deems to be "not in the Canadian spirit". This

by 3maj 5y ago

Canadian here. This isn't about subsidizing content, this is about censoring content that the Canadian government deems to be "not in the Canadian spirit". This is about treating anyone with a larger audience (youtube, insta, etc) as a broadcaster and making them follow strict government rules.

gruez 5y ago
That explains why this law was introduced, but not the general policy of requiring canadian content exists.
- munk-a 5y ago
  America has a really outsized impact on western culture and has previously leveraged that (through DoD partnerships and public funding) to reinforce its view of what western culture should be like. I think it's reasonable for a country that could easily be eclipsed by the culture of their southern neighbors to make some effort to fund the preservation of things that differentiate it. The Canadian government tends to be pretty bullish on supporting cultural festivals (hence JFL Montreal being a world-wide event) and supporting independent creators through CanCon laws is just another limb of that strategy.
munk-a 5y ago
As another Canadian I believe this is a pretty strong miscategorization of the bill, this bill is extending the practice of CanCon to online platforms that would, from given comments, require various algorithmic recommendation tools to highlight content that the CRTC marks as being Canadian. There are some concerns around censorship here (that the Canadian government may decline to mark videos highlighting controversial topics as being Canadian) but it'll honestly just shift those videos out of this preferred requirement. Most services currently offer some regional and language preferences so this doesn't seem like a huge technical requirement but it is quite possible it'll hurt smaller platforms disproportionately more than larger ones - most regulation, even very warranted stuff, tends to increase the barrier to market entry. I think this is a pretty fair way to approach trying to supplement the economy and retain more productivity within the country as we're trying to pay off the debts we've racked up during covid, it'll help boost the take home of artists and independent creators without leaving a large line item supporting the arts for the CPC to cut if they regain a majority. But that's totally just my opinion.
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  How is this fair at all? It's not fair to consumers whose prevailing choices are regulatorily subverted. It's not fair to media producers who are now penalized for not being Canadian, nor is it fair for media platforms who now have to invent some special process for Canadian users. By what definition is it fair to force foreigners to fund your own nationalist political goals? Why should anyone care that the current Canadian government supposedly can't even muster enough democratic support to enact and maintain a lasting budget item to sponsor its own agenda?
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Canada is the market that it is - it's your decision as a business to voluntarily enter that market and the GDPR has shown that regional policies like these can be sanely implemented. As someone who can see the problems this country is trying to fight through during the pandemic, I think it's reasonable to reinvest in our economy and this will, essentially, work out sort of like a tariff. It's likely the cost of consuming these services will slightly rise but in exchange we should see more money staying domestic. And hey, politics is hard. As an example of domestic prioritization, Canada prepaid for a whole lot of vaccines (enough for everyone to be vaccinated three times over - so six shots) but when push came to shove the US horded their supply to inoculate citizens first. I think it was a grave error for the government to turn to the private market to purchase those doses instead of investing in expanding domestic vaccine production back in April 2020 but I can't really hold it against America for ensuring the safety of their domestic population first - it's not like you're doing anything overtly malignant like marking up the prices per dose or refusing to release the vaccine globally unless folks sign on to unbalanced trade deals. Canada controls and provides the Canadian consumer market - we value supporting local content and want to make sure our artists are able to make a living because, honestly, we really value the arts up here - whether they're the group of seven or putting together tutorials on how to make a DIY rocket in your backyard on youtube.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > As an example of domestic prioritization, Canada prepaid for a whole lot of vaccines (enough for everyone to be vaccinated three times over - so six shots) but when push came to shove the US horded their supply to inoculate citizens first. There was no "hoarding" or "export ban"; The Trump Administration was simply smart and bought the doses when potential vaccines were still early in development, long before FDA approval. Manufacturers are simply fulfilling their contractual obligations to ship the dose to the first investors. Canada could have done the same, giving more money to promising tech earlier, to get the doses earlier. Instead, Trudeau spent 44 million dollars [0] gave months [1] of work to CCP controlled CanSino vaccine. It, unsurprisingly, failed spectacularly. > we value supporting local content and want to make sure our artists are able to make a living because, honestly, we really value the arts up here Then why are special laws required at all if people really want that content and are interested in buying it? There's no special laws that says that people MUST by iPhones, they simply do because they like the product. [0] https://globalnews.ca/news/7302194/canada-coronavirus-vaccine-deal-china/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7302194/canada-coronavirus-vaccin... [1] https://ipolitics.ca/2021/03/12/a-waste-of-a-lot-of-time-researcher-in-cansino-deal-shares-new-details/ https://ipolitics.ca/2021/03/12/a-waste-of-a-lot-of-time-res...
solitus 5y ago
^Conspiracy theorist.

by 3maj 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

That explains why this law was introduced, but not the general policy of requiring canadian content exists.

munk-a 5y ago
America has a really outsized impact on western culture and has previously leveraged that (through DoD partnerships and public funding) to reinforce its view of what western culture should be like. I think it's reasonable for a country that could easily be eclipsed by the culture of their southern neighbors to make some effort to fund the preservation of things that differentiate it. The Canadian government tends to be pretty bullish on supporting cultural festivals (hence JFL Montreal being a world-wide event) and supporting independent creators through CanCon laws is just another limb of that strategy.

munk-a 5y ago

As another Canadian I believe this is a pretty strong miscategorization of the bill, this bill is extending the practice of CanCon to online platforms that would, from given comments, require various algorithmic recommendation tools to highlight content that the CRTC marks as being Canadian. There are some concerns around censorship here (that the Canadian government may decline to mark videos highlighting controversial topics as being Canadian) but it'll honestly just shift those videos out of this preferred requirement. Most services currently offer some regional and language preferences so this doesn't seem like a huge technical requirement but it is quite possible it'll hurt smaller platforms disproportionately more than larger ones - most regulation, even very warranted stuff, tends to increase the barrier to market entry. I think this is a pretty fair way to approach trying to supplement the economy and retain more productivity within the country as we're trying to pay off the debts we've racked up during covid, it'll help boost the take home of artists and independent creators without leaving a large line item supporting the arts for the CPC to cut if they regain a majority. But that's totally just my opinion.

themacguffinman 5y ago
How is this fair at all? It's not fair to consumers whose prevailing choices are regulatorily subverted. It's not fair to media producers who are now penalized for not being Canadian, nor is it fair for media platforms who now have to invent some special process for Canadian users. By what definition is it fair to force foreigners to fund your own nationalist political goals? Why should anyone care that the current Canadian government supposedly can't even muster enough democratic support to enact and maintain a lasting budget item to sponsor its own agenda?
- munk-a 5y ago
  Canada is the market that it is - it's your decision as a business to voluntarily enter that market and the GDPR has shown that regional policies like these can be sanely implemented. As someone who can see the problems this country is trying to fight through during the pandemic, I think it's reasonable to reinvest in our economy and this will, essentially, work out sort of like a tariff. It's likely the cost of consuming these services will slightly rise but in exchange we should see more money staying domestic. And hey, politics is hard. As an example of domestic prioritization, Canada prepaid for a whole lot of vaccines (enough for everyone to be vaccinated three times over - so six shots) but when push came to shove the US horded their supply to inoculate citizens first. I think it was a grave error for the government to turn to the private market to purchase those doses instead of investing in expanding domestic vaccine production back in April 2020 but I can't really hold it against America for ensuring the safety of their domestic population first - it's not like you're doing anything overtly malignant like marking up the prices per dose or refusing to release the vaccine globally unless folks sign on to unbalanced trade deals. Canada controls and provides the Canadian consumer market - we value supporting local content and want to make sure our artists are able to make a living because, honestly, we really value the arts up here - whether they're the group of seven or putting together tutorials on how to make a DIY rocket in your backyard on youtube.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > As an example of domestic prioritization, Canada prepaid for a whole lot of vaccines (enough for everyone to be vaccinated three times over - so six shots) but when push came to shove the US horded their supply to inoculate citizens first. There was no "hoarding" or "export ban"; The Trump Administration was simply smart and bought the doses when potential vaccines were still early in development, long before FDA approval. Manufacturers are simply fulfilling their contractual obligations to ship the dose to the first investors. Canada could have done the same, giving more money to promising tech earlier, to get the doses earlier. Instead, Trudeau spent 44 million dollars [0] gave months [1] of work to CCP controlled CanSino vaccine. It, unsurprisingly, failed spectacularly. > we value supporting local content and want to make sure our artists are able to make a living because, honestly, we really value the arts up here Then why are special laws required at all if people really want that content and are interested in buying it? There's no special laws that says that people MUST by iPhones, they simply do because they like the product. [0] https://globalnews.ca/news/7302194/canada-coronavirus-vaccine-deal-china/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7302194/canada-coronavirus-vaccin... [1] https://ipolitics.ca/2021/03/12/a-waste-of-a-lot-of-time-researcher-in-cansino-deal-shares-new-details/ https://ipolitics.ca/2021/03/12/a-waste-of-a-lot-of-time-res...

solitus 5y ago

^Conspiracy theorist.