2 ms·

I am surprised to see the “their country their rules” sentiment here. Why doesn’t the HN crowd offer the same reprieve to developing nations like China or India

I am surprised to see the “their country their rules” sentiment here. Why doesn’t the HN crowd offer the same reprieve to developing nations like China or India, when they try to regulate social media, retain their culture/identity/politics, and defend against the immense influence of American culture/media/activism? What makes the two different? I find this Canadian bill to be pretty egregious because it will subject user submitted media to CRTC content guidelines. That could just as easily mean, for example, preventing speech on controversial topics like gender identity unless they align with the current (left biased) ruling government’s perspective.

munk-a 5y ago
I think the difference is that this isn't being used as a tool of political suppression the way that China tries to control various tech companies. Instead it's just as valid to argue that forcing Canadians to accept 100% freely chosen content is an American value that the US is trying to force on us. I don't mean to say that 40% is definitely the right ratio - but what societal factors are most free are going to differ from country to country. The US enthusiastically embraces the free-market as the salve for all ills - elsewhere government intervention is viewed as being more free and responsible since it can shield residents from the levels undue economic hardship that can strike Americans when it comes to trying to pay medical bills. What is most free is not a definite objective thing, and I would note that this bill is only targeting how companies need to operate within Canada while the US has a plethora of laws dictating how companies need to act across the world in order to participate in the US market.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  What are your thoughts on the fact that this bill may give the controlling government authority on what content is allowed and what gets prominently featured? Can this not be a used to amplify certain ideologies while suppressing others? Whatever the stated intent is, I would argue the law should not permit any encroachment on something as fundamental as free speech. It seems former members of the CRTC do see this bill as enabling an attack on free speech (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-former-crtc-chair-says-bill-c-10-should-not-be-passed-in-its-present/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-former-crtc...).
  - mc32 5y ago
    At least you can oust a government. What can you do if YT wants to send you garbage to watch or starts sending you ideological content or start skewing content to whatever advances their POV?
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      That’s a different line of argument but I suppose it is valid. I certainly don’t feel good about huge multinational corporations originating from Silicon Valley shaping information (and as a result, culture and politics) across the entire planet.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    The bill will allow the government to nominate what content will be more likely to come up in recommended content - it doesn't empower them at all to specifically ban content in any manner they can't today. As for that power - it can lead to bias but I'm pretty alright with it, it's likely going to be used to both stifle the organic spread of false information (i.e. anti-vax, flat earthers etc...) and it'll also likely be used to favor content that's supportive of the current administration (so if Harper got back into power it'd likely not include pro-climate change content). I think this is a pretty acceptable trade off when it comes to stumble-upon content - but all the content not endorsed by the system wouldn't be banned or removed. The biggest downsides for me are the possible difficulty adhering to the guidelines for smaller platforms. I enjoy nebula and it's possible if unlikely that they may be forced to exit the market as a result of this bill - but bear in mind that any inherently Canadian content creators should be able to easily argue their adherence to the guidelines even if the CRTC tries to shut them down.

munk-a 5y ago

I think the difference is that this isn't being used as a tool of political suppression the way that China tries to control various tech companies. Instead it's just as valid to argue that forcing Canadians to accept 100% freely chosen content is an American value that the US is trying to force on us. I don't mean to say that 40% is definitely the right ratio - but what societal factors are most free are going to differ from country to country. The US enthusiastically embraces the free-market as the salve for all ills - elsewhere government intervention is viewed as being more free and responsible since it can shield residents from the levels undue economic hardship that can strike Americans when it comes to trying to pay medical bills. What is most free is not a definite objective thing, and I would note that this bill is only targeting how companies need to operate within Canada while the US has a plethora of laws dictating how companies need to act across the world in order to participate in the US market.

throwawaysea 5y ago
What are your thoughts on the fact that this bill may give the controlling government authority on what content is allowed and what gets prominently featured? Can this not be a used to amplify certain ideologies while suppressing others? Whatever the stated intent is, I would argue the law should not permit any encroachment on something as fundamental as free speech. It seems former members of the CRTC do see this bill as enabling an attack on free speech (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-former-crtc-chair-says-bill-c-10-should-not-be-passed-in-its-present/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-former-crtc...).
- mc32 5y ago
  At least you can oust a government. What can you do if YT wants to send you garbage to watch or starts sending you ideological content or start skewing content to whatever advances their POV?
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    That’s a different line of argument but I suppose it is valid. I certainly don’t feel good about huge multinational corporations originating from Silicon Valley shaping information (and as a result, culture and politics) across the entire planet.
- munk-a 5y ago
  The bill will allow the government to nominate what content will be more likely to come up in recommended content - it doesn't empower them at all to specifically ban content in any manner they can't today. As for that power - it can lead to bias but I'm pretty alright with it, it's likely going to be used to both stifle the organic spread of false information (i.e. anti-vax, flat earthers etc...) and it'll also likely be used to favor content that's supportive of the current administration (so if Harper got back into power it'd likely not include pro-climate change content). I think this is a pretty acceptable trade off when it comes to stumble-upon content - but all the content not endorsed by the system wouldn't be banned or removed. The biggest downsides for me are the possible difficulty adhering to the guidelines for smaller platforms. I enjoy nebula and it's possible if unlikely that they may be forced to exit the market as a result of this bill - but bear in mind that any inherently Canadian content creators should be able to easily argue their adherence to the guidelines even if the CRTC tries to shut them down.