4 ms·
I don't see how we can call this nationalistic politics. I'm sure if a (hypothetical) Canadian big-tech impacted news organizations similarly, they would also h
by devsda 3y ago
I don't see how we can call this nationalistic politics. I'm sure if a (hypothetical) Canadian big-tech impacted news organizations similarly, they would also have been a target of this law.
Many of the biggest tech have origins in US and any country trying to make a law regulating businesses and technology within its borders is bound to impact American companies one way or the other. We can take the easy route and call it just nationalism or we can try to understand the intention/reasons behind the law. We may not agree with their laws but it is their right.
- cornholio 3y agoNobody denies its their right, but that doesn't mean it's not a very stupid action, motivated by dumb nationalism. You can't handwave circumstances away, as if the legislators don't know it is a cashgrab against foreign corporations and genuinely believe Google and Facebook are Canadian companies.
- gremlinunderway 3y ago[flagged]
- jurassic 3y agoI don't think it adds anything to the discussion to personify and sexualize these companies.
- tomComb 3y agoIt’s not dumb nationalism, it’s typical lobbying, sold as nationalism.
- largepeepee 3y agoWhat's new? We have been using that same excuse to block out Japanese and Chinese goods in various eras. Just feels weird the Canadians are copying our playbook
- jrockway 3y agoThey're using this playbook because it worked. Look at China, they were once a big threat to American Exceptionalism or whatever and now... <checks notes>... oh. Nevermind.
- dleslie 3y ago> I'm sure if a (hypothetical) Canadian big-tech impacted news organizations similarly, they would also have been a target of this law. Very unlikely, IMHO. The CRTC isn't in the habit of making decisions that harm large Canadian companies.
- themitigating 3y agoI appreciate most of your argument and I also agree that we can't just use nationalism to dismiss laws like this BUT "We may not agree with their laws but it is their right" This statement can be used to justify any law. We are also not debating whether it's their right but if it's a good law.
- devsda 3y agoI'm not justifying any law here. Saying a law is bad because it is passed in nationalistic fervor is a weak argument. It is a government's right and responsibility to make laws of their land and whether a law is passed because the current government is nationalist or not is speculative and irrelevant. A good law can be passed with ill intentions and a bad law can be passed with good intentions. We should judge a law based on its merits and consequences but not based on who or why it was introduced. In this case, we can discuss on outcomes of this law and how it is bad for the internet but speculating on the intentions is just a lazy argument. Lately, the go to terms against any law impacting big tech have been 'nationalism', 'authoritarianism' and 'crash-grab' etc. Many times the laws on anti-trust or data-residency laws enacted by other countries have been termed as 'threat to democracy', authoritarian and as impacting basic structure of the internet etc. Any country trying to regulate, promote its own tech or maintain sovereignty over its citizen's data is strong armed into abandoning them by utilizing various trade organizations, lobbying and diplomatic pressure. At the same time, there is lot of official and unofficial complaining and investigation about TikTok storing data of 'American citizens' in China. To me this looks entirely hypocritical and any discussion that accuses 'nationalism' comes off as a bad faith argument.