8 ms·
Canada to regulate podcasts
- Jemm 3y agoCRTC, like most Canadian regulators, do not have the resources to enforce their rules. This will be yet another useless unenforceable burden.
- hersko 3y agoI'm sure they will find the resources to censor that which bothers them (which is the point of the bill). Imagine the Jordan Peterson podcast being blocked in Canada. Wild.
- xdennis 3y agoIf they don't have the resources that just means they'll enforce the law unevenly, to persecute.
- voisin 3y agoOh my favourite thing about Canadian regulation: 1. Create a new regulation because of the 1% troublemakers 2. Realize there are enforcement costs 3. Force 100% of regulated entities to start paying a user fee in order to offset the enforcement costs. Madness.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoThe legislation sounds probably terrible and awkward, but the chosen headline is maybe a bit inflammatory: "The CRTC requires all online services with more than CAD $10mn (USD $7.3mn) in revenue that operate in Canada and that offer podcasts, to register with the government before Nov 28." We're not exactly talking about little mom&pop hobby podcasts. If you're bringing in $10M in revenue, you're a major media operation -- podcast being in that case really a kind of marketing label for what's basically a "radio station." So given how things work in this country it was only a matter of time before the approach that the regulator here takes to major media operation around content would apply. These laws probably confuse and enrage many Americans -- as they do for many Canadians -- but they've been a thing for decades; in large part they reflect two unique aspects of Canada: 1) its cultural and economic position in regards to being a separate country (believe it or not) adjacent to the US while being on the whole linguistically, economically culturally similar enough that there's a constant struggle to not be completely subsumed 2) The unique position of the French language, French Canadian, and Quebecois culture in confederation. (And, increasingly, indigenous culture) Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process. But the argument (not my argument) is basically that in a "free" and "open competition", the US would basically bury/eliminate Canada. Finally, Canada is officially "multicultural" rather than "melting pot" by stated ideology; which means that state institutions / regulatory agencies actually have concrete roles in protecting cultural diversity. Again, controversial, but likely a foreign approach to Americans and most Europeans (not all) whose societies operate with the assumption of single unified ethno-linguistic nation state. (This is explicit policy choice made by governments in the 70s/80s in an effort to stop the Canadian state from disintegrating under centrifugal separatist forces.)
- cpncrunch 3y agoAnd im not sure how a requirement to register translates into censorship.
- johnp271 3y agoThe CRTC News Release explicitly states: "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." I would ask, who decides what is 'meaningful'? This sounds like an open door to censorship to me. Was not the requirement to make 'meaningful' contributions to society the excuse used by the Soviets and Red Chinese to stifle publications.
- didibus 3y agoFrom what I know, it's just that you need a specified amount of air time from Canadian, French and indigenous presenters. What they choose to do with it is up to them. It's more of a pass the mic around so every group gets some airtime law, and not so much a you cannot talk about this or that. The idea is that it acts a bit like human rights, at balancing majority rules. Where financial incentives would prefer to always tailor to the majority since it makes more money, this enforces that minorities get some proportional airtime on big media channels.
- mrpotato 3y ago> it's just that you need a specified amount of air time from French Canadian and indigenous presenters. It's only specific to Canadian and Indigenous content. The content does not have to be French.
- voisin 3y agoIn a streaming on demand, user driven world, how do you define “air time”? I can’t see how you could force consumers to consume a certain amount of CanCon, and simply ensuring CanCon %| of content available doesn’t make sense either since a small amount of content could be consumed up to 100% of total platform consumption, and a large amount of content could be consumed as little as 0% of the total platform consumption.
- victorbstan 3y agoBecause the “free for all” market that gave rise to Alex Jones and FOX news, etc. really improved American society…
- spiderfarmer 3y agoFor an outsider it's baffling to see 50% of the US slowly getting brainwashed to the point where they reject all facts out of spite, and think it is important to be contrarian on literally every social issue.
- okeuro49 3y agoAlso from an outsider, you're talking about the Democrats -- right?
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoWhatever you think about CNN or MSNBC, FoxNews is pretty over the top, it’s basically a tabloid at this point with many tabloid stories. I disagree with the premise however: it’s not that American media has so much influence on American consumers, rather American media is producing the product that their consumers want. The influence is basically reversed.
- pixxel 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37764870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37764870
- mock-possum 3y agoAs an insider I genuinely cannot tell whether this is a sarcastic comment But from where I’m standing, only one party is committed to cutting off its nose to spite its face… and it’s not the Dems.
- spiderfarmer 3y ago
- noughtme 3y agoMaybe I misunderstand, but this is a requirement for platforms to register (Apple, Google, Spotify, Twitter, etc). The fear is of indirect censorship. As was the case with law enforcement/intelligence informally requesting take downs in the US, Canada will be making this process formal.
- roughsquare 3y agoMy fear isn't indirect censorship, it is that companies will rather pull out of the Canadian market than pay to have content developed, acquired or managed to meet the CanCon rules. Canada's current spat with Google over news is a recent example.
- noughtme 3y agoTotally okay with that. I would rather follow independent Canadian media that doesn't qualify as CanCon anyways. Canadian media regulation only benefit existing large media institutions. > Canada's current spat with Google over news is a recent example. That was particularly hilarious.
- LegitShady 3y agoThe problem is that if a Canadian wishes to make a podcast the biggest platforms may be closed to them because of onerous regulation they've opted out of. That's bad.
- cvwright 3y agoWe should expect more licensing of tech companies in the future. Both in terms of the kinds of services that will require licenses to operate, and in the number of jurisdictions that require them. If you want to run a hotel or a burger joint or a general contractor, you need a license. It will be difficult to push back against the idea that tech companies should be treated the same. Not saying that this will be a good thing. Just that it will happen.
- NBJack 3y agoSuddenly, Google's deprecation of their podcast software makes a little more sense. Not much, but a little. That said, online streaming services are an odd one to target. I would expect the bigger fish to be website hosts, stores, etc. Or is that already regulated similarly?
- kmeisthax 3y agoThe key thing to remember is that, pre-multimedia/pre-Internet, Canada had effective government control over broadcast media. Actually, every country did, because broadcast frequencies being finite was an effective counterargument against the 1st Amendment. Canada in particular used their de-facto censorship power to enforce "Canadian Content" regulations - as in, your radio station must push a certain percentage of music or talk shows deemed sufficiently "Canadian" enough by Canada's radio regulator. The Internet functionally destroyed this regime by walking away from publicly regulated spectrum. Canada wants those powers back, so they passed a bill which lets them apply Canadian Content regulations to streaming services that Canadians use. The podcast registration requirement is an extension of this: if they plan to require that people listen to[0] a certain percentage of Canadian Content[1] podcasts, then they need the services that push them to users to register so they know who to enforce the rules on. Website hosts and stores would be regulated under other rules that are very similar to the ones in other Anglosphere countries, i.e. without this weird censorship regime. It's only "streaming services" - i.e. "websites that look like something that would have been regulated under CRTC CanCon rules if they didn't have the Internet" - that are getting regulated here. [0] The Internet is ostensibly a "pull" medium, but in practice, everyone has recommendation algorithms which look like a more elaborate version of a broadcaster if you squint at them. [0] Which, BTW, is not content made by Canadians. If you're a Canadian creative you have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to be officially recognized as "Canadian Content".
- thrxio 3y ago[flagged]
- okokwhatever 3y ago[flagged]
- betaby 3y agoAbout 70% of jobs in USA/Canada are regulated. I think we are well past the useful regulations.
- dewey 3y agoAnd how would you suggest regulation to keep up with technology if we just stop regulating after a certain threshold?
- xdennis 3y agoBut that's not the main issue. The problem is regulating content.
- jasonlotito 3y agoRules like this have existed in Canada for 40+ years, and regulating content is quite popular up in Canada. See Quebec and it's French-first laws. You might see it as a problem, but the majority of Canadians are fine with it.
- _fat_santa 3y agoThere's a huge difference between "traditional media" (TV, Radio, etc) and Podcasts. I get why they would want to regulate traditional media, there are only so many frequencies to tune your radio to and only so many channels you can watch and you have an audience by default. None of that is true with podcasts, they only reason for regulation here is control over what people can and can't say.
- tamimio 3y agoOn one hand, it is wrong to limit people’s opinions to be discussed and talked about, and I am sure there are a lot of issues when it comes to Canadian politics, economics, etc. On the other hand, since probably around 2014, we have a lot of grifters surfaced online who are only interested in monetizing their content with no integrity or accountability, across the whole political spectrum. So I don’t know how to feel about this.
- chatmasta 3y agoWhat sort of "accountability" do you have in mind?
- tamimio 3y agoTo admit what they said was wrong about X topic for a starter, but the polarization is so strong on all sides these days that such accountability will be taken as a defeat (or caved in) unfortunately.
- chatmasta 3y agoWho defines "wrong," and why can't whoever that is simply publish their own content explaining why the other content was "wrong?"
- tamimio 3y agoNo one and I agree with you, I probably mentioned it in the above comment that what’s wrong now wasn’t before and vice versa, everything should be on the table to discuss or question, however, after that discussion and regardless how it took (minutes or even in years), if the results showed that what you said was wrong, then the least is an apology for your audience.
- _fat_santa 3y ago> On the other hand, since probably around 2014, we have a lot of grifters surfaced online who are only interested in monetizing their content with no integrity or accountability, across the whole political spectrum The difference as I see it is say the "grifters" were broadcasting on a radio station or a TV spot, they would be taking up space that other broadcasts could take up. But in terms of the internet there is no such limit. Through the lens of "traditional media" you can't always tell someone "just turn it off and watch something else" because there are only a limited number of broadcasts available, but you can definitely tell that to someone that doesn't like a Youtube video or a podcast.
- dang 3y agoRecent and related: Canada to require registration of podcasters and streaming services - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37728464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37728464 - Oct 2023 (22 comments)
- noonething 3y agoWith so much lying nowadays, I'd much rather trust the Canadian government then some far-right billionaires in the U.S.
- rabbits_2002 3y agoWhat a gross abuse of power and a completely pointless endeavor.