4 ms·

The legislation sounds probably terrible and awkward, but the chosen headline is maybe a bit inflammatory: "The CRTC requires all online services with more than

The 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 ago
And im not sure how a requirement to register translates into censorship.
- johnp271 3y ago
  The 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 ago
    From 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 ago
        In 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.
        3y ago
wink 3y ago
Yeah that went from "WTF" to "yeah, well" pretty soon. I've heard about these regulations with local content quotes (doesn't France also have these?) and I can imagine no scenario where this $10M figure would hit anyone who should not have been regulated before if their only differentiator was if they did video on youtube or audio (somewhere) only. (I don't know enough about the Canadian regulations, so this is a not comment on those, only on "why the exception for podcasts, probably oversight").
AlexandrB 3y ago
Yes. I think the most accurate way to look at this is as a trade barrier to protect a local industry. By mandating a certain percentage of Canadian content, the CRTC effectively subsidizes Canadian media.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  It's that and more as I said elsewhere. I think there are legitimate minority cultural interests, and the need to preserve some nominal Canadian identities that are actually real concerns. The problem in Canada is that there are ... cabals ... of interests that have spent the last 200 years using the somewhat-artifically (but in large part necessary) erected walls between us and the United States for their own very self-serving interests that actually harm their fellow Canadians. Telecoms pricing being the obvious example. In any case, it infects both major political parties, goes across the whole spectrum, and is a feature of the Canadian state since at least before the American Revolution.
jlos 3y ago
Appreciate the even handed summary here > 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. I'd argue monopolistic control is the goal. The latest CRTC regulations seems a fairly straight-forward cash grab to prop up legacy media companies that would otherwise fail for their lack of competitiveness. Further, the process of putting out these regulations has been appallingly undemocratic. Bill C-11, like its predecessor Bill C-10, were not allowed to be debated in the house (only the 3rd time such a motion has been used in Canada)[0]. And lets be real, its not the average Canadian that benefits here. Its the owners and shareholders of the companies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Streaming_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Streaming_Act#History
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Right, I mean, we have multiple problems, but I suspect in large part there's a Venn diagram of self-interested monopolistic stakeholders (because the monopoly-capitalism streak runs deep in the Canadian state) and "baby boomer" decision makers who still don't understand the Internet but have some notion of protecting "Canadian culture(s)" "its not the average Canadian that benefits here" is maybe the point though -- these things became policy because, in the past, the average Canadian's interests were maybe taking precedence over those of (fairly large) minority interests in such a way that they were causing civil problems in Canada. By which I mean, if we don't take care of making sure that e.g. French & Indigenous culture has strong representation, we actually risk problems with the political cohesion of the country. As we know, averages hide important details. In statistics, but also in cultural issues. Many of the things we're talking about here look entirely different if you're looking out at them from e.g. Quebec or the North.

cpncrunch 3y ago

And im not sure how a requirement to register translates into censorship.

johnp271 3y ago
The 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 ago
  From 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 ago
      In 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.
      - 3y ago

wink 3y ago

Yeah that went from "WTF" to "yeah, well" pretty soon. I've heard about these regulations with local content quotes (doesn't France also have these?) and I can imagine no scenario where this $10M figure would hit anyone who should not have been regulated before if their only differentiator was if they did video on youtube or audio (somewhere) only. (I don't know enough about the Canadian regulations, so this is a not comment on those, only on "why the exception for podcasts, probably oversight").

AlexandrB 3y ago

Yes. I think the most accurate way to look at this is as a trade barrier to protect a local industry. By mandating a certain percentage of Canadian content, the CRTC effectively subsidizes Canadian media.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
It's that and more as I said elsewhere. I think there are legitimate minority cultural interests, and the need to preserve some nominal Canadian identities that are actually real concerns. The problem in Canada is that there are ... cabals ... of interests that have spent the last 200 years using the somewhat-artifically (but in large part necessary) erected walls between us and the United States for their own very self-serving interests that actually harm their fellow Canadians. Telecoms pricing being the obvious example. In any case, it infects both major political parties, goes across the whole spectrum, and is a feature of the Canadian state since at least before the American Revolution.

jlos 3y ago

Appreciate the even handed summary here > 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. I'd argue monopolistic control is the goal. The latest CRTC regulations seems a fairly straight-forward cash grab to prop up legacy media companies that would otherwise fail for their lack of competitiveness. Further, the process of putting out these regulations has been appallingly undemocratic. Bill C-11, like its predecessor Bill C-10, were not allowed to be debated in the house (only the 3rd time such a motion has been used in Canada)[0]. And lets be real, its not the average Canadian that benefits here. Its the owners and shareholders of the companies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Streaming_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Streaming_Act#History

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Right, I mean, we have multiple problems, but I suspect in large part there's a Venn diagram of self-interested monopolistic stakeholders (because the monopoly-capitalism streak runs deep in the Canadian state) and "baby boomer" decision makers who still don't understand the Internet but have some notion of protecting "Canadian culture(s)" "its not the average Canadian that benefits here" is maybe the point though -- these things became policy because, in the past, the average Canadian's interests were maybe taking precedence over those of (fairly large) minority interests in such a way that they were causing civil problems in Canada. By which I mean, if we don't take care of making sure that e.g. French & Indigenous culture has strong representation, we actually risk problems with the political cohesion of the country. As we know, averages hide important details. In statistics, but also in cultural issues. Many of the things we're talking about here look entirely different if you're looking out at them from e.g. Quebec or the North.