6 ms·

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.
      - didibus 3y ago
        I'm not sure if they're going after a single podcast show, or after podcast apps. If the latter, it's probably just making available Canadian made podcasts to some amount of Canadian made podcast and promoting them in recommendations and listings. If the former, it's a bit more strange, maybe inviting guests that are Canadians on the show, for some amount of episodes?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- roughsquare 3y ago
  They are referring to the CanCon rules https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm The rules have been around for 40+ years in one form or another.
  - cpncrunch 3y ago
    A lot of the links on that page don't work, but I infer that it only applies to radio and TV, and it's not going to apply to podcasts just yet (perhaps in the future). Still, not much concrete info.
    - jdsully 3y ago
      It will indeed apply to online services and affect their recommendation algorithms.
      - cpncrunch 3y ago
        Do you have a reference for that?
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  Yes, I saw that, and there is no mention of any censorship, or even any plan to regulate content, other than the sentence you mention which seems to be in the future. So there might perhaps be some "censorship" or regulation in the future, but not now.
SiempreViernes 3y ago
Well you see, if you register the government will know you, and your little operation, exists, and then they might target you. But if you didn't register, your "audience large enough that you can pull in 10 MCAN in ad deals" operation might fly under the radar!
- c-hendricks 3y ago
  One of the things you have to provide is the location at which you're incorporated. If you're already incorporated, you've already told the government about yourself.
seanw444 3y ago
Did you think about that sentence before you wrote it?
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  Yes. Did you think about yours? Perhaps you could expand on your thoughts, and we can discuss who thought more before posting. See also my other comment in this thread.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    Okay, perhaps you're going to go the literal route with this. No, this is not instantaneous censorship. I'll say it this way: they are creating the tools with which they will inevitably enforce censorship on those with enough reach that they dislike.
    - cpncrunch 3y ago
      The original comment in the article I was responding to is "one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes", which is clearly untrue.

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.
    - didibus 3y ago
      I'm not sure if they're going after a single podcast show, or after podcast apps. If the latter, it's probably just making available Canadian made podcasts to some amount of Canadian made podcast and promoting them in recommendations and listings. If the former, it's a bit more strange, maybe inviting guests that are Canadians on the show, for some amount of episodes?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
roughsquare 3y ago
They are referring to the CanCon rules https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm The rules have been around for 40+ years in one form or another.
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  A lot of the links on that page don't work, but I infer that it only applies to radio and TV, and it's not going to apply to podcasts just yet (perhaps in the future). Still, not much concrete info.
  - jdsully 3y ago
    It will indeed apply to online services and affect their recommendation algorithms.
    - cpncrunch 3y ago
      Do you have a reference for that?
cpncrunch 3y ago
Yes, I saw that, and there is no mention of any censorship, or even any plan to regulate content, other than the sentence you mention which seems to be in the future. So there might perhaps be some "censorship" or regulation in the future, but not now.

SiempreViernes 3y ago

Well you see, if you register the government will know you, and your little operation, exists, and then they might target you. But if you didn't register, your "audience large enough that you can pull in 10 MCAN in ad deals" operation might fly under the radar!

c-hendricks 3y ago
One of the things you have to provide is the location at which you're incorporated. If you're already incorporated, you've already told the government about yourself.

seanw444 3y ago

Did you think about that sentence before you wrote it?

cpncrunch 3y ago
Yes. Did you think about yours? Perhaps you could expand on your thoughts, and we can discuss who thought more before posting. See also my other comment in this thread.
- seanw444 3y ago
  Okay, perhaps you're going to go the literal route with this. No, this is not instantaneous censorship. I'll say it this way: they are creating the tools with which they will inevitably enforce censorship on those with enough reach that they dislike.
  - cpncrunch 3y ago
    The original comment in the article I was responding to is "one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes", which is clearly untrue.