4 ms·

On 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

On 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 ago
What sort of "accountability" do you have in mind?
- tamimio 3y ago
  To 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 ago
    Who defines "wrong," and why can't whoever that is simply publish their own content explaining why the other content was "wrong?"
    - tamimio 3y ago
      No 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.
didibus 3y ago
The CRTC policies and regulations aim to promote access, representation and availability of media content by and for minority language communities. But it does not directly control or pre-approve the messages or creative content itself. The creators maintain editorial control of their programming.
nonethewiser 3y ago
That’s not “on the other hand.” Thats part of the free speech you claimed to support.
- tamimio 3y ago
  Free speech in the absolute form never existed. What is free to say now was not X years ago, and what is taboo to say now was openly free and accepted X years ago. This is because society and social norms change over generations. Not to mention, people support free speech when it aligns with their values, beliefs, etc., and oppose it when it goes against them. The concept is very fluid.

chatmasta 3y ago

What sort of "accountability" do you have in mind?

tamimio 3y ago
To 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 ago
  Who defines "wrong," and why can't whoever that is simply publish their own content explaining why the other content was "wrong?"
  - tamimio 3y ago
    No 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.

didibus 3y ago

The CRTC policies and regulations aim to promote access, representation and availability of media content by and for minority language communities. But it does not directly control or pre-approve the messages or creative content itself. The creators maintain editorial control of their programming.

nonethewiser 3y ago

That’s not “on the other hand.” Thats part of the free speech you claimed to support.

tamimio 3y ago
Free speech in the absolute form never existed. What is free to say now was not X years ago, and what is taboo to say now was openly free and accepted X years ago. This is because society and social norms change over generations. Not to mention, people support free speech when it aligns with their values, beliefs, etc., and oppose it when it goes against them. The concept is very fluid.