RT @JesseBrown@twitter.com
Her mistake was to accidentally say out loud the intent of this legislation. The government has a list of "news" and "not news" with legacy media in the 1st category and everyone else in the latter. The Online News Act will arm one against the other. https://twitter.com/nationalpost/status/1596368420705955840
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/JesseBrown/status/1596882487925702658
The Liberals nationalizing the Internet the way they are is so fundamentally morally wrong that the fact it's all breezing through without any problems is like everyone's worst nightmares made manifest.
Handing heavy advantages to large legacy corporate media interests is *bad* but it's not "nationalizing" anything. It's very clearly corporatism, not socialism.
Handing control of censoring the Internet to the CRTC is effectively nationalizing the Internet, bringing it under direct control of the federal government.
I'm not sure if I'll be continued to be "allowed" to run any of my websites under this new nationalized Internet.
I'm not sure if I'll be continued to be "allowed" to run any of my websites under this new nationalized Internet.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
My understanding is as bad as this legislation is, that's not what it actually does. It gives the CRTC free hand to determine which private entities get preferential algorithmic treatment and get to seek rents from links, which again would be corporatism.
There are multiple pieces of legislation. Bill C11 is an internet censorship bill that is different than Bill C13 the "paying for links" bill.
Okay yes, I've conflated two different things here. That's my mistake. Even looking strictly at C11 though, in terms of "regulation" of user generated content it's limited to regulating who gets so-called "indirect profits" and algorithmic preference. Tipping the scales on which content is likely to be promoted to be in front of whose eyeballs is very much something that the CRTC should not be involved in, but that's still not "censorship" in any traditional sense of the word that I recognize. Having a right to free speech and a right to amplification are two very different things.
This is the Trudeau government. They don't respect human rights, and they will incorrectly use any law that comes even close to silence any dissent.
Besides, I'm not using facebook or twitter. I'm using my own website, hosted on my own hardware. Why should the CRTC get any say in what I have on my own website or the order I display it in? How is that not interfering with my right to speak, or my right to listen to my users?
Besides, I'm not using facebook or twitter. I'm using my own website, hosted on my own hardware. Why should the CRTC get any say in what I have on my own website or the order I display it in? How is that not interfering with my right to speak, or my right to listen to my users?
They absolutely shouldn't. That doesn't magically make it a free speech issue though. It's an issue of commerce. None of C11 applies to any platform that doesn't attempt to generate revenues, as far as I'm aware.
A government that doesn't respect the rule of law will find ways to make their will work.
Oh look, an ad for my book. Well, guess the CRTC can send thugs in to kick my servers off the wall.
Oh look, an ad for my book. Well, guess the CRTC can send thugs in to kick my servers off the wall.
Kind of adorably naive that you think *any* government respects the so-called "rule of law", ngl.