Liberals to Create New Regulations for Social Media Platforms

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Where do rights come from ?  They are granted by governments. 

No. They are definitely not. The only thing goverment can do is take rights away.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see any path to victory in Canada, the vast majority of Canadians do not support free speech and rather recoil from it as being something only for Americans.

 

True....those rebel American bastards take their 1st Amendment rights way too seriously for Canada.

But the problem remains that most of the social media traffic for Canadians occurs on American platforms, something that the "hate speech" Nazis have little control over.   Canada's state owned broadcaster (CBC) actually embeds links to these American social media platforms.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Shady said:

I agree.  Most have been brainwashed into thinking that any speech that offends them is hate speech.

Many on the left in America feel the same, but this is why the first amendment comes first, the founders knew that speech would have to be protected from the rule of a mob.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

True....those rebel American bastards take their 1st Amendment rights way too seriously for Canada.

 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

For that matter - where was the 'good speech' that was supposed to drown out the lies that the Toronto Sun published ? 

For those unaware, Hardner has been absolutely obsessed all year with a Sun columnist falsely writing about goats being slaughtered in a hotel housing refugees. He thinks about it every day, and his eyes bulge and he starts grinding his teeth and pulling at what's left of his hair. He can't forget it. He cries himself to sleep every night over it. And he is baffled the entire country doesn't share his horror over that incident. He thinks the Toronto Sun, and the entire Sun chain should be closed down because of it, their buildings torn down and the ground sown with salt while all their employees are cast out from society.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Shady said:

1.The problem is that you’re basically advocating for a ministry of truth to let everyone know what is false and what isn’t.  

2.False stories have been published in the press, etc since the invention of the printing press.  

3.That’s why there are libel laws etc.  But we’re not talking about major media like the Toronto Sun, were talking about individual private citizens on a private media platform.

1. Believe me I am not happy with it, and I think it's a problem.  I would at least hope that an all-party committee could agree on what to do with this.

2. To say we're in the same era as the printing press is another way to misunderstand and ultimately deprecate the degree of the problem.  These memes are reaching people who are unhinged through social media algorithms.  The Pittsburgh, and Quebec City and New Zealand shooters were suckered by these messages.

3. Presumably the law would cover both.

[Argus]

This sort of thing comes from the inability of the Left in Canada to invent anything new AT ALL. Every single idea and policy the Left comes up with is taken from Leftists elsewhere. The wonder of it is, though, that they often take these ideas despite them failing elsewhere, blithely ignorant of their utter failure. Then again, failure or success doesn't seem to matter much to the Left as long as they can virtue signal and posture.

The laws the Left are talking about have been in place in Europe for DECADES. Anyone care to comment on the wonderful job they've done over there? In the UK the police arrest thousands of people every year for fairly innocuous comments online which insult this or that group. Has it made the UK more welcoming and inclusive? Uh, no. Every European country has thriving, powerful far right and populist groups now despite these stupid laws. Or maybe, in part, because of them.

When people are able to spout, they tend to be content with that. When you tell people that not only do you hate what they say (and them) but you won't allow them to say it anywhere, they, unsurprisingly, get angry. They meet up with like-minded people and start groups of angry people. They talk about their anger in bars and coffee shops and gyms and basements and living rooms and they grow deeply suspicious of every public media source since they know they're all censored. This is where violence comes from. This is where populism and conspiracy thrives. This is where hatred arises.

Donald Trump didn't arise because of online trolls but because of FOX news and a deeply corrupt American political system which has allowed masses of moronic idiots to flood into public office backed by money coming from often invisible backers. They're backed by cynical groups and people who don't care how crazy they are on hot button issues so long as they vote to change tax policy or government regulation in ways which enrich them. And the more they do this the wealthier such interest groups get and the poorer average people become. And then those people look to the shouting, fist waving types who promise to 'End the corruption! Drain the swamp!'

Censoring online content isn't going to do anything to challenge the Donald Trumps of the world, any more than it did the Marine Le Pens

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada lost the culture war long before Donald Trump became president.    Consuming and depending so much on American content and platforms made it so many years ago.    Canada cannot ban the hegemon....or Canadian media consumption.

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada lost the culture war long before Donald Trump became president.    Consuming and depending so much on American content and platforms made it so many years ago.    Canada cannot ban the hegemon....or Canadian media consumption.

 

I'm not convinced either way on this.  I don't see the culture war being 'over' by any means, nor do I feel that Canadian influence on mainstream American culture underperforms our numerical presence either.

How will we know when the war is over ?  And who won ?  

[Dougie93]

Canada's Victorian culture embraces the American Plantation Aristocracy while fearing and loathing the radical Republicans, as it always has, right back to the 19th century.

[bush_cheney2004]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not convinced either way on this.  I don't see the culture war being 'over' by any means, nor do I feel that Canadian influence on mainstream American culture underperforms our numerical presence either.
 

 

I'm open to evidence indicating otherwise, but even this thread invokes and is informed by the American experience.    Maybe less so in Quebec, but I have been informed here that the only major Canada based social media platform is PornHub (with still a majority of American content).

One of Canada's "Planet of the Apes" ministers insisted that American media platforms conform to new election registration rules...Google.ca just dismissed the requirement and refused to run political ads.   Canada has very little media leverage in the face of global platforms run by the big dogs.

 

Quote

How will we know when the war is over ?  And who won ?  

 

The war is already over for the Information Age, even if Canada were to go so far as to ban access to platforms/content.    As previously discussed, "news" has been democratized by the digital age and cannot be put back into the bottle.

Edited December 15, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Dougie93]

Canada has already been swept aside by the American Information Age revolution, all that remains in the face of it is Quebec.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1. I'm open to evidence indicating otherwise, but even this thread invokes and is informed by the American experience.   

2. Maybe less so in Quebec, but I have been informed here that the only major Canada based social media platform is PornHub...

3. (with still a majority of American content).

4. One of Canada's "Planet of the Apes" ministers insisted that American media platforms conform to new election registration rules...Google.ca just dismissed the requirement and refused to run political ads.  

5. Canada has very little media leverage in the face of global platforms run by the big dogs.

6. The war is already over for the Information Age, even if Canada were to go so far as to ban access to platforms/content.    As previously discussed, "news" has been democratized by the digital age and cannot be put back into the bottle.

1. As numerous as the times you have cited this are the times I have concurred.   

2. Ok.

3. Cite ?

4. Awesome.  The revenue stays at home then.  You're going to convince me that tariffs and non-tariff barriers work before this is done.

5. And yet, 100% legal control as evidenced by #4.

6. Sure but you brought up the culture war, and I am honestly wondering how we can demarcate it into a start/end or even battles.  I'll take your suggestions if you have any

 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Free speech is supposed to work because bad speech is supposed to die out.

No, free speech is supposed to work because you have freedom of opinion and belief and the government shouldn't censor people's views no matter how stupid they are.  Religious nutjobs have been peddling crazy BS forever and can preach it on a street corner all day if they want.  Musicians have been singing all sorts of offensive lyrics.  It's up to the listener not a censoring nanny state to determine if it's "good" or "bad" speech.

If Facebook has dumb or false political ads maybe people should remember that a lot of Facebook ads are dumb and do their diligence and research. Maybe consumers should protest Facebook to do a better job choosing which ads go on their site.  We have laws already for libel and slander and false advertising.  Politicians sling mud with BS ads with misleading info all the time on TV and radio.

Quote

At some point, though, emergent problems present themselves and collective action is needed.  The Conservatives had also signed on to a resolution to examine online propaganda.  It's bad enough that they saw the need, not just the Liberals.

Well it doesn't hurt to examine anything, but passing laws is completely different, and we need to be careful.  The vast majority of news sites on all sides of the spectrum peddle propaganda and people buy into that crap all the time, but we have freedom of the press, freedom of belief/opinion, and free speech.  Our concern should be foreign political interference.

I don't go on twitter anymore because it's a bunch of echo chambers of BS and anger, but i don't want it censored, i can protect myself, i have a brain, i'm not so smug to think others don't either.  But if a twitter user threatens another with violence, the state can step in because that speech isn't protected.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. No, free speech is supposed to work because you have freedom of opinion and belief and the government shouldn't censor people's views no matter how stupid they are.   

2. If Facebook has dumb or false political ads maybe people should remember that a lot of Facebook ads are dumb and do their diligence and research.

3. Maybe consumers should protest Facebook to do a better job choosing which ads go on their site.  We have laws already for libel and slander and false advertising.  Politicians sling mud with BS ads with misleading info all the time on TV and radio.

 

1. Why not ?  Are you one of those people who just accepts ideas without asking why they're good or bad ?

2. So disinfo propaganda is just a bad advertisement ?  Antisemitic propaganda from the Nazis is on the same level as Wendy's "Where's the beef" ad ?

3. Disinfo propaganda is a different problem entirely in intent and scope.

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No, free speech is supposed to work because you have freedom of opinion and belief and the government shouldn't censor people's views no matter how stupid they are.

The Government of Canada has the authority to censor views of Canadians where it deems those views to be in contravention of the Queen's Peace.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. Sure but you brought up the culture war, and I am honestly wondering how we can demarcate it into a start/end or even battles.  I'll take your suggestions if you have any

 

I would suggest the following two stages that helped to cement the deal, and not just for Canada:

1)  American media / cultural dominance via conventional means before the Information Age

2)  American dominance through the development of internet protocols and CERN's World Wide Web social media platforms...Information Age

Any backlash from Canada's culture police is too little...too late.   And not just for "fake news".....real news too  (e.g. Gomery hearings publication ban).

[Cannucklehead]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. As numerous as the times you have cited this are the times I have concurred.   

2. Ok.

3. Cite ?

4. Awesome.  The revenue stays at home then.  You're going to convince me that tariffs and non-tariff barriers work before this is done.

5. And yet, 100% legal control as evidenced by #4.

6. Sure but you brought up the culture war, and I am honestly wondering how we can demarcate it into a start/end or even battles.  I'll take your suggestions if you have any

 

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/15/hallmark-channel-pulls-same-sex-wedding-ads-one-million-moms

The americans are too busy fighting each other over hallmark commercials.  

Omg lesbians!  

[Argus]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/15/hallmark-channel-pulls-same-sex-wedding-ads-one-million-moms

The americans are too busy fighting each other over hallmark commercials.  

Omg lesbians!  

The Americans aren't the only ones. It seems to a substantial portion of the Left, doing something to piss of traditionalists, patriots, conservatives, etc. is by far the best use of their time. Thus you have the nonsense in Brazil of that 'movie' depicting Jesus as gay, or the painting in Mexico which is drawing furious mobs which shows national hero Zapata naked wearing a pink hat. It's all aimed at sticking it to the traditionalists and showing how little respect they, the left, have for traditions and cultural values of their countries.

Ironically, these are the same people who are almost fanatical about everyone showing utter respect if not open reverence for the cultural and religious traditions of minorities.

I read a piece today in Quillette which talked about the Conservative win in the British election and the shifting bases of support between them and Labour. it suggested the working class voter is abandoning Labour because Labour has abandoned them in favor of urban elites and immigrants. And that all they get from Labourites is denigrated and treated with contempt because of their 'traditional' views and attitudes about love of God and Queen and country. Sounds very similar to what we see in the US and Canada.

[scribblet]

If f anyone believes that the Liberal regime would be fair about how it goes about this I've got some swampland I can sell you.   We allready have limitations on speech, we don't have First Amendment rights, this is nothing but the jackboots of Liberal fascism attempting to stop any criticism they deem 'hateful'.

..    as Blacklock's Reporter said: 

We Will Regulate Facebook...   The Liberal Party in a campaign questionnaire yesterday said if re-elected it will regulate Facebook, YouTube and other social media to prohibit content deemed hurtful. Scofflaws will face significant fines. Authors of the questionnaire said regulations should also ban “false attacks” on politicians: “We will move forward with new regulations for social media platforms.

Gee, false attacks on politicians, that one should be fun as they would be pretty much first up for the firing squad.   This is an attack on free speech by fear and repression

This says a lot about it and they are not wrong and if you think they won't be moving the goalposts as they decide what we should say or not say, Will we have to pay a fine or go to jail for using the wrong pronoun, will they censor the media in the name of 'regulating the media'

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-trudeau-government-wants-to-censor-your-social-media/

Trudeau should listen to himself as back in May he said: says governments need to be wary of taking steps to regulate social media platforms that could be used by authoritarian regimes to further oppress citizens and stifle free speech.   [/b[

[Dougie93]

The Liberals are not actually bound to be fair, they have the authority of the monarch by Parliamentary Supremacy.

By those means they have a mandate to enforce public order at their discretion by their terms, Canada is not a republic, the Queen's Executive has broad powers to impose upon you.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I would suggest the following two stages that helped to cement the deal, and not just for Canada:

1)  American media / cultural dominance via conventional means before the Information Age

2)  American dominance through the development of internet protocols and CERN's World Wide Web social media platforms...Information Age

Any backlash from Canada's culture police is too little...too late.   And not just for "fake news".....real news too  (e.g. Gomery hearings publication ban).

So stage 1 is fading or done.  How much has American beer been watered down or made stronger by the Canadian influence in your mind ?  Is it even worth mentioning.

I suppose likewise for #2.  Also to point out if the government wanted to be draconian about it they could block ISPs from foreign access.  Maybe thats coming, who knows...

[scribblet]

19 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How is the Canadian government going to regulate American social media companies who break Canadian laws? 

 Trudeau and  Butts will circumvent the Canadian Criminal Code to arrive at an “independent” definition of “hate speech" which they will enforce along with defining  what they deem 'offensive'.   If we base our expectations on the Trudeau regime's history of the promotion of Islam and Sikhism while negating anything about the  Christian faith in Canada, one can pretty much guess as to how this will play out.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So stage 1 is fading or done.  How much has American beer been watered down or made stronger by the Canadian influence in your mind ?  Is it even worth mentioning.

 

Stage 1 is done for content and distribution method only because of Stage 2.   Russian rap music and hip-hop in blue jeans is still an artifact of that era.

Canadian influence has been there going back to Fay Wray in King Kong (1933), but again largely dependent on the American media machine.   There may have been a time when Montreal (not Toronto) had major print media impact on eastern North America.   The CRTC exists because of backlash against early American radio and television dominance....there is no modern equivalent information age defense.

So what we usually see is focus and energy expended to recognize successful Canadians in American media.   There are some notable exceptions like Cirque du Soleil that rise to the top based on niche excellence and international appeal.

 

Quote

I suppose likewise for #2.  Also to point out if the government wanted to be draconian about it they could block ISPs from foreign access.  Maybe thats coming, who knows...

 

Blocking ISPs is tantamount to admitting defeat, driving access underground.   You have pointed out many times that Canadians want access to American media...and I would add access to American media platforms.   It's not like America is purposely bombarding a jammed Canada with Voice of America or Radio Free Europe propaganda...Canadians freely spend their money or pirate the content willingly.    Very difficult for government to stop that.

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why not ?  Are you one of those people who just accepts ideas without asking why they're good or bad ?

2. So disinfo propaganda is just a bad advertisement ?  Antisemitic propaganda from the Nazis is on the same level as Wendy's "Where's the beef" ad ?

3. Disinfo propaganda is a different problem entirely in intent and scope.

1. No.  Are you one of those people that thinks the government should decide which ideas are good or bad instead of public opinion?  Public opinion has been the arbiter since the dawn of free speech rights, things have gone well.  When the government is the arbiter, things don't go well.  See every communist or fascist regime or absolute monarchy ever in history.  See Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, and uhhh the Hunger Games.

2. Antisemitic propaganda ads, if allowed on Facebook or Youtube etc, would probably create a massive backlash from users and Facebook would suffer financially and then ban those ads.  Antisemitic propaganda by chanters on the street would illicit boos and then be ignored.  If antisemtic propaganda is physically threatening in any way the creators should be charged for violent threats.  What exactly do you want banned online and on which websites?  What's the specific problem you want addressed?

3.  Ok.