Support for Meta, Google etc on news charges dispute

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

1. I do believe in protectionism but, it does not as far as making companies pay government for something the users do with the company product.

2. Social media is not illegal.

1. Ok.  Well that's what tariffs are... So I don't see why you think you're protectionist.

2. No, but consuming media is a business that is essential to a democracy.

Do you believe in regulation of foreign influence or ownership?

[myata]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you believe in regulation of foreign influence or ownership?

This is a novel, complex issue that is way over the head of our governments. They do not know how to have an open discussion (election reform; healthcare); how to understand complex issues; identify and implement effective solutions. Should there be some regulation of social platforms? Yes. Some mechanisms of fairness for distribution of revenues between content creator and enabler? Possibly, probably. Liberal my way or highway: won't work, and not working. Shoot yourself in the foot any cry offence.

[myata]

One of the days I think it was CBC radio morning news, there was a story about Alpaca? farm somewhere remote. Look these cute animals walking here how cute hurray sunny waves! Seriously, "journalism", junior kindergarten style? You envy Facebook and Google ad revenues with this? Don't make yourself more of a joke than you already are a good advice but who's listening?

Edited August 23, 2023 by myata

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.  Well that's what tariffs are... So I don't see why you think you're protectionist.

2. No, but consuming media is a business that is essential to a democracy.

Do you believe in regulation of foreign influence or ownership?

1. Tariffs?  Are you insinuating we should put a tariff on the internet?

2. Yes, Meta and many social media sites are also a business.

3. I believe in regulation of political influence, foreign or otherwise. Oh wait, we do have lobby regulations. As a matter of fact, Meta and other social media (including repolitics) has people trying to influence politics of others. The key is people...not the social media sites.

Do you think that Meta should identify these people to the government so they can be fined or charged or whatever? Or should the site be fined?

Edited August 23, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Tariffs?  Are you insinuating we should put a tariff on the internet?

2. Yes, Meta and many social media sites are also a business.

3. I believe in regulation of political influence, foreign or otherwise. Oh wait, we do have lobby regulations. As a matter of fact, Meta and other social media (including repolitics) has people trying to influence politics of others. The key is people...not the social media sites.

4. Do you think that Meta should identify these people to the government so they can be fined or charged or whatever? Or should the site be fined?

I want to say this first: I think you already said we won't agree, and I think that's correct.  So I'm just asking you questions to figure out how you're thinking because your posts generally make sense.  I'm not trying to take you down but if I see a contradiction I will of course ask you to clarify.

1. My point is that what the government is doing is very similar to a tariff in that a foreign company is being asked to pay to encourage onshore ie. Canadian producers.

2. Yes, that was my point.  They're a business - not illegal but also not exempt from regulations.

3. Ok - do you believe in regulation of social media and media though ? Content and ownership ?  Neither both ? I feel that you didn't answer that.

4. People posting links to media are not quite content providers anymore than I am if I upload a movie for file sharing.  I think that the legislation before us institutes tariffs or fines.  I don't know that that makes sense but I *generally* agree with the government providing infrastructure for public discourse.  If Poilievre has an idea on how to do better now would be the time for him to open his mouth.

3 hours ago, myata said:

This is a novel, complex issue that is way over the head of our governments. They do not know how to have an open discussion (election reform; healthcare); how to understand complex issues; identify and implement effective solutions. Should there be some regulation of social platforms? Yes. Some mechanisms of fairness for distribution of revenues between content creator and enabler? Possibly, probably. Liberal my way or highway: won't work, and not working. Shoot yourself in the foot any cry offence.

Well said.

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I want to say this first: I think you already said we won't agree, and I think that's correct.  So I'm just asking you questions to figure out how you're thinking because your posts generally make sense.  I'm not trying to take you down but if I see a contradiction I will of course ask you to clarify.

1. My point is that what the government is doing is very similar to a tariff in that a foreign company is being asked to pay to encourage onshore ie. Canadian producers.

2. Yes, that was my point.  They're a business - not illegal but also not exempt from regulations.

3. Ok - do you believe in regulation of social media and media though ? Content and ownership ?  Neither both ? I feel that you didn't answer that.

4. People posting links to media are not quite content providers anymore than I am if I upload a movie for file sharing.  I think that the legislation before us institutes tariffs or fines.  I don't know that that makes sense but I *generally* agree with the government providing infrastructure for public discourse.  If Poilievre has an idea on how to do better now would be the time for him to open his mouth.

Well said.

1. It is not a tariff as internet usage is not trade.

2. The internet is not regulated and those that use it are not regulated yet, the government has chosen certain social media companies culpable for what users do. If you wish, our government can become like China and just cancelled cut off and bar anyone they don't like if they speak against them. How about that?

3. No, I do not believe in regulating internet, social media, nor media nor content nor ownership.

Fact is, the government says people posting links are content providers and social media is responsible As a result, social media should pay for users posting that content. 

Maybe every poster that posts a link or clip or cut and paste should be fined for breaching a copyright law?

I am not sure what your idea of "public discourse" is in this context. I think the ones whining and crying is the Canadian news media and, regardless of what, on this forum, think of them, the government decided (or was led to believe) social media is the reason they are dying.

That is BS. The Canadian news media committed suicide, became monopolistic and people were tired of their partisanship and stopped reading the papers and watching the mainstream news. The news used to be pure who what when where and why and now,most pages are just op ed opinion pieces. Little news and lots of opinions.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. It is not a tariff as internet usage is not trade.

2. The internet is not regulated and those that use it are not regulated yet,

3. the government has chosen certain social media companies culpable for what users do. If you wish, our government can become like China and just cancelled cut off and bar anyone they don't like if they speak against them. How about that?

4. No, I do not believe in regulating internet, social media, nor media nor content nor ownership.

5. Fact is, the government says people posting links are content providers and social media is responsible As a result, social media should pay for users posting that content.  Maybe every poster that posts a link or clip or cut and paste should be fined for breaching a copyright law?

6. I am not sure what your idea of "public discourse" is in this context. I think the ones whining and crying is the Canadian news media and, regardless of what, on this forum, think of them, the government decided (or was led to believe) social media is the reason they are dying.

7. That is BS. The Canadian news media committed suicide, became monopolistic and people were tired of their partisanship and stopped reading the papers and watching the mainstream news. The news used to be pure who what when where and why and now,most pages are just op ed opinion pieces. Little news and lots of opinions.

1. Sure it is - it's services.  Trade can be goods or services right ?
2. Generally true yes.
3. Well that's not the goal of this, it's $.  They have chosen companies presumably because they're the big fish.
4. Ok - so let me ask this then... no regulation of ownership is pure libertarianism and that contradicts nationalism at certain points.  For example, if China wanted to purchase Canadian newspapers and the CBC would you be ok with that ?
5. Sort of.. Except the sites make it easy to post links and bring people to the sites where advertising appears and is paid for.
6. Our democracy, being based on the American model, depends on one industry more than any other which is the 'press' Their job is to facilitate the discourse that is the lifeblood of public life.  Their founding documents describe "Freedom of the Press" and so on because the nation depends on this industry to inform people.  As I have already pointed out Rupert Murdoch HIMSELF had to become American to own FOX News in the US.  Now we're talking about ostensibly the most freedom-loving network in the most-freedom-loving-country TM in the world right ?  And yet there are these restrictions exactly because the press is not the same as the screen door industry.  It is special.
7. Not really.  Social media killed news no matter where and what the content.   News ratings are declining and that's just a trend.  That doesn't excuse CBC/CTV et al for being mediocre...

[ExFlyer]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Sure it is - it's services.  Trade can be goods or services right ?
2. Generally true yes.
3. Well that's not the goal of this, it's $.  They have chosen companies presumably because they're the big fish.
4. Ok - so let me ask this then... no regulation of ownership is pure libertarianism and that contradicts nationalism at certain points.  For example, if China wanted to purchase Canadian newspapers and the CBC would you be ok with that ?
5. Sort of.. Except the sites make it easy to post links and bring people to the sites where advertising appears and is paid for.
6. Our democracy, being based on the American model, depends on one industry more than any other which is the 'press' Their job is to facilitate the discourse that is the lifeblood of public life.  Their founding documents describe "Freedom of the Press" and so on because the nation depends on this industry to inform people.  As I have already pointed out Rupert Murdoch HIMSELF had to become American to own FOX News in the US.  Now we're talking about ostensibly the most freedom-loving network in the most-freedom-loving-country TM in the world right ?  And yet there are these restrictions exactly because the press is not the same as the screen door industry.  It is special.
7. Not really.  Social media killed news no matter where and what the content.   News ratings are declining and that's just a trend.  That doesn't excuse CBC/CTV et al for being mediocre...

1. Bottom line is that it is internet. Are you implying that internet, something over the ether should be controlled by our government? That a company that uses the ether has to comply with rules made specifically against them? As I said, Canada can just ban them like China does.

2.

3. Well, why just social media?

4. I am not for over regulations. I am not pro nationalism just for demonstration of strength. If China wanted to buy our newspapers, what would we do about it?? I will tell you, nothing, we would do nothing. We let whomever buy whatever whenever in Canada.

5. The sites are open forums. the have few rules and it is up to the user (not government) to abide by them, just like repoltics.

6. No, our democracy is based on the British system. If comparing to the americans, do you think in any way that Americans would take it if the government  fines internet sites for copying news clips?? I think

not LOL

7. Yes, news papers and stations killed themselves, not Facebook.;

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Bottom line is that it is internet. Are you implying that internet, something over the ether should be controlled by our government? That a company that uses the ether has to comply with rules made specifically against them? As I said, Canada can just ban them like China does.

3. Well, why just social media?

4. I am not for over regulations. I am not pro nationalism just for demonstration of strength. If China wanted to buy our newspapers, what would we do about it?? I will tell you, nothing, we would do nothing. We let whomever buy whatever whenever in Canada.

5. The sites are open forums. the have few rules and it is up to the user (not government) to abide by them, just like repoltics.

6. No, our democracy is based on the British system. If comparing to the americans, do you think in any way that Americans would take it if the government  fines internet sites for copying news clips?? I think

not LOL

7. Yes, news papers and stations killed themselves, not Facebook.;

 

 

1. Ok.  You ask good questions. 

So you are asking "should be" but let's break down how/why things are as they are: If you are going to have countries then you have laws and policies passed by the governments of those countries to protect national interests.  Laws restrict freedom... for companies, corporations and individuals that operate in Canada and even abroad since you can extradite people from other countries.  These are the basic elements of governance. 

As for the internet, it is already controlled by the government, as are radio, telephone, and communications in general.  The agency is known as the CRTC.  The Slippery Slope argument says that the fact that they can tax, regulate content and shut people down is tantamount to banning or autocracy it's like that today: the government has in many instances the power to ban and restrict any communication for various reasons.

3. Not just social media - there is already a CRTC and government monitoring of media since at least the Massey Commission 1949.

4. What would we do about stopping China from buying our newspapers ?  We would disallow it.  We already disallowed them from owning lithium mines last year ( https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-orders-three-chinese-firms-to-exit-lithium-mining-1.6137466 ) No, we don't allow the US to own controlling interest in media either even though they do own a majority stake in our major national newspaper chain they are ostensibly non-voting shares.

5. Yes, but the site gains monetarily so they are dinged for hosting the link.

6. Sure but aspects are based on the American system and my point is not the origins of our system as much as pointing out that AMERICA doesn't allow people to own its media.  Don't you think that's odd ?   Why do you think America thinks that's a bad idea.

7. People didn't just drop them though, there was a new alternative.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.  You ask good questions. 

So you are asking "should be" but let's break down how/why things are as they are: If you are going to have countries then you have laws and policies passed by the governments of those countries to protect national interests.  Laws restrict freedom... for companies, corporations and individuals that operate in Canada and even abroad since you can extradite people from other countries.  These are the basic elements of governance. 

As for the internet, it is already controlled by the government, as are radio, telephone, and communications in general.  The agency is known as the CRTC.  The Slippery Slope argument says that the fact that they can tax, regulate content and shut people down is tantamount to banning or autocracy it's like that today: the government has in many instances the power to ban and restrict any communication for various reasons.

3. Not just social media - there is already a CRTC and government monitoring of media since at least the Massey Commission 1949.

4. What would we do about stopping China from buying our newspapers ?  We would disallow it.  We already disallowed them from owning lithium mines last year ( https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-orders-three-chinese-firms-to-exit-lithium-mining-1.6137466 ) No, we don't allow the US to own controlling interest in media either even though they do own a majority stake in our major national newspaper chain they are ostensibly non-voting shares.

5. Yes, but the site gains monetarily so they are dinged for hosting the link.

6. Sure but aspects are based on the American system and my point is not the origins of our system as much as pointing out that AMERICA doesn't allow people to own its media.  Don't you think that's odd ?   Why do you think America thinks that's a bad idea.

7. People didn't just drop them though, there was a new alternative.

Michael, we can go on forever.

You know my stance and I think you may be trying to convince yourself of yours.

I think I will leave this now.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Michael, we can go on forever.

You know my stance and I think you may be trying to convince yourself of yours.

I think I will leave this now.

Yeah we can go on forever, but still somehow I answered a bunch of your key questions in that last post so hopefully you understand things (and not just my opinions) a little more now.  

I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone.  Your opinions are valid, but I don't share them.

Cheers...