Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Are they committing a crime with this Facebook group? What's your solution? Ban them from voting? Cancel them?

For a random person in a Facebook group, what do you think cancelling them entails?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wow, ok lots of angry typing there...

I am actually pretty festive today. I'm not the one here making angry rants about Danielle Smith, and wanting to cancel people and criticizing how they can vote in a federal thread.

Again, do you think censoring their facebook groups and 'journalists' will suddenly force them to shut up, or will they be even more emboldened? What do you do about Twitter now that Elon Musk has control of it and no longer adding fact checks? Ban it in general?

When has censorship ever worked? Morons can vote, and they most certainly can be loud, and trying to cancel their methods of communication will only justify what they are doing.

Something needs to be done? What exactly?

Just ignore them.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I am actually pretty festive today. I'm not the one here making angry rants about Danielle Smith, and wanting to cancel people and criticizing how they can vote in a federal thread.

Again, do you think censoring their facebook groups and 'journalists' will suddenly force them to shut up, or will they be even more emboldened? What do you do about Twitter now that Elon Musk has control of it and no longer adding fact checks? Ban it in general?

When has censorship ever worked? Morons can vote, and they most certainly can be loud, and trying to cancel their methods of communication will only justify what they are doing.

Something needs to be done? What exactly?

Just ignore them.

Holy #### dude you need to read my posts. For the THIRD ####ING TIME. Are you this thick IRL, or just on the internet?

I'd be all for a non partisan organization to accredit journalists, and if you aren't accredited, you don't get access to politicians and events. If you break the rules, you lose your accreditation. This would instantly nuke True North, Rebel, and Western Standard, and improve our information quality drastically.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

For a random person in a Facebook group, what do you think cancelling them entails?

I would think that having their facebook group banned due to a government mandated policy on misinformation would likely have them feel like they are getting cancelled or silenced. Why stir the pot of insanity even more than needed?

The Freemasons and Illuminati conspiracies have existed since the late 18th century. Moon landing, 9/11 and flat earth conspiracy theorists are everywhere.

Just don't pay attention to them.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Holy #### dude you need to read my posts. For the THIRD ####ING TIME. Are you this thick IRL, or just on the internet?

I'm pretty sure I stated 'journalist' in my post which covers your quote?

Considering you linked the facebook part and mentioned facebook on multiple occasions, maybe I am misunderstanding your wishes when linking it and you want to keep the freedom central facebook group intact and just go after the alt right media sources?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I'm pretty sure I stated 'journalist' in my post which covers your quote?

Considering you linked the facebook part and mentioned facebook on multiple occasions, maybe I am misunderstanding your wishes when linking it and you want to keep the freedom central facebook group intact and just go after the alt right media sources?

The Facebook stuff was an example of what people believe after taking in misinformation for so long. I know you can't fix that stuff easily, it's a quagmire. What you can do is what I described, and I'm not sure why a reasonable person would think that would be detrimental in any way, but it would prevent them from pretending they are legitimate, and deceiving people not smart enoguh to figure out truth from BS from falling for it.

I'm not really sure what is so wrong about having standards for journalism, many many other professions have them. This is low hanging fruit here.

[Firebot]

To make it clear, misinformation is extremely detrimental and damaging which I agree.

You have lawsuits to deal with that. Tucker Carlson didn't get cancelled, his company got sued by Dominion for defamation and caught lying and fabricating. He pretty much canned himself.

And Fox is getting hit with more lawsuits now. They want to keep spewing misinformation in lies? Better come out with the cheque.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2336645.html

Trump is likely going to jail.

Censoring sources of misinformation (whether it's through sketchy media or facebook groups) is not the answer, and something I would never agree to be appropriate in a free democracy. Let them do their own damage and hit them in the pocketbook. Freedom of expression does not absolve one of repercussions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

To make it clear, misinformation is extremely detrimental and damaging which I agree.

You have lawsuits to deal with that. Tucker Carlson didn't get cancelled, his company got sued by Dominion for defamation and caught lying and fabricating. He pretty much canned himself.

And Fox is getting hit with more lawsuits now. They want to keep spewing misinformation in lies? Better come out with the cheque.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2336645.html

Trump is likely going to jail.

Censoring sources of misinformation (whether it's through sketchy media or facebook groups) is not the answer, and something I would never agree to be appropriate in a free democracy. Let them do their own damage and hit them in the pocketbook. Freedom of expression does not absolve one of repercussions.

Lawsuits are slow, and people like Alex Jones are still on air. This is a really backwards way of solving the problem.. Also, people think Ezra Levant performs some sort of journalism, so your plan has already failed.


But again, I didn't say censor, I said ..sigh...again...to accredit them in a similar way as we do doctors, engineers, geologists etc with a standards body overseeing them. Do you have an issue with that? You know, my actual idea?

[Firebot]

https://www.international.gc.ca/glob....aspx?lang=eng

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...eaders-debates

A judge in the Federal Court of Canada has ruled the Leaders’ Debates Commission incorrectly denied Rebel News Network accreditation to Wednesday’s French-language and Thursday’s English-language competition between the major party leaders.

Seriously man, it was not even 2 years ago it was a hot topic and the government lost the battle. It's already done. How do you think Rebel News is able to attend these things?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://www.international.gc.ca/glob....aspx?lang=eng

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...eaders-debates

Seriously man, it was not even 2 years ago it was a hot topic and the government lost the battle. It's already done. How do you think Rebel News is able to attend these things?

Because we don't have a standards body for journalism? This is a perfect example of why we need one, because the courts are not the correct place for this, and Ezra can't get enough of them.

There is no advantage to a democratic society without journalism standards, but there is a big disadvantage, which you have admitted yourself.

Would it be so bad to have basic standards, like say, journalists can't be directly involved in a protest facing police, and then when they get injured fundraise on their "news" site for help for this poor "journalist" "injured" by people just trying to do their jobs? Journalists are never supposed to be the story. But with Ezra, it's pretty much required.

Why is it OK for engineers to need a standards body, but not journalists?

What you linked to was Global Affairs accreditation. This is one specific agency. Ezra was denied access to one specific event. I'm talking about a standards body like APEGA that has teeth. You have yet to explain why this is a bad idea, but you seem desperate to say it is unnecessary, for reason I do not understand, seeing as you consider misinformation harmful.

[Firebot]

You really are grasping at some rather desperate straws. The government tried to decline Rebel News's requests for accreditation on multiple occasions claiming journalistic standards without merit, it was brought to court and they lost the decision.

What makes you think that forcing in a law or policy or enacting some type of journalist's guild (which already exists, look up CMG) is going to change this? The constitution is still in play no matter how much you wish to circumvent it. Most likely the attempted Liberal policy would have been challenged in court had it been made policy.

And to downplay the event in question of all things, it's not one specific event, it's the leaders debate, one of the most important events in Canada. The court case was a decision against the attorney general of Canada.

As much as you would love to, you (or the Liberals) can't censor out news you don't like without hitting some type of constitutional issue, sorry.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because we don't have a standards body for journalism? This is a perfect example of why we need one, because the courts are not the correct place for this, and Ezra can't get enough of them.

There is no advantage to a democratic society without journalism standards, but there is a big disadvantage, which you have admitted yourself.

Would it be so bad to have basic standards, like say, journalists can't be directly involved in a protest facing police, and then when they get injured fundraise on their "news" site for help for this poor "journalist" "injured" by people just trying to do their jobs? Journalists are never supposed to be the story. But with Ezra, it's pretty much required.

Why is it OK for engineers to need a standards body, but not journalists?

What you linked to was Global Affairs accreditation. This is one specific agency. Ezra was denied access to one specific event. I'm talking about a standards body like APEGA that has teeth. You have yet to explain why this is a bad idea, but you seem desperate to say it is unnecessary, for reason I do not understand, seeing as you consider misinformation harmful.

The flaws that I can see in your plan are:

1. What criteria do you use to accredit a journalist?
   Who sets this standard?
   Who can remove the accreditation?
   What is required to qualify for removal of accreditation?
   Can the accreditation body be influenced by any political influence
   How do you guarantee the above point?
   
   All this said there are bad doctors,engineers etc. You will still have bad journalists

[OptimalTates]

Let’s remove “freedom of press” and then next we can do “freedom of speech”.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

People get around the whole pesky journalist thing by simply stating they are expressing their "opinion". You can set up the most ironclad set of rules and regulations and the most rigid accreditation criteria and anybody with enough followers would simply say, I was just expressing my opinion. Making it more difficult for true journalists isn't the way to fix the problem of misinformation. I don't have the answers. Education on how to discern horse #### from the truth is the long road I suppose.


edit....Maybe eliminating cash for clicks? For the most part, as with everything really, money is the root. The more followers, the more clicks, the more money. People racing to be the "first" or just start something outlandish, gets followers. Stop the incentive. Taking "influencer" off the job category wouldn't be the end of the world.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because we don't have a standards body for journalism? This is a perfect example of why we need one, because the courts are not the correct place for this, and Ezra can't get enough of them.

There is no advantage to a democratic society without journalism standards, but there is a big disadvantage, which you have admitted yourself.

Would it be so bad to have basic standards, like say, journalists can't be directly involved in a protest facing police, and then when they get injured fundraise on their "news" site for help for this poor "journalist" "injured" by people just trying to do their jobs? Journalists are never supposed to be the story. But with Ezra, it's pretty much required.

Why is it OK for engineers to need a standards body, but not journalists?

What you linked to was Global Affairs accreditation. This is one specific agency. Ezra was denied access to one specific event. I'm talking about a standards body like APEGA that has teeth. You have yet to explain why this is a bad idea, but you seem desperate to say it is unnecessary, for reason I do not understand, seeing as you consider misinformation harmful.

I don't really think it matters if they have access or not. They'll still write or produce videos showing what they want.

As long as you have social media and really an entire internet economy that relies on attracting attention - you'll have the incentives to produce these kinds of content.

A lot of the problem to be honest is people 'fighting the good fight' or whatever and replying to dispute these people. I know people think they are doing their part or going to convince some rando on the internet that these people are bad - but all that is really happening is you are elevating the attention on the post and having it further promoted on the algorithm.

If these people weren't 'triggering the libs' they'd lose a bunch of their appeal - so the libs need to stop letting themselves being triggered by it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

The flaws that I can see in your plan are:

1. What criteria do you use to accredit a journalist?
   Who sets this standard?
   Who can remove the accreditation?
   What is required to qualify for removal of accreditation?
   Can the accreditation body be influenced by any political influence
   How do you guarantee the above point?
   
   All this said there are bad doctors,engineers etc. You will still have bad journalists

[Fuzz]

LOL, really? I wasn't even going to respond to JAG because I've already explained that basically everyone one of his points is handled by a regulatory board, the type many industries have.



As to the "they'll make the stories anyway", sure but they won't have actual legitimacy lent to them by things like asking politicians ridiculously loaded questions at press conferences.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

LOL, really? I wasn't even going to respond to JAG because I've already explained that basically everyone one of his points is handled by a regulatory board, the type many industries have.



As to the "they'll make the stories anyway", sure but they won't have actual legitimacy lent to them by things like asking politicians ridiculously loaded questions at press conferences.

You can see exactly how it's going to play out though from a semi-recent example in Alberta
1) NDP bans Rebel from Alberta legislature
2) Canadian association of Journalists fights that and they are reinstated https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...569131481.html
3) Rebel does more of their usual nonsense at Charlottesville and blocks a Canadaland reporter from their own event
4) CAJ says that's bad https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...641517403.html
5) Alberta Press Gallery votes to deny Rebel credentials to Alberta legislature
6) CAJ says its up to the Alberta Press Gallery to determine who gets access https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...803541797.html
6) Postmedia pulls their reporters from Alberta Press Gallery https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-...-press-gallery

And it becomes a whole big culture war thing and they get bucket loads more attention than if you just let them ask their stupid question at a press conference.

[Fuzz]

And you avoid all that at step 1 if a regulatory board does it. Of course no one is going to respect a political party doing it. That's the whole point. You can't practice journalism without membership(access to events, call yourself a journalist etc), and to get membership you must maintain a set of standards you agree to. This isn't all that complicated.

[Firebot]

Fuzz you still don't get it.

You cannot selectively accredit who is allowed to practice freedom of expression based on arbitrary government decisions (or your own personal beliefs) when the constitution protects such freedom. That's exactly how Rebel News was able to get to cover the 2021 Leaders debate. And the CAJ for example as provided above has fought for that constitutional right to include Rebel News as well.

Engineers, doctors practicing their fields are not protected by the constitution so your example does not apply. Freedom of expression is a constitutional right.

Let me bold it out for you, as you keep refusing to acknowledge it and rambling on about accreditation and regulatory boards.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...0communication.

Provision
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

The matter has already gone to court.

PeteMoss explains it well why it won't work. And the CAJ, despite likely thinking Rebel News are clowns, still protects their rights as journalists, and likely any such board would accredit them (likely infuriating you I bet)

I hate the antivaxxers just as much as you do most likely, and find them incredibly obnoxious. I just find it more efficient of my time to laugh and walk away. Why engage when that is what they want?

Freedom of expression quite literally one of our most important provisions in the constitution, and you want to delete it because you don't like the alt right and they piss you off to unration-able levels.

You can hate them and totally disagree with them while still acknowledge they have a right to their expression, no matter how wrong it is.

This isn't a left or right debate either. Your solution is not constitutional.